You are on page 1of 10

International Journal of Computer Networking,

Wireless and Mobile Communications (IJCNWMC)


ISSN(P): 2250-1568; ISSN(E): 2278-9448
Vol. 6, Issue 5, Oct 2016, 23-32
TJPRC Pvt. Ltd

AN EVALUATION ON STATE OF THE ART FEATURE


EXTRACTORS FOR STEGANALYSIS
S. DEEPA1 & R. UMARANI2
1

Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science, Government Arts College,


Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu, India
2

Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science, Sri Sarada College for


Women, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India

ABSTRACT
There are lots of state of the art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis published in the last five years. This paper
consists of three state of the art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis for the evaluation. The Selected methods are Chen
Features, Subtractive Pixel Adjacency Mode (SPAM) Features and Ccpev Features. This work uses stego images
created by WOW algorithm to compare with the original cover image to understand the performance of three feature
detection algorithms under consideration. By using a simple metrics the performance of the three Feature Extractors
for Steganalysis are evaluated.

Received: Aug 02, 2016; Accepted: Aug 25, 2016; Published: Aug 30, 2016; Paper Id.: IJCNWMCOCT20163

INTRODUCTION
Spatial Domain Technique

Original Article

KEYWORDS : Ccpev, Chen, SPAM, Spatial Domain, Steganalysis, WOW

In spatial domain steganography techniques image pixels values are converted in binary values and some
of the bits are changed for hiding secret data. There are many categories of spatial domain techniques which differ
mainly on the basis of manipulation of different bits in pixel values. Least significant bit (LSB) based technique is
one of the simplest and most widely used techniques that inserts or hides the secret message in the LSBs of pixel
values without much visual distortion in the cover image. Another technique employs embedding of message
bits at randomly chosen pixels. This technique is Pseudorandom LSB in which random pixels are chosen using
algorithm where bits of secret data are embedded.

THE ALGORITHMS USED FOR THIS EVALUATION


Wavelet Obtained Weights (WOW) Algorithm
WOW1 is a new approach to defining additive steganographic distortion in the spatial domain. The change
in the output of directional high-pass filters after changing one pixel is weighted and then aggregated using the
reciprocal Hlder norm to define the individual pixel costs. In contrast to other adaptive embedding schemes, the
aggregation rule is designed to force the embedding changes to highly textured or noisy regions and to avoid clean
edges. Consequently, the new embedding scheme appears markedly more resistant to steganalysis using rich
models. The actual embedding algorithm is realized using syndrome-trellis codes to minimize the expected
distortion for a given payload.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

24

S. Deepa & R. Umarani

Chen Features
Chen features2,

are Markov features utilizing both intra block and inter block correlations among JPEG

coefficients. These are DCT domain features proposed by those authors. It computes transition probability matrix for each
difference JPEG 2-D array to utilize the intrablock correlation, and "averaged" transition probability matrices for those
difference mode 2-D arrays to utilize the interblock correlation. All the elements of these matrices are used as features for
steganalysis. This algorithm gives 486 features that can be used for steganalysis.
Subtractive Pixel Adjacency Mode (SPAM) Features
SPAM4 is a method for detection of steganographic methods that embed in the spatial domain by adding a
low-amplitude independent stego signal. It focuses on evaluation of detection of LSB matching. First, arguments are
provided for modeling the differences between adjacent pixels using first-order and second-order Markov chains. Subsets
of sample transition probability matrices are then used as features for a steganalyzer implemented by support vector
machines.
The steganalyzer is constructed as follows. A filter suppressing the image content and exposing the stego noise is
applied. Dependences between neighboring pixels of the filtered image (noise residuals) are modeled as a higher-order
Markov chain. The sample transition probability matrix of a higher-order Markov model is then used as a feature vector for
steganalysis. The major contribution of the work is the use of higher-order Markov chains, exploiting of symmetry in
natural images to reduce the dimensionality of the extracted features. This algorithm extracts spatial domain SPAM features
of dimensionality 686 that can be used for steganalysis. It also detects steganography in the transform domain.
CcPev Features
CcPev5 is a Cartesian-calibrated Pev feature set. It contains 548 features. The feature set was obtained by merging
and modifying two previously proposed feature sets with complementary performance (the DCT feature set that captures
inter-block dependencies among DCT coefficients and Markov features which capture intra-block dependencies).
CcPev features are 274 DCT domain features introduced in the previous reference work and extended by Cartesian
calibration. Cartesian calibration additionally extracts those 274 features from the so-called reference image, which is the
decompressed, cropped (by 4x4) and recompressed version of the original image. The JPEG quality factor of the
recompression needs to be specified by QF. Total dimensionality of the features is 2 x 274 = 548.
The calibration is a procedure through which one can estimate the features of the cover image from the stego
image. Calibration is a process used to estimate macroscopic properties of the cover image from the stego image. During
calibration, the stego JPEG image is decompressed to the spatial domain, cropped by a few pixels in both directions, and
compressed again with the same quantization matrix as the stego image. The newly obtained JPEG image has most
macroscopic features similar to the original cover image. This is because the cropped image is visually similar to the
original image. Moreover, the cropping brings the 8 8 DCT grid out of sync with the previous compression, which
effectively suppresses the influence of the previous JPEG compression and the embedding changes. The calibrated feature
is obtained as the difference between the features calculated for the stego JPEG image and the new image. This calibrated
feature will be less sensitive to the image content and more sensitive to embedding changes.
The multi-class JPEG steganalyzer is constructed by extending the DCT feature set, then applying calibration to
the Markov features and reducing their dimension. The resulting feature sets are merged, producing a 274-dimensional
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.2143

NAAS Rating: 3.27

An Evaluation on State of the Art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis

25

feature vector. The new feature set is then used to construct a Support Vector Machine multi-classifier capable of assigning
stego images to six popular steganographic algorithmsF5, Out Guess, Model Based Steganography without and with
deblocking, JP Hide&Seek and Steghide.
Although calibration

was originally introduced for the JPEG domain, there were attempts to use this powerful

concept in the spatial domain as well. In fact, the image obtained using the predictor in WS steganalysis can also be
considered as a reference image even though it was not formulated within the framework of calibration.
Calibration was credited with increasing the features' sensitivity to embedding while decreasing their
image-to-image variations. Indeed, when the pay-load is small, the best estimate of the cover image features are the features
derived from the stego image itself.

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION


The evaluation framework is developed using Matlab version 7 based on some of the source code of DDE lab7.
The Evaluation Model
The following diagram shows the outline of the proposed evaluation strategy used for validating different feature
detection techniques:

Figure 1: The Implemented System


www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

26

S. Deepa & R. Umarani

THE RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS


The Image Database Used
The Images used for this evaluation were originally taken from the BOWS Image Dataset. The following are some
of the sample images from that database8.

Figure 2: Sample Images from BOWS Image Database


A Sample Result with a Image

Figure 3: A Sample Cover Image of Size 512 * 512

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.2143

NAAS Rating: 3.27

An Evaluation on State of the Art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis

27

The Performance of Embedding Changes at Different Bits Per Pixel (WOW Embedding Algorithm)
Performance at Different Bits
per Pixel

Stego Image

Embedding Changes
+1-White, -1 Black

Bits per Pixel = 0.20


MSE: 0.0398,
RMSE: 0.1995,
MAE: 0.0398,
PSNR: 62.1649,
QI: 1.0000,
Change Rate: 0.0398

Bits per Pixel = 0.40


MSE: 0.0950,
RMSE: 0.3083,
MAE: 0.0950,
PSNR: 58.3863,
QI: 0.9998,
Change Rate: 0.0950

Bits per Pixel = 0.60


MSE: 0.1591,
RMSE: 0.3989,
MAE: 0.1591,
PSNR: 56.1475,
QI: 0.9995,
Change Rate: 0.1591

Bits per Pixel = 0.80


MSE: 0.2365,
RMSE: 0.4863,
MAE: 0.2365,
PSNR: 54.4259,
QI: 0.9987,
Change Rate: 0.2365

Figure 4: The Performance with Respect to Different Bpp for Visual Analysis

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

28

S. Deepa & R. Umarani

The Average Performance of Different Features at Different Bits per Pixel


The following table presents the average performance of different features at different bpp. In fact, each of these
values in the last three columns is average of 29 values.
Table 1: The Average Performance
Bits Per Pixel
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8

Chen-486
0.077991
0.088947
0.100399
0.121571

Spam-686
0.004688
0.005698
0.007096
0.009512

Ccpev-548
0.778646
1.09444
1.312511
1.575686

The following graph shows the average Euclidean distance between stego image at different bpp and cover Image.

Distance

Euclidean Distance Between Cover and Stego Image Features


1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Bits Per Pixel


Chen-486

Spam-686

Ccpev-548

Figure 5: Euclidean Distance between Stego Image at Different Bits per Pixel and Cover Image
For the first look, ccpev-548 features seems to be providing good performance than the other two feature sets.
Because, in the case of Ccpev, the variation with respect to the increase of bpp is considerably increasing which make
steganalysis with good success rate. But viewing the same lines in logarithmic scale, then the performance with respect to
different bpp are almost similar.
The following graph shows the average Euclidean distance between stego image at different bpp and cover image
in logarithmic scale.

Distance (Log Scale)


.

Euclidean Distance Between Cover and Stego Image Features


(In Lograthmic Scale)
10
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Bits Per Pixel


Chen-486

Spam-686

Ccpev-548

Figure 6: Euclidean Distance between Stego Image at


Different Bits per Pixel and Cover Image (In Logarithmic Scale)

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.2143

NAAS Rating: 3.27

An Evaluation on State of the Art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis

29

The above graph signifies that the performance of all the three algorithms are almost equal. It means, trying to
classify the features using a simple nighborhood based classifier results in equal performance in all the three cases.

CONCLUSIONS
This paper successfully implements a stego data generation framework. By using that framework, WOW based
stego image datasets at different bpp level of hiding are generated. Further, using the cover images and all the different
stego image datasets, feature sets of cover images as well as the stego images of different bpp level of hiding are created.
These feature sets were created using three different feature detection algorithms.
Using the generated feature sets a simple analysis to understand the usability of these feature detection methods
(feature sets) in a practical steganalysis software were done.
The arrived results signifies that the performance of the all the three algorithms are almost equal. In other words,
with the use of a simple classifier, a steganalysis system designed to classify a image as stego or not will just behave equally
for the three feature detection algorithms.
But little improvement of classification performance with a particular featureset can be expected by applying
suitable feature reduction or feature selection algorithm along with a good machine learning like classifier.
REFERENCES
1.

V. Holub et al (Dec 2012), "Designing steganographic distortion using directional filters", in Proc. IEEE WIFS,
(Tenerife, Spain).

2.

C. Chen et al (May 2008), JPEG image steganalysis utilizing both intrablock and interblock correlations, IEEE ISCAS,
International Symposium on Circuits and Systems.

3.

Y. Q. Shi et al (July 2006), "A Markov process based approach to effective attacking JPEG steganography," Information
Hiding, 8th International Workshop, Springer-Verlag, New York.

4.

Tomas Pevny et al (2010), Steganalysis by Subtractive Pixel Adjacency Matrix, IEEE Trans. on Info. Forensics and
Security.

5.

Tomas Pevny et al, Merging Markov and DCT features for multiclass JPEG steganalysis, In E. J. Delp and P. W. Wong,
editors, Proceedings SPIE, Electronic Imaging, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents IX.

6.

San Jose (Sep 2009), Calibration revisited, Proceedings of the 11th ACM Multimedia & Security Workshop, Princeton, NJ.

7.

Database Reference: http://bows2.ec-lille.fr/

8.

T. Filler et al (Dec 2010), Gibbs Construction in Steganography, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and
Security.

APPENDICES
Euclidean Distance Between chen486 Features of cover Image and Stego Image at 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 bpp:
Table 2: Euclidean Distance with Chen486 Features
Cover vs. Sego at 0.2bpp
0.0908
0.1000
0.0646
0.1226
www.tjprc.org

Cover vs. Sego at 0.4bpp


0.0923
0.1035
0.0643
0.1273

Cover vs. Sego at 0.6bpp


0.0963
0.1076
0.0706
0.1372

Cover vs. Sego at 0.8bpp


0.1045
0.1191
0.0800
0.1844
editor@tjprc.org

30

S. Deepa & R. Umarani

Table 2: Contd.,
0.0620
0.0691
0.0462
0.0388
0.0518
0.1180
0.1172
0.0457
0.0797
0.0419
0.1113
0.0474
0.0822
0.0787
0.3205
0.0732
0.0408
0.0511
0.1058
0.0369
0.0651
0.0494
0.0731
0.0456
0.0324
0.077991

0.0730
0.0699
0.0567
0.0482
0.0530
0.1241
0.1140
0.0472
0.0978
0.0494
0.1160
0.0536
0.0863
0.0817
0.4633
0.0819
0.0479
0.0548
0.1137
0.0482
0.0696
0.0630
0.0773
0.0578
0.0433
0.088947

0.0825
0.0764
0.0642
0.0561
0.0597
0.1375
0.1205
0.0491
0.1323
0.0509
0.1239
0.0599
0.0864
0.0819
0.5587
0.0936
0.0460
0.0651
0.1489
0.0527
0.0718
0.0786
0.0815
0.0704
0.0515
0.100399

0.0978
0.0781
0.0784
0.0595
0.0607
0.1910
0.1285
0.0620
0.1769
0.0528
0.1530
0.0623
0.0885
0.0853
0.6921
0.1331
0.0547
0.0740
0.2395
0.0590
0.0755
0.0974
0.0802
0.0945
0.0629
0.121571

Euclidean Distance Between spam686 Features of cover Image and Stego Image at 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 bpp:
Table 3: Euclidean Distance with Spam686 Features
Cover vs. Sego at 0.2bpp
0.0053
0.0073
0.0023
0.0135
0.0028
0.0029
0.0021
0.0006
0.0015
0.0108
0.0074
0.0006
0.0055
0.0019
0.0091
0.0021
0.0030
0.0037
0.0255
0.0042
0.0006
0.0025
0.0080
0.0006
0.0037
Impact Factor (JCC): 6.2143

Cover vs. Sego at 0.4bpp


0.0059
0.0079
0.0026
0.0140
0.0035
0.0031
0.0028
0.0007
0.0016
0.0115
0.0077
0.0007
0.0077
0.0022
0.0097
0.0026
0.0031
0.0038
0.0409
0.0048
0.0008
0.0032
0.0087
0.0007
0.0038

Cover vs. Sego at 0.6bpp


0.0067
0.0088
0.0032
0.0156
0.0042
0.0034
0.0034
0.0008
0.0017
0.0134
0.0082
0.0008
0.0105
0.0025
0.0109
0.0031
0.0031
0.0039
0.0563
0.0068
0.0009
0.0041
0.0135
0.0009
0.0039

Cover vs. Sego at 0.8bpp


0.0081
0.0101
0.0045
0.0235
0.0052
0.0037
0.0045
0.0010
0.0021
0.0201
0.0093
0.0012
0.0148
0.0028
0.0154
0.0041
0.0032
0.0042
0.0722
0.0119
0.0012
0.0056
0.0230
0.0012
0.0042
NAAS Rating: 3.27

An Evaluation on State of the Art Feature Extractors for Steganalysis

0.0018
0.0032
0.0021
0.0014
0.004688

0.0027
0.0035
0.0030
0.0021
0.005698

Table 3: Contd.,
0.0036
0.0041
0.0044
0.0028
0.007096

31

0.0045
0.0049
0.0057
0.0035
0.009512

Euclidean Distance Between ccpev548 Features of cover Image and Stego Image at 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 bpp:
Table 4: Euclidean Distance with Ccpev548 Features
Cover Vs. Sego At 0.2bpp
0.9356
0.4996
0.8937
0.4360
0.4276
0.9600
0.5329
1.3412
0.9903
0.5292
0.6877
1.6286
0.4298
1.1810
0.5516
1.0661
0.9577
0.8667
0.3552
0.6481
1.2602
0.5311
0.5361
1.3222
0.7435
0.4368
0.9694
0.4370
0.4260
0.778646

Cover Vs. Sego At 0.4bpp


1.1987
1.0760
1.2914
0.7690
0.6599
1.2934
0.8099
1.6330
1.4427
0.8681
0.9136
2.0001
0.6330
1.3965
0.6766
1.2828
1.5735
1.0308
0.5769
0.7016
1.6656
0.6979
0.8948
2.0209
1.1048
0.7227
1.2452
0.7038
0.8555
1.094440

Cover Vs. Sego At 0.6bpp


1.3355
1.3070
1.6099
0.9975
0.8808
1.6869
1.0285
1.8184
1.5280
0.9745
1.3341
2.0541
0.8509
1.7526
1.0164
1.4180
1.3925
1.4338
0.7952
1.3906
1.9026
1.0380
0.9723
2.1679
1.2314
0.8358
1.5205
0.8173
0.9720
1.312511

Cover Vs. Sego At 0.8bpp


1.7047
1.2755
2.0981
1.2377
1.1271
1.7164
1.1846
2.2855
1.9739
1.3133
1.2641
2.5594
1.0659
1.9946
1.1112
1.7191
1.9693
1.6353
1.0472
1.4322
2.1168
1.4581
1.1447
2.0574
1.8932
1.0180
2.0036
1.1646
1.1234
1.575686

AUTHORS DETAIL

Deepa S has completed her M.C.A. from Vysya College, affiliated to Periyar University, Salem. She received her
M.Phil degree from Bharathidasan University, Tiruchirapalli. She is currently working as an Assistant Professor in
Computer Science Department, Government Arts College, Dharmapuri and pursuing Ph.D in Periyar University as part
time. Her area of interest is information security, detection and prevention of Steganalysis, user authentication. Her research
outputs include 4 papers in international journals and presented 1 paper in National Conference.

www.tjprc.org

editor@tjprc.org

32

S. Deepa & R. Umarani

Dr. R. UmaRani has completed her M.C.A. from NIT, Trichy and did her M.Phil. from Mother Teresa
University, Kodaikanal. She received her Ph.D. from Periyar University, Salem. She is working as Associate Professor in
Department of Computer Science, Sri Sarada College for women, Salem. Her research interest includes Information
Security, Data Mining, Fuzzy Logic and Mobile Computing. She has published 121 papers in National and International
journals and conferences and received best paper award for Enhancement of data security through obscurity by VIT,
India and security paper award for Security through obscurity by infosecwriters.com. She is co-author of the
books - Information Technology in Management, problem solving techniques and grid computing and published e-book on
Corel draw tips and techniques. She was the PI for MRP funded by UGC. She acted as chair person and as resource person
in National and International conferences.

Impact Factor (JCC): 6.2143

NAAS Rating: 3.27