Is it true that images on 4chan can now contain viruses and hidden cp like they used to?

>He doesn't know

It's impossible. CDN deletes the metadata and everything related to the uploaded image.

>>105965301 (OP)
>now

>>105965301 (OP)
>can

Theoretically there's steganography. And an image file can't really contain malware per se but it can be used in malware. I forget what the exact attack is called but it was used with webp images a little while back.

Metadata is stripped.

Yes.
You would be wise not to open this image.

>>105965301 (OP)
Yes. Don't listen to the trolls. They want you to upload an image with your geo location.

>>105965558
So is it safe to browse 4chan.org these days?

>>105965644

i think barely-disguised manifesting threads should be permabannable

>>105965612
>SAAAAR PLEBBIT ENTER PRESS FOR NO REASON SAAAAAAR

>>105965644
Yes.

Pedophiles post png's and they're usually near 4MiB limit because steganographically hidden and encrypted cp is like random noise and compresses poorly.
Real users post jpgs which would destroy any data like that by virtue of being lossy.

>>105965301 (OP)
Some niggers a few years ago were skirting the legal line in some gay ass general thread for a while until one of them posted pictures that were steganographically altered to contain spoilt milk.

They got the ban hammer and I presume their assholes are being widened by prison people as we speak.

>>105965301 (OP)
There's never hidden images on 4chan

>>105966547
Not really. You can embed into lossy image formats using the frequency domain with cosine transforms.

>>105965301 (OP)
No. People are uploading them to links they share you can embed. Be wary of what you save. Behead those who try to get cat box party&

>>105966611
Too much effort, and again, kills compression.

Of course not

>>105965564
>>105965341
the 4chan homo proxy pedos embed links in their images to cp videos hosted on catbox

Theoretically speaking any of the images in this thread could have stegged CP in them somewhere
It has gotten much harder for people to hide that kind of stuff because it was abused so much.
Ironically it was not CP being embedded but the massive increase in filesizes when it hit /v/ and people were uploading entire games in every image.

There used to be some Chinese program used to hide websites inside of images that was pretty fun to play around with.
Even to this day I still have the same banner on my Twitter that had a website embedded in it.
I just can't remember the name of the program any more.
While generally speaking hiding entire secondary media inside of images or webms is not as easy, hiding text to an offsite media file is entirely possible and could be very hard to block properly without mangling file uploads.
Hiding data in the lowest significant bit of files could be fixed easily by just randomizing those files LSBs.
You don't even need to randomize the entire file, just randomize random chunks of bits in a 3x3 grid of the media file, or X%-Y% chunks of the image, and you make it impossible for anyone to reliably abuse LSBs for storage without relying on heavy error correction routines, which itself lowers how much you can reliably store.

An easy way to avoid these potential issues, almost all the time, is simply resave your media with different compression settings or re-encode videos.
Steg cannot survive being re-encoded most times unless the hidden bits are stretched over a wide range of pixels, which lowers the storage dramatically.

>>105965301 (OP)
True. Check AggregatorHost.exe in your processes.

Is there a way to check if there's something hidden in images? Because I have saved images from 2006.

>>105965301 (OP)
*munch*

>>105968734
You can try using binwalk on them to search for embedded files.

>>105965301 (OP)
>>105965301 (OP)
like, steganography or concatenation?

>>105966820

DO I HAVE VIRUSES ON MY PEPES?

>>105965301 (OP)
bullshit. it's technically impossible to do it. 4chan re-encodes all images

>>105968734
maybe with hexdump

>>105965301 (OP)
Only if they're webp

Why would an intelligent being post cp here, unless they specifically want the police to raid them?

no, they could embed links into the filename, but no actual metadata

>>105965301 (OP)
Legitimately worries me because I have built a fine collection of reaction images and I don't want to have to delete them all in a fit of paranoia.

>>105969129
only in red ones