Advertisement

Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 77, Issue 21, pp 28949–28968 | Cite as

A Markov based image forgery detection approach by analyzing CFA artifacts

  • Amneet Singh
  • Gurinder Singh
  • Kulbir Singh
Article
  • 118 Downloads

Abstract

The image acquisition device, the light is filtered through a Color Filter Array (CFA), where each pixel captures only one color (from Red, Green, and Blue), while others are calibrated. This process is known as interpolation process, and the artifacts introduced are called CFA or interpolation artifacts. The structure of these artifacts in the image is disturbed while a forgery is introduced in an image. In this paper, a high-order statistical approach is proposed to detect the inconsistencies in the artifacts of different parts of the image to expose any forgery present. The Markov Transition Probability Matrix (MTPM) is employed to develop various features that will detect the presence or absence of CFA artifacts in a particular region of the image. The Markov random process is applied because it provides an enhanced efficiency and reduced computational complexity for the forgery detection model. The algorithm is tested on 2 × 2 pixel block of the image which provides the results of a fine quality. There is no prior information of the location of the forged region of the image. The algorithm is tested on various images, taken from various social networking websites. The proposed forgery detection technique outperforms the existing state-of-the-art techniques for the different forgery scenarios by providing an average accuracy of 90.58%.

Keywords

Image interpolation Demosaicing CFA artifacts Digital image forensics Markov random process Image forgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N, and Avcibas I (2005) Source camera identification based on CFA interpolation, in Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on image processing 2005 (ICIP ‘05), pp. 69–72, SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N (2008) Classification of digital camera-models based on demosaicing artifacts. Digit Investig 5:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bunk J, Bappy JH, Mohammed TM, Nataraj L, Flenner A, Manjunath BS, Chandrasekran S, Chowdhury AKR, and Peterson L (2017) Detection and localization of image forgeries using resampling features and deep learning, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), pp. 1881–1889Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cao H, Kot A (2009) Accurate detection of demosaicing regularity for digital image forensics. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 4(4):899–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao H, Kot AC (2009) Accurate detection of demosaicing regularity from output images, in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS ‘09), pp. 497–500, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheddad A, Condell J, Curran K, McKevitt P (2010) A hash-based image encryption algorithm. Opt Commun 283(6):879–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society vol B 39:1–38MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Deng S, Zhan Y, Xiao D, Li Y (2011) Analysis and improvement of a hash-based image encryption algorithm. Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simul 16(8):3269–3278MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dirik AE, Memon N (2009) Image tamper detection based on demosaicing artifacts, in 16th IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP ‘09), pp. 11–20Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fan N, Jin C, and Huang Y (2009) A pixel-based digital photo authentication framework via demosaicking inter-pixel correlation, in 11th ACM Multimedia and Security Workshop (MM&Sec ‘09), pp. 125–129Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ferrara P, Bianchi T, De Rosa A, Piva A (2012) Image forgery localization via fine-grained analysis of CFA artifacts. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7(5):1566–1577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gallagher AC (2005) Detection of linear and cubic interpolation JPEG compressed images, in Computer and Robot Vision, Canadian Conference, vol. 0, pp. 65–72Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gallagher AC, Chen T (2008) Image authentication by detecting traces of demosaicing, in IEEE computer vision and pattern recognition workshop ((CVPRW 2008), pp. 21–25Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsu YF, Chang SF (2010) Camera response functions for image forensics: an automatic algorithm for splicing detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 5(4):816–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirchner M (2008) Fast and reliable resampling detection by spectral analysis of fixed linear prediction residue, in 10th ACM Multimedia and Security Workshop (MM&Sec ‘08), pp. 11–20Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirchner M (2010) Efficient estimation of CFA pattern configuration in digital camera images, in Proceedings of the Media Forensics and Security II, part of the IS&T-SPIE Electronic Imaging Symposium, N. D. Memon, J. Dittmann, A. M. Alattar, and E. J. Delp, Eds., vol. 7541 of Proceedings of SPIEGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Li W, Yuan Y, and Nenghai Y (2008) Detecting copy-paste forgery of JPEG image via block artifact grid extraction, in International workshop on local and non-local approximation in image processing, pp. 1–6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Li Y, Graham D, Zhou G, Qi X, Deng S, Xiao D (2013) Discrete-time markov model for wireless link burstiness simulations. Wirel Pers Commun 72(2):987–1004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Li H, Luo W, Qiu X, Huang J (2017) Image forgery localization via integrating tampering possibility maps. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 12(5):1240–1252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Liu Y, Guan Q, and Zhao X (2017) Copy-move forgery detection based on convolutional kernel network. Multimed Tools Appl 1–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-017-5374-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luo W, Jiwu H, Guoping Q (2006) Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital image, in 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR 2006), vol. 4. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McKay C, Swaminathan A, Gou H, and Wu M (2008) Image acquisition forensics: forensic analysis to identify imaging source, in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP ‘08), pp. 1657–1660, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Muhammad G, Hussain M, Bebis G (2012) Passive copy move image forgery detection using undecimated dyadic wavelet transform. Digit Investig 9(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pevny T, Filler T, Bas P (2010) Using high-dimensional image models to perform highly undetectable steganography, in Proceedings of International Workshop on Information Hiding, pp. 161–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Photo tampering throughout history (2012) http://www.fourandsix.com/photo-tampering-history/
  26. 26.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolation images. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53:3948–3959MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(2):758–767MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images. IEEE Trans Signal Process 53(10):3948–3959MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shi YQ, Chen C, and Chen W (2006) A Markov Process based approach to effective attacking JPEG steganography, in International Workshop on Information Hiding, springer berlin Heidelberg, pp. 249–254Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Singh G, Singh K (2016) Forensics for partially double compressed doctored JPEG images, Multimedia Tools and Applications, pp. 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh G, Singh K (2017) Improved JPEG anti-forensics with better image visual quality and forensic undetectability. Forensic Sci Int 277:133–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu KR (2007) Nonintrusive component forensics of visual sensors using output images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 2(1):91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu KJR (2008) Digital image forensics via intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 3(1):101–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xie X, and Livermore C (2016) A pivot-hinged, multilayer SU-8 micro motion amplifier assembled by a self-aligned approach, in Proceedings of the IEEE 29th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Xie X, and Livermore C (2017) Passively self-aligned assembly of compact barrel hinges for high-performance, out-of-plane mems actuators, in Proceedings of the IEEE 30th International Conference on Micro Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xie X, Zaitsev Y, Velásquez-García LF, Teller SJ, Livermore C (2014) Scalable, MEMS-enabled, vibrational tactile actuators for high resolution tactile displays. J Micromech Microeng 24(12):125014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Xie X, Zaitsev Y, Velásquez-García L, Teller S, and Livermore C (2014) compact, scalable, high-resolution, MEMS-enabled tactile displays, in Proceedings of the Solid-State Sensors, Actuators, and Microsystems WorkshopGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang Y, Li Y, Wen W, Wu Y, Chen JX (2015) Deciphering an image cipher based on 3-cell chaotic map and biological operations. Nonlinear Dynamics 82(4):1831–1837MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringThapar Institute of Engineering and TechnologyPatialaIndia

Personalised recommendations