Advertisement

Pattern Analysis and Applications

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 663–678 | Cite as

Automatic authentication of color laser print-outs using machine identification codes

  • Joost van Beusekom
  • Faisal Shafait
  • Thomas M. Breuel
Industrial and Commercial Application
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Authentication of documents can be done by detecting the printing device used to generate the print-out. Many manufacturers of color laser printers and copiers designed their devices in a way to integrate a unique tracking pattern in each print-out. This pattern is used to identify the exact device the print-out originates from. In this paper, we present an important extension of our previous work for (a) detecting the class of printer that was used to generate a print-out, namely automatic methods for (b) comparing two base patterns from two different print-outs to verify if two print-outs come from the same printer and for (c) automatic decoding of the base pattern to extract the serial number and, if available, the time and the date the document was printed. Finally, we present (d) the first public dataset on tracking patterns (also called machine identification codes) containing 1,264 images from 132 different printers. Evaluation on this dataset resulted in accuracies of up to 93.0 % for detecting the printer class. Comparison and decoding of the tracking patterns achieved accuracies of 91.3 and 98.3 %, respectively.

Keywords

Machine identification code Counterfeit protection Document authentication Color laser printer identification 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. 1.
    Ali GN, Chiang P-J, Mikkilineni AK, Allebach JP, Chiu GTC, Delp EJ (2005) Intrinsic and extrinsic signatures for information hiding and secure printing with electrophotographic devices. In: Proceedings of the international conference on digital printing technologies, New Orleans, September, pp 511–515Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amidror I (2002) A new print-based security strategy for the protection of valuable documents and products using moire intensity profiles. In: Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques IV [1], pp 89–100Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breuel TM (2001) A practical, globally optimal algorithm for geometric matching under uncertainty. Electron Notes Theor Comput Sci 46:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breuel TM (2003) Implementation techniques for geometric branch-and-bound matching methods. Comput Vis Image Underst 90(3):258–294CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ball GR, Stittmeyer R, Srihari SN (2010) Writer verification in historical documents. In: Proceedings of SPIE document recognition and retrieval XVII, vol 7543, San Jose, January, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breuel TM (2008) Binary morphology and related operations on run-length representations. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on computer vision theory and applications, Funchal, January, pp 159–166Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen S, Srihari S (2006) A new off-line signature verification method based on graph. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on pattern recognition, Hong Kong, August, pp 869–872Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Choi J-H, Im D-H, Lee H-Y, Oh J-T, Ryu J-H, Lee H-K (2009) Color laser printer identification by analyzing statistical features on discrete wavelet transform. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on image processing, Cairo, November, pp 1505–1508Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Electronic Frontier Foundation (2010) Docucolor tracking dot decoding guide. http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/ (accessed on 14.05.2010)
  10. 10.
    Hails J (2004) Criminal evidence. Thomson, LearningGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hampp NA, Neebe M, Juchem T, Wolperdinger M, Geiger M, Schmuck A (2004) Multifunctional optical security features based on bacteriorhodopsin. In: Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques V [2], pp 117–124Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang W, Ho ATS, Treharne H, Shi YQ (2010) A novel multi-size block Benford’s law scheme for printer identification, Shanghai, September, pp 643–652Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khanna N, Mikkilineni AK, Chiu GTC, Allebach JP, Delp EJ (2008) Survey of scanner and printer forensics at Purdue university. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on computational forensics [3], pp 22–34Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mikkilineni AK, Chiang P-J, Ali GN, Chiu GTC, Allebach JP, Delp EJ (2005) Printer identification based on graylevel co-occurrence features for security and forensic applications. In: Proceedings of SPIE security, steganography, and watermarking of multimedia contents VII, vol 5681, San Jose, February, pp 430–440Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MIT Media Lab (2009) Initiative to stop the use of tracking dots. http://www.seeingyellow.com (accessed on 18.12.2009)
  16. 16.
    Otsu N (1979) A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 9(1):62–66MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pu D, Ball GR, Srihari SN (2009) A machine learning approach to off-line signature verification using Bayesian inference. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on computational forensics, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5718, The Hague, August, pp 125–136Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sauvola J, Pietikainen M (2000) Adaptive document image binarization. Pattern Recogn 33(2):225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schomaker L, Bulacu M (2004) Automatic writer identification using connected-component contours and edge-based features of uppercase western script. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 26(6):787–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shannon CE (1948) A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423, 623–656Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schomaker L, Bulacu M, Franke K (2004) Automatic writer identification using fragmented connected-component contours. In: Proceedings of the 9th international workshop on frontiers in handwriting recognition, Tokyo, October, pp 185–190Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schreyer M (2009) Intelligent printing technique recognition and photocopy detection for forensic document examination. In: Proceedings of Informatiktage, vol S-8, Bonn, pp 39–42Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schulze C, Schreyer M, Stahl A, Breuel TM (2008) Evaluation of graylevel-features for printing technique classification in high-throughput document management systems. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on computational forensics [3], pp 35–46Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schulze C, Schreyer M, Stahl A, Breuel TM (2009). Using DCT features for printing technique and copy detection. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on digital forensics, Orlando, January, pp 95–106Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shafait F, Keysers D, Breuel TM (2008) Efficient implementation of local adaptive thresholding techniques using integral images. In: Proceedings of SPIE document recognition and retrieval XV, vol 6815, San Jose, January, pp 681510–681510Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smith PJ, O’Doherty P, Luna C, McCarthy S (2004) Commercial anticounterfeit products using machine vision. In: Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques V [2], pp 237–243Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tweedy JS (2001) Class characteristics of counterfeit protection system codes of color laser copiers. J Am Soc of Quest Doc Exam 4(2):53–66Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    van Beusekom J, Schreyer M, Breuel TM (2010) Automatic counterfeit protection system code classification. In: Proceedings of SPIE media forensics and security XII, San Jose, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    van Beusekom J, Shafait F, Breuel TM (2010) Combined orientation and skew detection using geometric text-line modeling. Int J Doc Anal Recogn 13(2):79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    van Renesse R (1995) Ordering the order, a survey of optical document security features. In: Proceedings of SPIE conference on practical holography IX, San Jose, February, pp 268–275Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Renesse R (1997) Paper based document security—a review. In: European conference on security and detection, London, April, pp 75–80Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    van Renesse R (2002) Hidden and scambled images—a review. In: Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques IV [1], pp 333–348Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    van Renesse R (2006) Protection of high security documents—developments in holography to secure the future market and serve the public. In: Proceedings of Holo-Pack.Holo-Print, Vienna, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    van Renesse RL (2002)Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques IV, vol 4677, San Jose, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    van Renesse RL (2004) Proceedings of SPIE optical security and counterfeit deterrence techniques V, vol 5310, San Jose, JanuaryGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    van Renesse RL (2008) Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on computational forensics, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5158, Washington, AugustGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joost van Beusekom
    • 1
  • Faisal Shafait
    • 1
  • Thomas M. Breuel
    • 2
  1. 1.German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI)KaiserslauternGermany
  2. 2.Image Understanding and Pattern Recognition Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of KaiserslauternKaiserslauternGermany

Personalised recommendations