←back to thread

DEDA – Tracking Dots Extraction, Decoding and Anonymisation Toolkit

(github.com)
285 points pavel_lishin | 1 comments | 01 Apr 25 21:11 UTC | HN request time: 0.198s | source
Show context
noodlesUK ◴[01 Apr 25 22:10 UTC] No.43551856[source]▶
I'm really curious what proportion of printers can be decoded with public tools. Are there any stats on which manufacturers codes have been cracked?
replies(1): >>43551953 #
1. IvyMike ◴[01 Apr 25 22:26 UTC] No.43551953[source]▶
The github references this document: Timo Richter, Stephan Escher, Dagmar Schönfeld, and Thorsten Strufe. 2018. Forensic Analysis and Anonymisation of Printed Documents. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security (IH&MMSec '18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 127-138.

There is a copy here: https://ericbalawejder.com/assets/hexview/Forensic-Analysis-...

  Table 1 (manufacturer, #of printers analyzed, dots found): 
  Brother 1 no 
  Canon 10 yes 
  Dell 4 yes
  Epson 8 somemodels 
  Hewlett-Packard 43 somemodels 
  IBM 1 yes
  KonicaMinolta 21 somemodels
  Kyocera 4 yes 
  Lanier 1 yes 
  Lexmark 6 somemodels 
  NRG 1 yes 
  Okidata 9 somemodels 
  Ricoh 6 yes 
  Samsung 5 no 
  Savin 1 yes 
  Tektronix 4 no 
  Unknown 1 yes 
  Xerox 15 somemodels
It sounds like they mostly understand the dot patterns wherever they found them, with some caveats that are explained in the paper.