An effectual classification approach to detect copy-move forgery using support vector machines

  • Amrita Parashar
  • Arvind Kumar Upadhyay
  • Kamlesh Gupta


The growing need of digital software and media deals with the tampering of numerous multimedia data for mischievous determinations in case of broadcasting approaches. The supreme collective procedure of tampering linked with digital descriptions is copy–move forgery system that deals with a portion of duplicate image and replaced in diverse locations. Therefore, forensic authorities require consistent and effective means of sensing such maliciously forged data. Following study recommends a learning method for the detection of forgery. The image segmentation is the first step, in which the histogram of angled slopes is functional to every block followed by feature extraction; and concentrated to enable the dimension of resemblance. The detection is done using Support vector machines. The results establish that the projected process is intelligent to perceive various instances of copy–move forgery which are able to detect the duplicate regions.


Segmentation Classification Forgery detection Learning systems 



  1. 1.
    Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2013) Passive detection of copy–move forgery in digital images: states-of-the-art. Forensic Sci Int 206(1):284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Serra G (2011) A SIFT-based forensic method for copy–move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 6:1099–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bayram S, Husrev HT, Memon N (2009) An efficient and robust method for detecting copy–move forgery. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 1053–1056Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen L, Lu W, Ni J, Sun W, Huang J (2013) Region duplication detection based on Harris corner points and step sector statistics. J Vis Commun Image Represent 24:244–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    CoMoFoD Database. <>
  6. 6.
    Costanzo A, Amerini I, Caldelli R, Barni M (2014) Forensic analysis of SIFT keypoint removal and injection. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 9(9):1450–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dalal N, Triggs B (2005) Histograms of oriented gradients for human detection. CVPR:20–25Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fridrich J (1999) Methods for tamper detection in digital images. In: Proceedings of the ACM workshop on multimedia and security, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fridrich J, Soukal D, Lukas J (2003) Detection of copy–move forgery in digital images. In: proceedings of digital forensic research workshop, pp 19–23Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gloe T, Kirchner M, Winkler A, Behme R (2007) Can we trust digital image forensics? In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on multimedia, pp 78–86Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kang X, Wei S (2008) Identifying tampered regions using singular value decomposition in digital image forensics. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer science and software engineering, pp 926–930Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khan S, Kulkarni A (2010) An efficient method for detection of copy–move forgery using discrete wavelet transform. Int J Comput Sci Eng 2:1801–1806Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li L, Li S, Zhu H (2013) An efficient scheme for detecting copy–move forged images by local binary patterns. JIHMSP 4:46–56Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Wu X (2014) Detecting copy–move forgery under affine transforms for image forensics. Comput Electr Eng 40:1951–1962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lowe D (1999) Object recognition from local scale-invariant features. ICCV 2:1150–1157Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luo W, Huang J, Qiu G (2006) Robust detection of region duplication forgery in digital image. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on pattern recognition, vol 4. pp 746–749Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Luo W, Qu Z, Pan F, Huang J (2009) A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics. FCSC 1:308–322Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lynch G, Shih FY, Liao HM (2013) An efficient expanding block algorithm for image copy–move forgery detection. Inf Sci 239:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mahdian B, Saic S (2007) Detection of copy–move forgery using a method based on blur moment invariants. Forensic Sci Int 171:180–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pan X, Lyu S (2010) Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 4:857–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popescu A, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Technical Report TR2004–515, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth CollegeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amrita Parashar
    • 1
  • Arvind Kumar Upadhyay
    • 1
  • Kamlesh Gupta
    • 2
  1. 1.Amity school of engineering & TechnologyAmity University Madhya PradeshGwaliorIndia
  2. 2.Rustamji Institute of Technology (RJIT)GwaliorIndia

Personalised recommendations