Multimedia Security And Forensics

Authentication of Digital Images

CS525 Semester Project

Spring 2006

Sarah Summers
Sarah Wahl
 Motivation
Seeing is believing … or is it?
Easy to be deceived
 Goals
 Identify image tampering methods.

 Assess methods available for protecting

images.

 Assess image authentication techniques.

 Identify directions for future work.

 Categories of Image Tampering

 There are three main categories of image

tampering:

 Enhancing
 Compositing
 Copy/Move
 Enhancing
 Changing the color
of objects
 Changing the
weather conditions
 Blurring out objects
Compositing

Combining two or
more images to
create a new image
 Copy-Move
Copying regions of
the original image
and pasting into
other areas.

The yellow area has

been copied and
moved to conceal
the truck.
 What can be done to protect
digital images?
Watermarking
 Fragile watermarks
 Semi-fragile watermarks
 Self-embedding watermarks
 Digital cameras with watermarking
capabilities
Digital Fingerprinting/Signatures
 Digital cameras with fingerprinting
capabilities
 Digital Watermarking
 The basic concept of digital watermarking
an image is that a low level signal is
placed directly into the image data.
 Any manipulation of the image will impact
the watermark and subsequent retrieval of
the watermark and examination of its
condition will indicate if tampering has
occurred.
 Fragile Watermarks
 Fragile watermarks are designed to detect
every possible change in pixel values .
 Variety of Techniques but in most cases,
the watermark is embedded in the least
significant bit (LSB) of the image.
 Advantages: Pick up all image
manipulations – malicious and non-
malicious
 Disadvantages: Too sensitive
 Semi-Fragile Watermarks
 They are robust, to a certain extent, and are less
sensitive to pixel modifications.

 Techniques:
 Divide image into blocks and utilize bits from each
block to calculate a spread spectrum noise like signal
which is combined with DCT coefficients and inserted
as a watermark.
 Divide image into blocks, construct watermark in DCT
domain from pseudo-random zero-mean unit variance
Gaussian numbers, take the inverse DCT and insert
into the image.

 Advantage: less sensitive than fragile watermarks

 Self-Embedding
 Tampered images result in lost information. The previous
techniques will only detect and localize areas of interest
when authentication is carried out.
 Self-embedding allows tamper detection and recovery of
missing information.
 General concept is that the image is embedded in itself
in an encrypted form.

 Advantage: Potential for original data to be retrieved.

 Disadvantage: Tampering with the image can remove
blocks of the original image making retrieval of content
impossible
 Digital Cameras with
Watermarking Capabilities
 Watermarking based on secret key, block ID and
content. The image is divided into blocks and
each block watermarked using a frequency
based spread spectrum technique incorporating
the secret key, block ID and block content.

 Image of photographers iris is combined with the

camera ID, the hash of the original image and
other details specific to the camera.
 Digital Fingerprints/Signatures
 Based on the concept of public key
encryption.
 Hashed version of image is encrypted
using a private key.
 Encrypted file provides a unique
signature/fingerprint of the image which
can be used to authenticate by decryption
with public key.
 Mainly used in transmission of images.
 Digital Cameras with
Fingerprinting Capabilities
 Epson Image Authentication System (IAS)
 The IAS software in the camera instantly
seals the captured images with an
invisible digital fingerprint.
 Verification of image is achieved by any
PC with Image Authentication System
software installed
 Authentication Techniques
 Active Authentication
 Rely on the presence of a watermark or
fingerprint.
 Require knowledge original image
 Algorithm/key used to embed the watermark
or fingerprint.
 Passive Authentication
 No requirement of knowledge of original
image.
 Does not rely of presence of watermark or
fingerprint.
 Passive Authentication
Techniques

 Detecting Copy-Move
 Detecting Traces of Re-sampling

 Detecting Light Inconsistencies

 Copy-Move Detection

Original Image Tampered Image

Exact Match Robust Match

 Copy-Move Detection

Original Image Tampered Image PCA Detection

 Re-sampling Detection

Original Image Tampered Image

Fourier Transform of Periodic pattern in Fourier

unaltered region Transform of altered region
Inconsistencies in Lighting

Tampered Image

Genuine Image
 Future Research
 Development of a better self embedding
technique.

 Development of an all inclusive passive

authentication technique.
 Conclusions
 Digital image forgeries can be used to
deceive the public and the authorities.
 They are here to stay.
 Until non destructible/ non removal digital
watermarks are perfected, passive
authentication will remain necessary.
 Currently no single passive authentication
technique can detect all types of digital
forgeries.
 References
 Hany Farid, Creating and Detecting Doctored and Virtual Images: Implications to The Child
Pornography Prevention Act, Technical Report, TR2004-518, Dartmouth College, Computer
Science.

 Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images, Jessica Fridrich, David Soukal and Jan
Lukas, Proceedings of Digital Forensic Research Workshop, August 2003,
www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/copymove.pdf

 Detection of image alterations using semi-fragile watermarks, E.T. Lin, C. I. Podilchuk, and E.J.
Delp, http://shay.ecn.purdue.edu/~linet/papers/SPIE-2000.pdf

 Semi-fragile watermarking for Telltale Tamper Proofing and Authenticating, H. H. Ko and S. J.

Park,
http://www.hongik.edu/~sjpark/udt/Semi-Fragile%20Watermarking%20for%20Telltale%20Tampe
r%20Proofing%20and%20A.doc

 Methods for Tamper Detection in Digital Images, Jiri Fridrich, Proc. ACM Workshop on
Multimedia and Security, Orlando, FL, October 30-31, 1999, pp. 19-23,
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/acm99.doc

 Information Authentication for a Slippery New Age, S. Walton, Dr. Dobbs Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4,
pp 18-26, Apr 1995

 Blind Detection of Photomontage using Higher Order Statistics, T. Ng, S. Chang and Q. Sun,
http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~qibin/papers/qibin2004_iscas_1.pdf
 References (continued)
 A Digital Watermark, R. van Schyndel, A. Tirkel and C. Osborne , Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing, vol. 2, pp. 86-90, Austin, Texas, November
1994 http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~ronvs/papers/ICIP94.PDF

 A Watermark for Image Integrity and Ownership Verification, P. Wong, IS&T’s 1998 Image
Processing, Image Quality, Image Capture, Systems Conference, Portland, Oregon, May
1998, pp. 374 – 379

 An Invisible Watermarking Technique for Image Verification, M. Yeung and F. Mintzer, Proc.
ICIP’97, Santa Barbara, California 1997

 Image watermarking for tamper detection, Jiri Fridrich, Proc. ICIP '98, Chicago, Oct 1998,
http://www.rl.af.mil/programs/shid/downloads/icip98_434.pdf

 Methods for Detecting Changes in Digital Images, J. Fridrich, Proc. of The 6th IEEE
International Workshop on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communication Systems
(ISPACS'98), Melbourne, Australia, 4-6 November 1998, pp. 173–177,
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/ispacs.doc

 A Robust Content Based Digital Signature for Image Authentication, M. Schneider and S.
Chang, Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, 1996, Volume 3,
Issue , 16-19 Sep 1996 Page(s):227 - 230
 References (continued)
 A New Fingerprinting Method for Digital Images, V. Fotopoulos and A. N. Skodras,
http://www.upatras.gr/ieee/skodras/pubs/ans-c35.pdf

 Mehdi Kharrazi, Husrev T. Sencar and Nasir Memon, Blind Source Camera Identification,
International Conference on Image Processing, 2004, ICIP’04, Volume 1, 24-27 Oct. 2004, pp.
709 -712

 Rotation, Scale and Translation Invariant Digital Image Watermarking, J.J.K. O’Ruanaidh and
T. Pun, Proceedings of the ICIP, VOl. 1, pp 536-539, Santa Barbara, California, Oct 1997.

 Secure Digital Camera, Paul Blythe and Jessica Fridrich,

http://www.dfrws.org/2004/bios/day3/D3-lyth_Secure_Digital_Camera.pdf

 Alin C. Popescu and Hany Farid, Exposing Digital Forgeries in Color Filter Array Interpolated
Images, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, Vol. 53, Issue 10, Part 2, October 2005, pp
3948-3959

 Epson's Image Authentication for digicams,

http://www.dpreview.com/new/9904/99040501epson.asp

 When is Seeing Believing, W. J. Mitchell, Scientific American, pp. 44 -49, February 1994.
 References (continued)
 Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting by M. K. Johnson and H. Farid, ACM
Multimedia and Security Workshop, New York, NY, 2005,
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/publications/acm05.pdf

 Exposing Digital Forgeries by Detecting Traces of Re-sampling, A. C. Popescu and H. Farid, IEEE
Transactions on Signal Processing, 53(2):758-767, 2005,
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~farid/publications/sp05.pdf

 Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions, A. C. Popescu and H. Farid, Technical
Report 2004-515, Dartmouth College, http://www.ists.dartmouth.edu/library/tr-2004-515.pdf

 A Tutorial on Principal Components Analaysis, Lindsay I. Smith

http://csnet.otago.ac.nz/cosc453/student_tutorials/principal_components.pdf

 Automatic Estimation of the Projected Light Source Direction, P. Nillius and j. –O. Eklundh, Proceddings
of the IEEE Computer Science Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2001

 Protection of Digital Images Using Self Embedding, J. Fridrich and M. Goljan, Symposium on Content
Security and Data Hiding in Digital Media, New Jersey Institute of Technology, May 14, 1999,
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/nj_may14.doc

 A Model for Image Splicing, T. Ng and S. Chang, ICIP '04. International Conference on Image
Processing,. Volume 2,  24-27 Oct. 2004 Page(s):1169 - 1172 Vol.2