Science China Information Sciences

, Volume 57, Issue 5, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Attacking contrast enhancement forensics in digital images

Research Paper

Abstract

Currently, plenty of digital image forensic techniques have been proposed and used as diagnostic tools. It is urgent and significant to assess the reliability of such techniques applied in practical scenarios. In this paper, we investigate the security of existing digital image contrast enhancement (CE) forensic algorithms. From the standpoint of attackers, we propose two types of attacks, CE trace hiding attack and CE trace forging attack, which could invalidate the forensic detector and fabricate two types of forensic errors, respectively. The CE trace hiding attack is implemented by integrating local random dithering into the design of pixel value mapping. The CE trace forging attack is proposed by modifying the gray level histogram of a target pixel region to counterfeit peak/gap artifacts. Such trace forging attack is typically applied to create sophisticated composite images which could deceive the prior CE-based composition detectors. Extensive experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed CE anti-forensic schemes.

Keywords

digital forensics anti-forensics attack contrast enhancement composite image histogram 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson M K, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries in complex lighting environments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2007, 2: 450–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mahajan D, Ramamoorthi R, Curless B. A theory of frequency domain invariants: spherical harmonic identities for BRDF/lighting transfer and image consistency. IEEE Trans Patt Anal Mach Intell, 2008, 30: 197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Luo W, Huang J, Qiu G. Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital image. In: Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Hong Kong, 2006. 746–749Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pan X, Lyu S. Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2010, 5: 857–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Popescu A C, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Trans Signal Process, 2005, 53: 758–767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahdian B, Saic S. Blind authentication using periodic properties of interpolation. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2008, 3: 529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cao G, Zhao Y, Ni R R. Forensic identification of resampling operators: a semi non-intrusive approach. Forensic Sci Int, 2012, 216: 29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lukas J, Fridrich J. Estimation of primary quantization matrix in double compressed JPEG images. In: Proceedings of Digital Forensic Research Workshop, Cleveland, 2003. 5–8Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Luo W, Huang J, Qiu G. JPEG error analysis and its applications to digital image forensics. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2010, 5: 480–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stamm M C, Liu K J R. Forensic detection of image manipulation using statistical intrinsic fingerprints. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2010, 5: 492–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stamm M C, Liu K J R. Blind forensics of contrast enhancement in digital images. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Image Processing, San Diego, 2008. 3112–3115Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stamm M C, Liu K J R. Forensic estimation and reconstruction of a contrast enhancement mapping. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal, Texas, 2010. 1698–1701Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cao G, Zhao Y, Ni R R, et al. Unsharp masking sharpening detection via overshoot artifacts analysis. IEEE Signal Process Lett, 2011, 18: 603–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bayram S, Avcibas I, Sankur B, et al. Image manipulation detection. J Electron Imaging, 2006, 15: 041102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirchner M, Fridrich J. On detection of median filtering in digital images. In: Proceedings of Electronic Imaging: Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, San Jose, 2010. 10–12Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chuang W-H, Swaminathan A, Wu M. Tampering identification using empirical frequency response. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Taipei, 2009. 1517–1520Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gloe T, Kirchner M, Winkler A, et al. Can we trust digital image forensics? In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, Augsburg, 2007. 78–86Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kirchner M, Böhme R. Hiding traces of resampling in digital images. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2008, 3: 582–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kirchner M, Böhme R. Synthesis of color filter array pattern in digital images. In: Proceedings of Electronic Imaging: Media Forensics and Security, San Jose, 2009. 72540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stamm M C, Liu K J R. Anti-forensics of digital image compression. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur, 2011, 6: 1050–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cao G, Zhao Y, Ni R R, et al. Anti-forensics of contrast enhancement in digital images. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM Workshop on Multimedia and Security. New York: ACM, 2010. 25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceCommunication University of ChinaBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Information ScienceBeijing Jiaotong UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.People’s Public Security University of ChinaBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations