Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 75, Issue 23, pp 15849–15880 | Cite as

Modelling attacks on self-authentication watermarking

Article

Abstract

Although the Self-Authentication Watermarking (SAW) schemes are promising to tackle the multimedia information assurance problem, their unknown security level seems to impair their potential. In this paper, we identify three new counterfeiting attacks on those schemes and present their countermeasure. We develop, analyse, and validate the models of the identified attacks followed by the development of a new SAW model to resist those attacks. The identified attack models generalize three main security levels that capture all the possible counterfeiting instances. We focus on the block-wise dependent fragile watermarking schemes, and their general weaknesses. Experimental results successfully demonstrate the practicality and consequences of the identified attacks in exploiting those weaknesses to maliciously and undetectably alter valid watermarked images. To resist the identified attacks, we further determine a set of general requirements for SAW schemes and illustrate their attainment in developing an extended SAW model. While the identified attack models can be used as a means to systematically examine the security levels of similar SAW schemes, the extended SAW model may lead to developing their more secure variants. Our study has also revealed some open challenges in the development and formal analysis of SAW schemes.

Keywords

Counterfeiting attack Fragile watermarking Information assurance Multimedia security Self-authentication 

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmed F, Siyal MY, Uddin Abbas V (2010) A secure and robust hash-based scheme for image authentication. Sig Process 90(5):1456–1470CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barré S Medical image samples. http://barre.nom.fr/medical/samples/ (2003). [Online; last accessed 12-Dec-2013]
  3. 3.
    Bartolini F, Tefas A, Barni M, Pitas I (2001) Image authentication techniques for surveillance applications. Proc IEEE 89:1403–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celik MU, Sharma G, Saber E, Tekalp AM (2002) Hierarchical watermarking for secure image authentication with localization. IEEE Trans Image Process 11(6):585–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chang CC, Fan YH, Tai WL (2008) Four-scanning attack on hierarchical digital watermarking method for image tamper detection and recovery. Pattern Recog 41(2):654–661CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The USC-SIPI image database. http://sipi.usc.edu/database/ (1977). [Online; last accessed 23-Nov-2013]
  7. 7.
    Dittmann J, Steinmetz A, Steinmetz R (1999) Content-based digital signature for motion pictures authentication and content-fragile watermarking. Proc ICMCS’99 2:209–213Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edupuganti VG, Shih FY, Chang IC (2012) An Efficient Block-Based Fragile Watermarking System for Tamper Localization and Recovery. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fei C, Kundur D, Kwong RH (2006) Analysis and design of secure watermark-based authentication systems. IEEE Trans on Information Forensics and Security 1(1):43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fridrich J (2000) Visual hash for oblivious watermarking. In: Electronic Imaging, pp 286–294. SPIEGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M (1999) Images with self-correcting capabilities. In: Proceedings of ICIP’99, vol 3, pp 792–796. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M (1999) Protection of digital images using self embedding. In: Symposium on Content Security and Data Hiding in Digital Media. Newark, NJ, USAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M (2000) Robust hash functions for digital watermarking. In: Proceedings of ITCC’00, pp 178–183. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M, Du R (2002) Lossless data embedding-new paradigm in digital watermarking. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing:185–196Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M, Memon N (2002) Cryptanalysis of the yeung-mintzer fragile watermarking technique. Journal of Electronic Imaging 11:262–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Giry D Cryptographic key length recommendation. http://www.keylength.com/en/ (2013). [Online; last accessed 21-Nov-2013]
  17. 17.
    Han SH, Chu CH (2010) Content-based image authentication: current status, issues, and challenges. Int J Inf Secur 9:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haouzia A, Noumeir R (2008) Methods for image authentication: A survey. Multimedia Tools and Applications 39:1–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    He H, Zhang J, Wang H (2006) Synchronous counterfeiting attacks on self-embedding watermarking schemes. Int Journal of Computer Science and Network Security 6(1B):251–257Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    He HJ, Zhang JS, Chen F (2009) Adjacent-block based statistical detection method for self-embedding watermarking techniques. Signal Process 89(8):1557–1566CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Holliman M, Memon N (2000) Counterfeiting attacks on oblivious block-wise independent invisible watermarking schemes. IEEE Trans Image Process 9:432–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katzenbeisser S, Liu H, Steinebach M (2013) Challenges and solutions in multimedia document authenticationGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kutter M, Petitcolas FA (1999) Fair benchmark for image watermarking systems. In: Electronic Imaging’99, pp 226–239. SPIEGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee TY, Lin SD (2008) Dual watermark for image tamper detection and recovery. Pattern Recog 41(11):3497–3506CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lie WN, Lin TI, Cheng SL (2006) Dual protection of jpeg images based on informed embedding and two-stage watermark extraction techniques. IEEE Trans on Information Forensics and Security 1(3):330–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Liew SC, Zain JM (2010) Experiment of tamper detection and recovery watermarking in picture archiving and communication systems. J Comput Sci 6:794–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lin PL, Hsieh CK, Huang PW (2005) A hierarchical digital watermarking method for image tamper detection and recovery. Pattern Recognit 38(12):2519–2529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lin PL, Huang PW, Peng AW (2004) A fragile watermarking scheme for image authentication with localization and recovery. In: Proceedings of MSE’04, pp 146–153. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lu CS, Liao HY (2003) Structural digital signature for image authentication: an incidental distortion resistant scheme. IEEE Trans Multimedia 5(2):161–173MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mobasseri BG, Sieffert MJ, Simard RJ (2000) Content authentication and tamper detection in digital video. In: Proceedings of ICIP’00, vol 1, pp 458–461. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nyeem H (2014) A digital watermarking framework with application to medical image security. Ph.D. thesis, QUT, School of Electrical Eng. and Computer Science, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nyeem H, Boles W, Boyd C (2011) Developing a digital image watermarking model. In: Proceedings of DICTA’11, pp 468–473. IEEE, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nyeem H, Boles W, Boyd C (2012) On the robustness and security of digital image watermarking. In: Proceedings of ICIEV’12. IEEE, PiscatawayGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nyeem H, Boles W, Boyd C (2013) Counterfeiting attacks on block-wise dependent fragile watermarking schemes. In: Proceedings of SIN’13, pp 86–93. ACMGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Nyeem H, Boles W, Boyd C (2014) Digital image watermarking: its formal model, fundamental properties and possible attacks. EURASIP Journal on Advances in Signal Processing 2014(1):135. doi:10.1186/1687-6180-2014-135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Paar C, Pelzl J (2010) Understanding cryptography: a textbook for students and practitioners. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Petitcolas FA Stirmark benchmark 4.0. http://www.petitcolas.net/fabien/Watermarking/stirmark/ (2004). [Online; last accessed 26-Mar-2014]
  38. 38.
    Rey C, Dugelay JL (2002) A survey of watermarking algorithms for image authentication. EURASIP Journal on Applied Signal Processing 2002(1):613–621CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sencar H, Memon N (2008) Overview of state-of-the-art in digital image forensics. Algorithms, Architectures and Information Systems Security 3:325–348Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sun Q, Chang SF (2005) A secure and robust digital signature scheme for JPEG2000 image authentication. IEEE Trans Multimedia 7(3):480–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tian J Content authentication and recovery using digital watermarks (2008). US Patent 7,389,420Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Weng L, Braeckman G, Dooms A, Preneel B, Schelkens P (2012) Robust image content authentication with tamper location. In: Proceedings of ICME’12, pp 380–385. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wong PW, Memon N (2001) Secret and public key image watermarking schemes for image authentication and ownership verification. IEEE Trans Image Process 10:1593–1601CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Xie L, Arce GR, Graveman RF (2001) Approximate image message authentication codes. IEEE Trans Multimedia 3(2):242–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yeung MM, Mintzer F (1997) An invisible watermarking technique for image verification. In: Proceedings of ICIP’97, vol 2, pp 680–683. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Zain JM, Fauzi AR (2006) Medical image watermarking with tamper detection and recovery. In: Proceedings of IEEE EMBS’06, pp 3270–3273. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhang Hb, Yang C (2004) Tamper detection and self recovery of images using self-embedding. Chin J Electron 32(2):196–199Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zhu BB, Swanson MD, Tewfik AH (2004) When seeing isn’t believing [multimedia authentication technologies]. IEEE Signal Proc Mag 21(2):40–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering (ECE)Khulna University of Engineering and Technology (KUET)KhulnaBangladesh
  2. 2.School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS)Queensland University of Technology (QUT)BrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.Department of TelematicsNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  4. 4.School of EECSQUTBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations