Advertisement

Two stages object recognition based copy-move forgery detection algorithm

  • Mohamed A. Elaskily
  • Heba A. ElnemrEmail author
  • Mohamed M. Dessouky
  • Osama S. Faragallah
Article
  • 48 Downloads

Abstract

Copy-Move Forgery Detection (CMFD) is a key issue of image forensics. A copy-move forgery is a type of image tampering that is created by copying a part of the image and pasting it on another part of the same image to perniciously hide or clone certain regions. This paper presents a new methodology for CMFD in digital images. The proposed algorithm is performed in two successive stages; matching stage and refinement stage. In the matching stage, close morphological operation and Connected Component Labeling (CCL) are used to segment the target image into different objects. The Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) are extracted from each object and used to build an object catalog. The objects in the catalog are compared to each other, and matched objects are determined. If matched objects exist, the image is categorized as forged image. Otherwise, it is categorized as original image. The refinement stage, on the other hand, is implemented to ensure the originality of the target image. Thus, the candidate image that is classified as original is fed into the refinement stage to certify its originality. In this stage, close and open morphological operations as well as CCL are utilized to obtain the various objects in the image. Afterward, the SURF features are extracted from each object and used to build a new object catalog. The match between the objects in this catalog is obtained. If similar objects are found, the candidate image is classified as forged. Otherwise, the image is categorized as original. The proposed technique is assessed on four popular datasets. The results demonstrate the capability and robustness of the proposed technique in detecting the copy-move forgery under different geometrical attacks. Furthermore, the outcomes show that the suggested technique outperforms the previous CMFD methods in terms of Accuracy and execution time.

Keywords

Copy-move forgery detection Morphological operation Object detection Connected component labeling Speeded up robust features 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Ali Qureshi M, Deriche M (2014) A review on copy-move image forgery detection techniques. Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals & Devices (SSD), 11–14Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2013) Passive detection of copy-move forgery in digital images: state-of-the-art. Forensic Sci Int pp 284–295Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    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(3)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Amerini I, Barni M, Caldelli R, Costanzo A (2013) SIFT keypoint removal and injection for countering matching-based image forensics. EURASIP J Inf Secur 8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-417X-2013-8
  5. 5.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Del Bimbo A, Del Tongo L, Serra G (2013) Copy-move forgery detection and localization by means of robust clustering with j-linkage. Signa Process Image Commun 28(6):659–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bay H, Ess A, Tuytelaars T, Van Gool L (2008) Speeded-up robust features (SURF). Comput Vis Image Underst 110:346–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Birajdar GK, Mankar VH (2013) Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: a survey. Digit Investig pp 226–245Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(6):1841–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Costanzo A, Amerini I, Caldelli R, Barni M (2014) Forensic analysis of SIFT Keypoint removal and injection. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 9(9)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Derroll D, Divya B (2015) Image authentication techniques and advances survey, compusoft. Int J Adv Comput Technol 4(4), Volume-IV, Issue-IVGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dixit R, Naskar R, Mishra S (2017) Blur-invariant copy-move forgery detection technique with improved detection accuracy utilising SWT-SVD. IET Image Process 301–309Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elaskily MA, Aslan HK, Abd El-Samie FE, Elshakankiry OA, Faragallah OS, Dessouky MM (2017) Comparative study of copy-move forgery detection techniques. Intl Conf on Advanced Control Circuits Systems (ACCS) Systems & Intl Conf on New Paradigms in Electronics & Information Technology (PEIT), Alexandria, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haouzia A, Noumeir R (2008) Methods for image authentication: a survey. Multimed Tools Appl 1–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-007-0154-3
  14. 14.
    Hashmi MF, Anand V, Keskar AG (2014) Copy-move image forgery detection using an efficient and robust method combining un-decimated wavelet transform and scale invariant feature transform. AASRI Conf Circ Sig Process (CSP 2014) pp 84–91Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    He L, Ren X, Gao Q, Zhao X, Yao B, Chao Y (2017) The connected-component labeling problem: a review of state-of-the-art algorithms. Pattern Recogn pp 25–43Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huynh TK, Le-Tien T, Huynh KV, Nguyen SC (2015) A survey on image forgery detection techniques, IEEE RIVF International Conference on Computing & Communication Technologies Research, Innovation, and Vision for Future (RIVF)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang X, Lin G, Chen Y, Zhang E, Duan G (2012) Detecting tampered regions in digital images using discrete cosine transform and singular value decomposition. Int J Digit Content Technol Appl (JDCTA) 6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaur R (2016) Image forgery and detection of copy move forgery in digital images: a survey of recent forgery detection techniques. Int J Comput Appl 139(5)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kaur H, Saxena J, Singh S (2015) Simulative comparison of copy- move forgery detection methods for digital images. Int J Electron Electr Comput Syst IJEECS, ISSN 2348-117X, 4Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaur R, Zail G, Kaur A (2016) A review of copy-move forgery detection techniques. Int J Comput Sci Inf Technol Secur (IJCSITS) 6(2)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Le-Tien T, Huynh-Kha T, Pham-Cong-Hoan L, Tran-Hong A, Dey N, Luong M (2017) Combined Zernike moment and multiscale analysis for tamper detection in digital images. Informatica 41:59–70MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Han L, Zhang L, Rosenblum DS (2015) Action 2 activity: recognizing complex activities from sensor data. Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu Y, Zhang L, Nie L, Yan Y, Rosenblum DS (2016) Fortune teller: predicting your career path. Proceedings of the Thirtieth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu Y, Nie L, Liu L, Rosenblum DS (2016) From action to activity: sensor-based activity recognition. Neurocomputing pp 108–115Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale-invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vis 60(2):91–110MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mahmood T, Nawaz T, Irtaza A, Ashraf R, Shah M, Mahmood MT (2016) Copy-move forgery detection technique for forensic analysis in digital images. Math Probl Eng 2016, Article ID 8713202Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mahmoud K, Abu-AlRukab A (2016) Copy-move forgery detection using zernike and pseudo Zernike moments. Int Arab J Inf Technol 13(6A)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mahmoud K, Husien A, Al-Rukab A (2016) Moment based copy move forgery detection methods. Int J Comput Sci Inf Secur (IJCSIS) 14(7)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Maind RA, Khade A, Chitre DK (2014) Image copy-move forgery detection using block representing method. Int J Soft Comput Eng (IJSCE) 4(2):2231–2307Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Matthews BW (1975) Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim Biophys Acta Protein Struct 405(2):442–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mishra P, Mishra N, Sharma S, Patel R (2013) Region duplication forgery detection technique based on SURF and HAC. Hindawi Publishing Corporation. Sci World JGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pandey RC, Singh SK, Shukla KK, Agrawal R (2014) Fast and robust passive copy-move forgery detection using SURF and SIFT image features. 9th International Systems Conference on Industrial and Information (ICIIS), GwaliorGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Prakash CS, Maheshkar S (2016) Detection algorithm for copy-move forgery based on circle block. Proc Int Conf Comput Vis Image Process pp 355–364Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Redi JA, Taktak W, Dugelay J-L (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimedia Tools Appl 51:133–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ryu S-J, Kirchner M, Lee M-J, Lee H-K (2013) Rotation invariant localization of duplicated image regions based on Zernike moments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 8(8):1355–1370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sreenivasu T, Sudha Vani G (2017) Copy-move digital image forgery detection techniques: a review. Int J Recent Sci Res 8(6):17389–17393Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sunil K, Jagan D, Shaktidev M (2015) DCT-PCA based method for copy-move forgery detection. ICT and Critical Infrastructure: Proceedings of the 48th Annual Convention of Computer Society of India, Volume II pp 577–583Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Informatics DepartmentElectronics Research Institute (ERI)CairoEgypt
  2. 2.Computer Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of Electronic EngineeringMenoufia UniversityMenoufEgypt
  3. 3.Computers and Systems DepartmentElectronics Research Institute (ERI)CairoEgypt
  4. 4.Information Technology Department, College of Computers and Information TechnologyTaif UniversityAl-HawiyaKingdom of Saudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations