FINDING · EVALUATION
FreeWave, the VoIP-based predecessor, was vulnerable to passive traffic analysis because its covert Skype streams exhibited packet-size distributions different from legitimate calls, enabling detection with high probability. DeltaShaper's video-based approach with EMD-constrained encoding addresses this specific failure mode, but at a severe throughput cost: FreeWave achieves 18.75 Kbps vs DeltaShaper's 2.56–3.12 Kbps goodput. Competing systems benchmark: CovertCast ~168 Kbps (no unobservability constraints), Castle 3.48 Kbps, SkypeLine 0.064 Kbps, Rook 0.024–0.04 Kbps.
From 2017-barradas-deltashaper — DeltaShaper: Enabling Unobservable Censorship-resistant TCP Tunneling over Videoconferencing Streams · §6.3, §2 · 2017 · Privacy Enhancing Technologies
Implications
- The throughput tax for packet-level unobservability in compressed-video steganography is roughly 6–7x versus an unobservable-indifferent baseline (FreeWave 18.75 Kbps vs DeltaShaper 2.56 Kbps) — use this as a design budget when deciding whether a cover-channel approach is worth the latency/throughput penalty for a given use case.
- Higher-throughput video steganography (CovertCast ~168 Kbps) is achievable when the cover channel is a live-streaming platform with diverse content, since traffic diversity makes per-stream fingerprinting harder; dedicated two-party video calls are a weaker cover because the censor can build tight reference distributions.
Tags
Extracted by claude-sonnet-4-6 — review before relying.