Heck, it was on Law and Order last year: http://allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com/2009/10/law-order-s...
It's really not that much of a win.
stegdetect is jpeg-only (yes, LSB steganography on raw audio/video is really, really lame, but it's really easy, too) and it really depends on the input media. Using stegdetect itself on the sender's side with various source media makes it easy to avoid detection in-transit.
Plus, any statistical analysis tool is only useful for long messages (higher signal:noise ratios). If you're sending one-liners in a 2MB photo, for all intents and purposes, the original photo hasn't been modified and is really difficult to catch.
I was overly terse in dismissing steg; I didn't really provide a rationale for my comment. But I expect you'll agree with me anyways. Image steganography is a pet trick. Given the constraints of a meaningful image file, it's unlikely you're going to come up with a technique for encoding a covert channel that will be truly hard to spot.
Meanwhile, it's a lot of added effort for a very minimal theoretical gain (and a very likely severe practical loss) in operational security.
(and I'm working on a steganography technique, not steganalysis - if I can get my act together and focus some, I'll be submitting it to a security conference in next month... I hope :)
copy /b IMG_0010.JPG + SecretCodes.rar PartysAreFunLOL.jpgThe article says this is the first time it's actually known to have been used for nefarious purposes. That doesn't exclude prior usage for fun and experimentation, or even for practical purposes (say, wartime or corporate communications).