You are on page 1of 6


An Image Fragile Watermarking Scheme Based on
Chaotic System for Image Tamper Detection
Md. Moniruzzaman, Md. Abul Kayum Hawlader and Md. Foisal Hossain
Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering
Khulna University of Engineering and Technology, (KUET)
Khulna, Bangladesh,,
Abstract— Image watermarking techniques are specially used to
provide copyright protection, owner’s identification, image
authentication and tamper detection. Fragile watermarking is
usually used for image authentication and tamper detection. In
this paper, fragile watermarking scheme based on chaotic system
has been proposed. Two dimensional Arnold’s cat map has been
used to improve the security of the proposed watermarking
scheme. Arnold’s cat map is sensitive to the initial values. This
map is specially used to obtain the scrambled image by shuffling
the pixel positions of the host image. Therefore the number of
iterations and the initial values which are used to obtain
scrambled image can be used as secret keys. The proposed
scheme provides high security, extracts watermark from the
tampered image and also localizes the tampered areas.
Experimental results of proposed method have been compared
with other existing two chaotic system based watermarking
schemes. From the experimental results it can be seen that the
proposed watermarking scheme gives better results than other
chaos based watermarking schemes.
chaotic map.






Watermarking technique is required to secure data and
prevent unauthorized modification. These security and
prevention is for rapid development of digital technologies,
internet technologies and powerful image processing tools.
Due to the development of digital technologies and internet
technologies, a large amount of digital data can easily be
accessed via different transmission channels. At the same time
with the help of powerful image processing tools data can
easily be manipulated, tampered and distributed.
Watermarking technique is used to prevent these
modifications by embedding a watermark into the host image.
The embedding technique can be visible or invisible, spatial
domain or transformed domain, robust or fragile. In visible
watermarking technique the watermark can be perceived by
human eyes. On the other hand in case of invisible
watermarking technique the watermark cannot be perceived by
human eyes [1]. There are three basic requirements for
invisible watermarking. One of them is that the distortion to
the pixels of host image due to embedding of watermark

should be too small to be noticed. At the same time, it should
be robust in case of various attacks and finally high security
should be provided to the watermarking scheme. In spatial
domain, the watermarks are directly inserted into the bitplanes of the host image pixels. The watermarks are inserted
into the coefficients of a transformed image in case of
transformed or frequency domain. Discrete Cosine Transform
(DCT) [2], Discrete Wavelet Transforms (DWT) [3] are used
to obtain transformed image.
Robust invisible watermarking is the technique from which
it is very difficult to remove the watermark by unauthorized
user [4]. The robustness of the algorithm is the main feature
for robust watermark. Robust watermark resists all kinds of
attacks, such as common signal processing operators and
geometric attacks. Signal processing attacks reduce the
watermark energy while synchronization errors between
encoder and decoder of the watermark can be induced by
geometric attacks. A robust invisible watermarking technique
which protects watermarked image from geometric and signal
processing attacks is presented in [5]. The goal of this
technique is to produce an invisible and robust watermark that
resists signal processing and geometric distortion attacks.
Robust watermarking techniques also provide high resistance
to copy attack and common image attacks [6].
Fragile watermarks are used to locate the tampered areas
when the image has been tampered. Recently many fragile
watermarking schemes for content authentication, integrity
verification and for image tamper detection have been
proposed [7], [8], [9]. In case of fragile watermark, the
robustness is not the most important factor. Perceptual quality,
location capability and security are the most important factors
for fragile watermarking.
Security is one of the most important factors for
watermarking scheme. Specially, key is used to give the
security to the watermarked image [10], [11]. Without using
the key, the information or the watermark cannot be extracted
from the host image. In recent years chaotic maps are being
used to improve the security of the watermarking scheme.
Different chaotic maps have been proposed to provide the
security and to scramble the original image [12], [13], [14].
Fragile watermark has also been proposed based on chaotic
map for image tamper detection [15].

978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31.00 ©2014 IEEE

3: Periodic phenomenon in Arnold’s cat map. In the proposed scheme. The scrambled image can be obtained by shuffling the pixel positions of the host image with the help of Arnold’s cat map. x' = [x + py] mod (n) (1) y' = [qx + (pq + 1)y] mod (n) (2) Here. As the security issue is the major attention for watermarking algorithms. respectively. a b c d ARNOLD’S CAT MAP Large numbers of chaotic algorithms have been proposed for image watermarking. Then finally. y)? Binary watermark (W) yes no Watermarked Image No change in the pixels of Iscr Modify the pixels of Iscr by changing LSB Cat map (T-K) times Fig.00 ©2014 IEEE . 978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31. In section-II. section-V concludes the paper. Finally. y) after Arnold’s cat transform and n is the dimension of the image. y') represents the new position of (x.1: Block diagram of embedding process Watermarked Image Cat maps K times Scrambled Image Calculate XOR of 8 bits of each pixel Extract 8 bits from each pixel of scrambled Image Original watermark Extracted watermark (XOR results) XOR Cat maps (T-K) times Locate modified areas Fig. Arnold’s cat map has been used to obtain the scrambled image from the original image. These types of maps are sensitive to initial conditions. ELECTRONICS & VISION 2014 Original Image Scrambled Image Iscr K-times iterations of Arnold cat map Extract 8-bits from each pixel of Iscr Calculate XOR of 8 bits of each pixel Is XOR(x. p and q are the initial values in which the sensitivity of cat map depends. (a)-is the original image [256 256].3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATICS. a binary watermark has been embedded into the scrambled image by using XOR operator. y) = W(x. the watermarked image from the modified scrambled image can be obtained by performing inverse cat map. a watermarking scheme has been proposed based on two dimensional Arnold’s cat map which can be used for tamper detection. The experimental results and comparison is discussed in sectionIV. The 2D Arnold cat map [15] can be obtained by- Fig. The proposed watermarking scheme is explained in section-III. Therefore p and q can be used as keys. Two dimensional Arnold cat map shuffles the pixels positions of the original image without changing the pixels gray level intensities. (b) & (c) are the scrambled images after K=20 & 160 iterations. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. (x'. Arnold’s cat map is described briefly. chaotic maps generate chaotic image pattern for increasing the security.2: Block diagram of extraction algorithm In this paper. (d) cameraman image after completing a period (T=K=192). Then the scrambled image has been divided into 8-bit planes. II.

4. The check sum or XOR results give the watermark image that was embedded into the scrambled image. Fig. THE PROPOSED SCHEME In this section the proposed watermark embedding and watermark extraction algorithms have been explained. 5 shows several images which are attacked by the third party. Fig. The watermark is a binary image and the size of the watermark is same as the host image. A binary image is considered as the watermark image whose size should be equal to the size of the original image. B. 4(d) which is same as the embedded one. y) is not equal XOR(x. 2.4 (a) original image. gray scale image has been used as the host image I. For this exclusive-or (XOR) operation is applied between the extracted watermark and original watermark. 4(a) and Fig. ELECTRONICS & VISION 2014 { LSBm(scr)(x. the watermarked image can be obtained by applying (T-K) iterations on the modified scrambled image. The two initial parameters of Arnold’s cat map “p” & “q” and the number of iteration K can be used as secret keys. three parameters can be used as the secret keys described earlier. 5. The pixels of scrambled image are being modified by changing the Least Significant Bits (LSB) if the values of watermark pixels are not same as the values of XOR results. The original cameraman image is shown in Fig. First row of Fig. For this. q=1 and K=20 have been set as the values of secret keys. y)=1 a } b Where. The pixels of the scrambled image are unchanged if the values of watermark pixels are same as the values of XOR results. (b) watermark image. and the binary image has been used as the watermark image W.1 . 1. y) ) 978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31. The map has period T when the pixels positions returns to its original positions after T times being transformed. Therefore the number of iteration K can also be used as the secret key. (c) watermarked image and (d) extracted watermark from watermarked image. The tampered areas can also be located by the proposed algorithm. 4(c). LSBscr is the least significant bit plane of scrambled image and LSBm(scr) is the modified least significant bit plane of scrambled image. y) = LSBscr(x. (ii). y) = LSBscr(x. Firstly. 8-bits are extracted from each pixel of the scrambled image. Finally. In the proposed scheme. watermarked image is obtained which is shown in Fig. The scrambled image is obtained from the original image after K times iterations of cat map. Here K acts as a secret key. Here T is the period of the cat map. the extracted watermark is shown in Fig. the scrambled image Iscr is obtained from the original image I using Arnold cat map. Fig. 5 shows the original images. 4(b) shows the binary watermark image. A. IV. several 8-bit gray scale images of size 256×256 are used as the host image. Then a difference image can be obtained. Finally. Arnold cat map is applied (T – K) times on the difference image to locate the tampered areas. if LSBscr(x. y) . the number of iterations K gives scrambled images of K numbers and each scrambled image is different from others. In this paper. y)=0 LSBm(scr)(x. 4. Then 8-bits from each pixel of scrambled watermarked image are extracted. After embedding the if ( W(x. 4(b) shows the binary watermark image which is embedded into the original images of Fig. After obtaining the scrambled image. From the scrambled image check sum is calculated using exclusive-or (XOR) operator of 8-bits of each pixel. III. p=1. Finally. 2. 3. Firstly. if LSBscr(x. 4 simply shows the embedding and extracting scheme of watermark into the original or host image. Watermark embedding The watermark can be embedded as follows step by step1. the scrambled image is divided into 8-bit planes. y) + 1 . In other words. The pixels of the watermark image are compared with check sum or XOR results one by one. Another characteristic of Arnold’s cat map is that it shows periodicity. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND COMPARISON The proposed algorithm has been tested by extensive experiments using MATLAB (R2009a). In this paper. the scrambled watermarked image IWscr is obtained by using the correct key. 5. (i). The periodicity of Arnold’s cat map is shown in Fig. 3. step by step- Scrambled images of the original image can be obtained from iterations of Arnold cat map.3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATICS. The check sum is calculated from IWscr by using XOR operator of 8-bits of each pixel. 3. d c Fig.00 ©2014 IEEE . In other words. Watermark extraction The watermark is extracted as follows. After embedding the watermark using the proposed scheme.

(f).original images. (e). (b). (q).tampered images.00 ©2014 IEEE . (k) & (l). 978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31.extracted watermark with right key (Key = 20).detected tampered regions. (c) & (d). (m). (n). (w) & (x). (r). (s) & (t)-extracted watermark with wrong key (Key=21). ELECTRONICS & VISION 2014 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o q r s t u v w x p Fig. (i).3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATICS.watermarked images. (v). (o) & (p). (j). (u).5: (a). (g) & (h).

Tampered images are shown in third row of Fig. (d). If wrong keys are used in the extraction procedure of watermark. the watermarked images are obtained which are shown in the second row of Fig. 8. i is from 0 to m-1 and j is from 0 to n-1. the ‘Sailboat’ image which is shown in Fig. TABLE I shows the comparison results of MSE and PSNR of the proposed method with other existing methods. PSNR is obtained from MSE and is given byPSNR = 10 × log10 (L2 / MSE) (4) The performance of proposed scheme has been evaluated under noise attacks. the extraction of watermark will be failed which is shown in the fifth row of Fig. It can be seen from the TABLE I that low values of MSE are obtained from the proposed method compared to the existing methods in [8] and [14] for all images. f Fig. f Fig. three performance parameters have been used to demonstrate the performance of proposed scheme. The proposed method has been compared with the chaotic system based two existing methods in [8] and [14]. If the original image is I of size M × N and after embedding watermark into I the watermarked image is I*. The EBR is used to compute the rate of error bit on the whole watermark accurate bits. (e) & (f) corresponding extracted watermarks. Finally. 5. (b) & (c) are the watermarked images attacked by salt & pepper noise with intensities 0.2 (which is large enough to attack the whole image). (e) & (f) corresponding extracted watermarks.00 ©2014 IEEE . The three parameters are. watermark into the original images. it can be seen that the error bit rate is only 10% when the noise intensity is 0. The extracted watermarks from the cropped images are shown in the second row of Fig.Mean Square Error (MSE).8: the relation between EBR (%) with (a) salt and pepper noise intensity and (b) cropped image (%). L is the maximum intensity of the gray scale image. 7 shows that the watermarked cameraman image is cropped in various positions. TABLE II shows the comparison results of EBR between the proposed method and other two existing methods in [8] and [14]. 5. 8(a) shows the relation between EBR (%) and salt & pepper noise intensity. 0. Several images have been used for the comparison results. y)}2] / (M×N) (3) where. Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Error Bit Rate (EBR). which indicate that the proposed watermarking scheme is robust against salt and peppers noise attack. In this paper. 5 and the corresponding extracted watermarks with right keys are shown in the fourth row of Fig. x is form M-1 and y is from 0 to N-1. j) ⊕ W*(i. The second row of Fig. investigating the TABLE I it can be seen that high values of PSNR are obtained from the proposed method compared to the existing methods in [8] and [14] for all given images. The watermark can also be extracted from the cropped image. 5. The first row of Fig. This figure shows that the EBR is only 25% when the 50% of the image has already been cropped. EBR is given byEBR = [∑i ∑j {W(i. PSNR is used to measure the quality of the image and high value of PSNR means high quality of image affected by low quality of noise.10 & 0. d e where. 8(b) shows the relation between EBR (%) and cropped image (%). j)}] / (m × n) a d b e c (5) where.7: (a). 6 shows the attacked watermarked cameraman images where the attacks have been done by salt and peppers noise with increasing noise intensities.02. Therefore. the tampered areas can also be recovered by using the proposed scheme shown in the last row of Fig. (d).3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATICS. At the same time. Low value of EBR 978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31. For the original watermark image W of size m × n and the extracted watermark image W*. From the Fig. Fig.15 respectively. ELECTRONICS & VISION 2014 a b c a b Fig. 6 shows the corresponding extracted watermarks from the attacked cameraman images. In this case. y) – I*(x. then MSE can be obtained byMSE = [∑x ∑y {I(x. Fig. (b) & (c) are the watermarked images cropped in different positions. 5(b) has been taken as the test image.6: (a). The low value of MSE indicates that the watermarked image is almost similar to the original image which is desired for invisible or transparent watermarking. it can be said that the proposed method is also robust against cropping attack. 5. The first row of Fig. 7.

7261 2.3rd INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INFORMATICS. Chandra M. Issue 1. pp. IJCSI International Journal of Computer Science Issues. 9869–9878. Direct International Journal of Electronics and Communication. Ramani K. vol. 65. science direct Forensic Science International.897 45. Varadarajan S.13 0. and D.84 S. R.05 12. A. 2007. 2007. Shao-Hui Liu. Three secret keys are obtained for the proposed method. B. Ibrahim Aldamari.. Jian-De and Q. 1. Xiao-Li. Salinas.. “3D Chaotic Functions for Image Encryption”. H. 840-847.D.00 7.. Yao Zhao.4927 51. Ju. it can be seen that the proposed method gives low value of EBR than the methods in [8] and [14] which proves that the proposed method is robust against cropping and salt and pepper noise attacks. M. January. Pinto and M. Mahafzah. Alfonso Ortega. No. pp. and Srinivas K. Jian-Ping. 28-36. Advanced Computing and Communications. Ayman.2049 Fig. pp. The [15] [16] 978-1-4799-5180-2/14/$31. 58 – 64. A.7413 1. 2007. 2012.1289 Fig. Electrical and Electronic Engineering (ICEEE 2007). L.025 3. Intensity indicates extracted watermark is almost similar to the original watermark.35 0. it can be said that the proposed method gives low values of MSE and high values of PSNR compared to the existing methods in [8] and [14] which is required for image watermarking.. 36. 2009. 2011. 1.V.Maruthuperumal. 4th Int.Rosline Nesakumari. Monzoy.05 15. pp.255 44.56 0. 5 No. pp: 293-298. 2004. Method [8] Method [14] Proposed method [6] EBR (%) EBR (%) EBR (%) [7] 5% 4. 255~264. pp. 179 . 2008. CONCLUSION In this paper. P. M. By investigating the experimental results. A. 5(c) 0. 2007. IEEE Computer Society. 5(a) 0. ELECTRONICS & VISION 2014 TABLE I. Subramanyam A.1. vol. pp. S..4997 51.7129 1.10 3. [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] V.00 7. The proposed method also gives low value of EBR compared to the existing methods in [8] and [14]. Prasad E. B. Rongrong Ni . 4(a) 0.10 11. 1793–8201.36 0. Saraju. Dalhoum.163 43... & Pérez.T. 17-22. “Normalized Image Watermarking Scheme Using Chaotic System”. Electron. Narnaware. pp. 5(b) 0. Chandy. chaotic system based fragile image watermarking scheme has been proposed. Second edition.00 ©2014 IEEE . “An image fragile watermark scheme based on chaotic image pattern and pixelpairs”. REFERENCES [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] TABLE II. and Si. Sci. May 2012. J. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.00 3.6 0. M. 5(d) 1.1134 Fig. S.82 4. MA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers (Elsevier). vol. Sci. 2007. ."A Robust Watermarking Scheme for Information Hiding". S.57 Li. Direct Digital Signal Process. W.7986 1. 16th International Conference. Dwight.00 2.A. This property proves the robustness of the proposed method.” International Journal of Computer Theory and Engineering. Rawat. Test images COMPARISON RESULTS OF MSE AND PSNR Method [8] Method [14] Proposed method MSE PSNR MSE PSNR MSE PSNR Fig. Raman.69 6. A. B Surekha. October 2012.15 7. [8] 10% 9.00 9. vol. “A Spatial Domain Public Image Watermarking”. “Applications of the naturalness preserving transform to image watermarking and data hiding”. Burlington. Attacks Cropping Salt & pepper noise COMPARISON RESULTS OF EBR Cox IJ. vol. Sci. H. G.M. 54–62. vol.5501 50. 531-549. Applied Mathematics and Computation. pp. pp.69 8.4. L. 5. IEEE International Symposium on Consumer Electronics pp: 1-6. Investigating TABLE II. Digital Watermarking and Steganography.. Lin. 14-17 Dec. Fragile “Watermarking for Color Image Authentication”. 869–882. “Robust Multiple Image Watermarking Scheme using Discrete Cosine Transform with Multiple Descriptions. R.27 0. 157-160. Hong-Xun Yao. Awwad. 9.5482 50. Wen Gao. N. Wang.5032 51. 16. J. Issue 3. Khade and P. “A Novel watermarking Method with Image Signature”. Yong-Liang Liu. 2006. B. 2009.9299 48.20 10. M. C. N.892 45. P.5410 50..5518 50. Dr GN Swamy.68 0. “Pinpoint authentication watermarking based on a chaotic system”. S. Conf. Vol. “Digital Image Scrambling Using 2D Cellular Automata”. vol. International Journal of Security and Its Applications vol. no.1437 Fig. M.932 45. 2011.64 0.5014 51. Jeffrey AB. International Journal of Information & Network Security. “A chaotic system based fragile watermarking scheme for image tamper detection”.95 15% 14. Sheth. Y.00 4. Direct Expert Systems with Applications. 2008. Horng. The watermark can be extracted from the watermarked image using the correct keys. Pp. A. et al.Crypt Mark: “A Novel Secure Invisible water-marking technique for color images”. Matthew LM. vol. H. No 1. Nakano. 185. Two dimensional Arnold’s cat map has been used to scramble the image. 14. Imaging. pp. A.4464 proposed method is also capable of locating the tampered areas when the image is attacked by the third parties. “Wavelet-based fragile watermarking scheme for image authentication”.025 48. Qiuqi Ruan. “A wavelet-tree-based watermarking method using distance vector of binary cluster”.