Beyond Files: An Introduction to Network Steganography

An image showing binary code in a netowrk

In the world of steganography, we often think in terms of containers. We hide a text file inside an image. We embed a secret message within an audio track. We append a ZIP archive to the end of a JPEG. In every case, we are hiding one discrete file inside another. But what if there is no file?

What if the secret message could be transmitted through the very airwaves of the internet, woven into the invisible, constant chatter between computers?

Welcome to the advanced and deeply covert world of network steganography. This is the art of concealing data not within a static file, but within the dynamic, flowing stream of network protocols that power the internet. It is one of the most sophisticated and difficult-to-detect methods of secret communication, a favorite of intelligence agencies and the authors of advanced persistent threat (APT) malware.

The “Eavesdropper” challenge in Venatus Level 9 gives you a hands-on taste of this concept, forcing you to analyze a raw traffic capture to find a hidden signal. Let’s explore how this high-level technique works in the real world.

Why Hide Data in Network Traffic?

The primary goal of network steganography is to bypass security systems at their most fundamental level. Modern firewalls and intrusion detection systems are incredibly sophisticated in their ability to perform “deep packet inspection,” meaning they can examine files being transferred to determine if they match the signatures of known viruses or malware. They can flag and block the transfer of large, encrypted ZIP files or suspicious executables.

But these systems primarily look for things—discrete objects with identifiable signatures. Network steganography doesn’t send a “thing”—it sends a process. It breaks a secret message down into thousands of tiny, seemingly unrelated pieces. It mixes them in with the torrent of legitimate network traffic that a typical computer generates every minute.

The goal is to make the secret communication statistically indistinguishable from normal network noise, creating what security researchers call “covert channels” that can operate beneath the radar of traditional security monitoring.

Common Techniques in Network Steganography

There are two main philosophies for hiding data in network traffic: embedding it in the protocols themselves (covert storage channels) or utilizing the timing of the packets as a form of code (covert timing channels).

1. Hiding in Protocol Payloads and Headers (Covert Storage Channels)

This is the most direct method. It involves leveraging the structure of network protocols. Every time your computer communicates, it sends data in structured “packets.” These packets are like envelopes containing the data, with headers that act as the address and other shipping information.

ICMP (Ping) Tunnels: This is the technique you must master in Level 9. The ICMP protocol is used for “pinging” another computer to see if it’s online. A ping packet is simple and is usually allowed through most firewalls because it’s considered essential for network diagnostics. While it has a standard payload (the data it carries), this payload can be replaced with custom data.

An attacker can write a program that sends a series of pings, where the payload of each ping contains one small chunk of a stolen file. To a firewall, it appears as a series of harmless network diagnostic requests. Advanced attackers may even maintain proper request-reply patterns to avoid detection by systems that monitor for unbalanced ICMP traffic.

DNS Tunnels: This is another widespread method that has seen increased sophistication in recent years. When your computer attempts to access www.example.com, it sends a DNS request to locate the IP address. Malware can encode data into these requests because firewalls rarely block DNS traffic.

For example, to exfiltrate the stolen word “SECRET”, it could make a series of DNS requests for:

• 53.data.attacker.com (encoding ‘S’ as ASCII 53)
• 45.data.attacker.com (encoding ‘E’ as ASCII 45)
• 43.data.attacker.com (encoding ‘C’ as ASCII 43)
• …and so on.

The attacker, who controls the attacker.com DNS server, simply logs all these requests and reassembles the message. To the security system, it is a program attempting (and failing) to locate a series of websites. Modern DNS tunneling tools can even use base64 encoding or other compression techniques to maximize the data throughput per request.

HTTP Header Manipulation: Data can also be hidden in the headers of regular web traffic. For example, a custom, non-standard HTTP header, such as X-Session-Data:, could be added to every image request, with its value containing a piece of the hidden message. This technique is particularly effective because HTTP headers are often ignored by content filtering systems that focus on payloads.

TCP Sequence Number Manipulation: More advanced techniques involve manipulating the sequence numbers in TCP packets. By carefully crafting these numbers, attackers can encode data that appears completely normal to most monitoring systems but can be decoded by a receiver who knows the encoding scheme.

2. Hiding in Packet Timing (Covert Timing Channels)

This is a far more advanced and subtle technique that represents the cutting edge of network steganography. It doesn’t hide data inside the packets, but in the timing between them. It modulates the inter-packet delay to encode information.

Imagine a simple binary system:

• To send a binary “0”, the malware waits exactly 100 milliseconds before sending the next network packet.
• To send a binary “1”, it waits 200 milliseconds.

By sending thousands of packets with precisely controlled delays, it can transmit a message. This is exceptionally difficult to detect because the variations in timing can easily be mistaken for regular network congestion, jitter, or lag. It requires highly sophisticated statistical analysis and machine learning techniques on the part of the defender to spot the unnaturally consistent pattern in the timing.

Advanced timing channels can even use more complex encoding schemes, such as:

• Multi-bit encoding: Using multiple delay intervals to encode more than one bit per timing interval
• Adaptive timing: Adjusting the baseline timing based on current network conditions to maintain stealth
• Distributed timing: Spreading the timing signals across multiple network connections to avoid pattern detection

3. Emerging Techniques

As network security evolves, so do steganographic techniques. Recent developments include:

Protocol Field Manipulation: Exploiting unused or rarely monitored fields in protocol headers, such as the Type of Service field in IP headers or reserved bits in TCP flags.

Legitimate Protocol Abuse: Using legitimate but uncommon protocol features in ways that security systems don’t expect, such as IPv6 extension headers or unusual TCP options.

Machine Learning Evasion: Developing steganographic techniques specifically designed to evade machine learning-based detection systems by mimicking the statistical properties of legitimate traffic more closely.

The Challenge for Defenders

Detecting network steganography is one of the most difficult challenges in cybersecurity. It requires moving beyond simple signature-based detection and into the world of behavioral analysis, statistical anomaly detection, and machine learning. A defender can’t just ask, “Is this file bad?” They have to ask, “Is this pattern of communication normal?”

Modern detection approaches include:

Statistical Analysis: Looking for unusual patterns in packet sizes, timing, or frequency that might indicate hidden communication.

Machine Learning: Training models to identify the subtle statistical signatures that distinguish steganographic traffic from legitimate traffic.

Behavioral Analysis: Monitoring for unusual network behavior, such as a computer that suddenly starts making thousands of DNS requests or sending huge ping packets.

Deep Packet Inspection: Advanced DPI systems that can analyze not just the content of packets but their metadata and relationships to other packets.

The key questions defenders must answer include:

• Is it normal for one computer to send 5,000 ping requests in ten minutes?
• Is it normal for a program to make DNS requests for hundreds of nonsensical subdomains?
• Do the timing patterns in this network traffic show signs of artificial regularity?
• Are there statistical anomalies in the distribution of packet sizes or inter-arrival times?

Real-World Impact and Future Directions

Network steganography continues to evolve as both an offensive and defensive cybersecurity discipline. State-sponsored actors and advanced persistent threat groups regularly employ these techniques for espionage and data exfiltration. Meanwhile, security researchers are developing increasingly sophisticated detection methods using artificial intelligence and behavioral analysis.

The arms race between steganographers and steganalysts represents one of the most intellectually challenging aspects of cybersecurity, requiring a deep understanding of network protocols, statistical analysis, and the subtle art of hiding in plain sight.

Understanding these techniques is crucial for any cybersecurity professional, as they represent some of the most subtle and dangerous forms of data exfiltration in the modern threat landscape. The ability to detect and analyze these covert channels is what separates advanced security practitioners from those who rely solely on signature-based detection.

Answering these questions and developing the skills to unmask the ghost in the machine is the key to defending against one of the most sophisticated attack vectors in the cybersecurity arsenal.

References

1. Cynet. (2025, January 23). How Hackers Use ICMP Tunneling to Own Your Network. Cynet. https://www.cynet.com/attack-techniques-hands-on/how-hackers-use-icmp-tunneling-to-own-your-network/

2. Technical University of Munich. (2024). Covert Communication over ICMP. NET-2024-04-1. https://www.net.in.tum.de/fileadmin/TUM/NET/NET-2024-04-1/NET-2024-04-1_14.pdf

3. GIAC Certifications. (2024). Covert Channels. GIAC Paper Repository. https://www.giac.org/paper/gcia/5603/covert-channels/120171

4. HAL Science. (2019). Detection of Covert Channels Over the ICMP Protocol. HAL Open Science. https://hal.science/hal-02381398/document

5. PenTesting.Org. (2024). Covert Channel Communication. PenTesting.Org. https://www.pentesting.org/hidden-data-transfer/

6. Hacking Articles. (2019, April 21). Covert Channel: The Hidden Network. Hacking Articles. https://www.hackingarticles.in/covert-channel-the-hidden-network/

7. Cyber Common Technical Core. (2024). SSH Tunneling - Networking Module. CCTC. https://net.cybbh.io/public/networking/latest/08_tunneling/fg.html

8. Mazurczyk, W., & Caviglione, L. (2016). Network Steganography in the DNS Protocol. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311333694_Network_Steganography_in_the_DNS_Protocol

9. Alshammari, A., Zincir-Heywood, A.N. (2021). DNS covert channel detection method using the LSTM model. Computers & Security, 104, 102095. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167404820303680

10. Rowland, C.H. (1997). Covert channels in the TCP/IP protocol suite. First Monday, 2(5). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/528/449

11. Mileva, A., & Velinov, A. (2024). Comprehensive survey on image steganalysis using deep learning. Neurocomputing, 563, 126949. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590005624000195

12. Kadhim, I.J., Premaratne, P., Vial, P.J., & Halloran, B. (2024). Image steganography techniques for resisting statistical steganalysis attacks: A systematic literature review. PLOS ONE, 19(8), e0308807. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0308807

13. Kumari, A., et al. (2025). A deep learning-driven multi-layered steganographic approach for enhanced data security. Scientific Reports, 15, 1129. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-89189-5

14. Shen, C., et al. (2025). Image steganalysis using active learning and hyperparameter optimization. Scientific Reports, 15, 1436. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-92082-w

15. Joshi, R., et al. (2025). Digital Image Steganalysis Network Strengthening Framework Based on Evolutionary Algorithm. Scientific Reports, 15, 754. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-91390-5

16. Hagen, E., et al. (2024). Uncovering the Social Impact of Digital Steganalysis Tools Applied to Cybercrime Investigations: A European Union Perspective. Crime Science, 13, 9. https://crimesciencejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40163-024-00209-7