Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 1, pp 485–502 | Cite as

Forensics for partially double compressed doctored JPEG images

Article
  • 207 Downloads

Abstract

Digital image forensics is required to investigate unethical use of doctored images by recovering the historic information of an image. Most of the cameras compress the image using JPEG standard. When this image is decompressed and recompressed with different quantization matrix, it becomes double compressed. Although in certain cases, e.g. after a cropping attack, the image can be recompressed with the same quantization matrix too. This JPEG double compression becomes an integral part of forgery creation. The detection and analysis of double compression in an image help the investigator to find the authenticity of an image. In this paper, a two-stage technique is proposed to estimate the first quantization matrix or steps from the partial double compressed JPEG images. In the first stage of the proposed approach, the detection of the double compressed region through JPEG ghost technique is extended to the automatic isolation of the doubly compressed part from an image. The second stage analyzes the doubly compressed part to estimate the first quantization matrix or steps. In the latter stage, an optimized filtering scheme is also proposed to cope with the effects of the error. The results of proposed scheme are evaluated by considering partial double compressed images based on the two different datasets. The partial double compressed datasets have not been considered in the previous state-of-the-art approaches. The first stage of the proposed scheme provides an average percentage accuracy of 95.45%. The second stage provides an error less than 1.5% for the first 10 DCT coefficients, hence, outperforming the existing techniques. The experimental results consider the partial double compressed images in which the recompression is done with different quantization matrix.

Keywords

Image forensics Partially double compressed First quantization matrix DCT coefficient histogram JPEG 

References

  1. 1.
    Battiato S, Messina G (2009) Digital forgery estimation into DCT domain: a critical analysis. In: Proc. ACM Workshop Multimedia Forensics (MiFor), pp. 37–42Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bianchi T, Piva A (2012) Image forgery localization via block-grained analysis of JPEG artifacts. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 7(3):1003–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen YL, Hsu CT (2011) Detecting recompression of JPEG images via periodicity analysis of compression artifacts for tampering detection. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 6(2):396–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen C, Shi YQ, Su W (2008) A machine learning based scheme for double JPEG compression detection. In: Proc. In: 19th Int. Conf. Pattern Recognit. (ICPR), pp, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dataset Eastman Kodak [Online] (2014) Available: http://r0k.us/graphics/kodak/
  6. 6.
    Fan Z, De Queiroz RL (2003) Identification of bitmap compression history: JPEG detection and quantizer estimation. IEEE Trans Image Process 12(2):230–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Farid H (2009a) Image forgery detection. IEEE signal process. Mag 26(2):16–25Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farid H (2009b) Exposing digital forgeries from JPEG ghosts. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 1(4):154–160MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galvan F, Puglisi G, Bruna AR, Battiato S (2014) First quantization matrix estimation from double compressed JPEG images. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 9(8):1299–1310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    He J, Lin Z, Wang L, Tang X (2006) Detecting doctored JPEG images via DCT coefficient analysis. In: proc. 9th Eur. Conf Comput Vis (ECCV) 3953:423–435Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ho ATS, Li S (2015) Handbook of Digital forensics of multimedia data and devices. Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9781118705773
  12. 12.
    Huang F, Huang J, Shi YQ (2010) Detecting double JPEG compression with the same quantization matrix. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 5(4):848–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Huang DY, Huang CN, Hu WC, Chou CH (2015) Robustness of copy-move forgery detection under high JPEG compression artifacts. Multimed Tools Appl. 1–22Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Independent JPEG Group [Online] (2014) Available: http://www.ijg.org/
  15. 15.
    Jaiswal N, Meghrajani YK (2015) Saliency Based Automatic Image Cropping Using Support Vector Machine Classifier. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Innovations in Information Embedded and Communication Systems, pp. 1–5Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kee E, Johnson MK, Farid H (2011) Digital image authentication from JPEG headers. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 6(3):1066–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lai S, Böhme R (2011) Countering counter-forensics: The case of JPEG compression. In: Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Hiding, pp. 285–298Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin Z, He J, Tang X, Tang CK (2009) Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered JPEG image detection via DCT coefficient analysis. Pattern Recogn 42(11):2492–2501CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu Q (2011) Detection of misaligned cropping and recompression with the same quantization matrix and relevant forgery. In: Proc. 3rd Int. ACM Workshop Multimedia Forensics Intell. (MiFor), pp. 25–30Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lukas J, Fridrich J (2003) Estimation of primary quantization matrix in double compressed JPEG images. In: Proc. Digit. Forensic Res. Workshop (DFRWS), pp. 5–8Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo W, Huang J, Qiu G (2010) JPEG error analysis and its applications to digital image forensics. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 5(3):480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pevny T, Fridrich J (2008) Multi-class detector of current Steganographic methods for JPEG format. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 3(4):635–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2004) Statistical tools for digital forensics. In: Proc. 6th Int. Workshop Inform. Hiding, pp. 128–147Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Puglisi G, Bruna AR, Galvan F, Battiato S (2013) First JPEG quantization matrix estimation based on histogram analysis. In: Proc. Int. Conf. on Image Processing, pp. 4502–4506Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Redi JA, Dugelay JL (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimed Tools Appl. 51(1):133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schaefer G, Stich M (2004) UCID-an uncompressed colour image database. In Proc SPIE 5307:472–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shi F, Kang B, Li H, Zhu Y (2012) A new method for detecting JEPG doubly compression images by using estimated primary quantization step. Proc. Int. Conf. on Systems and Informatics, In, pp 1810–1814Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stamm MC, Liu KJR (2013) Information forensics: an overview of the first decade. IEEE Access 1:167–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu KJR (2008) Digital image forensics via intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security 3(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Piva A (2013) An overview on image forensics. In: Proc. ISRN Signal Process, pp. 496–701Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Thing VLL, Chen Y, Cheh C (2012) An improved double compression detection method for JPEG image forensics. In: Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Multimedia (ISM), pp. 290–297Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yang J, Xie J, Zhu G, Kwong S, Shi YQ (2014) An effective method for detecting double JPEG compression with the same quantization matrix. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Security 9(11):1933–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zhang R, Wang RD (2015) In-camera JPEG compression detection for doubly compressed images. Multimed Tools Appl 74(15):5557–5575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Taimori A, Razzazi F, Behrad A, Ahmadi A, Zadeh MB(2016) A novel forensic image analysis tool for discovering double JPEG compression clues. Multimed Tools Appl. 1–35Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wang W, Dong J, Tan T (2011) Exploring DCT coefficient quantization effect for image tampering localization. In Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Inform. Forensics Security, pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Zhang J, Li H, Chen CW (2015a) Distributed lossless coding techniques for hyperspectral images. IEEE Journal of Selected topics in Signal Processing 9(6):977–989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang L, Zhang L, Tao D, Huang X, Du B (2015b) Compression of hyperspectral remote sensing images by tensor approach. Neurocomputing 147:358–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zach F, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2012) Automated image forgery detection through classification of JPEG ghosts. In: Proc. of the joint 34th DAGM and 36th OAGM symposium, pp. 185–194Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ullerich C, Westfeld A (2008) Weaknesses of MB2. In: Proc. Int. Workshop Digital Watermarking, pp. 127–142Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringThapar UniversityPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations