Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 147–166 | Cite as

A novel steganalysis for TPVD steganographic method based on differences of pixel difference histogram



Tri-way Pixel Value Differencing (TPVD) steganographic method is a new modified version of another well-known method called PVD, which intents to increase embedding capacity and security of its successor by hiding secret bits in both vertical and diagonal edges of a cover image, in addition to the horizontal edges used in PVD. In this paper, it is shown that the histogram of difference values of a stego image under the TPVD algorithms is vulnerable to a particular statistical analysis. So, a new steganalytic measure named Growing Anomalies is introduced that its value has a linear relationship with secret message rate. It is shown empirically and theoretically that proposed steganalysis method based on this measure can estimate the amount of secret bits with a negligible error rate. The proposed steganalyser can classify test images as stego or cover with 97% accuracy when they contain more that 10% secret data. Implementation results indicate that proposed method can estimate secret message rate with an average accuracy of 95%.


Steganography Steganalysis PVD TPVD Growing Anomalies 


  1. 1.
    Anderson RG, Petitcolas FAP (1998) On the limits of steganography. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun Special Issue on Copyright and Privacy Protection 16:474–481Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bui C, Lee H, Joo J, Lee H (2010) steganalysis method defeating the modified Pixel-value differencing steganography. ICIC 6:3193–3203Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chang K, Chang C, Huang PS, Tu T (2008) A novel image steganographic method using tri-way pixel-value differencing. J Multimedia 3:37–44. doi:10.4304/jmm.3.2.37-44 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M (2002) Practical steganalysis of digital images-state of the art. Proc. SPIE Photonics West Electron. Imaging 4675:1–13Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M, Du R (2001) Detecting LSB steganography in color and gray-scale images. IEEE Multimedia 8:22–28. doi:10.1109/93.959097 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goljan M, Fridrich J, Holotyak T (2006) New blind steganalysis and its implications. in Proc. of the SPIE, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VI, 6072:1–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gul G, Kurugollu F (2010) SVD-based universal spatial domain image steganalysis. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5:349–353. doi:10.1109/TIFS.2010.2041826 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson NF, Jajodia S (1998) Steganalysis of images created using current steganography software. LNCS, Springer 1525:273–289. doi:10.1007/3-540-49380-8 Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnson N, Duric Z, Jajodia S (2001) Information hiding: steganography and watermarking-attacks and countermeasures. Kluwer, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Joo J, Hae-Yeoun L, Cong B, Won-Young Y, Heung-Kyu L (2008) Steganalytic measures for the steganography using pixel-value differencing and modulus function. LNCS, Springer Berlin 5353:476–485. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89796-5_49 Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Provos N, Honeyman P (2001) Detecting steganographic content on the internet. Technical Report CITI 01-1a, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sabeti V, Samavi S, Mahdavi M, Shirani S (2007) Steganalysis of pixel-value differencing steganographic method. IEEE Pacific Rim Conference. 292–295.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sabeti V, Samavi S, Mahdavi M, Shirani S (2009) Steganalysis and payload estimation of embedding in pixel differences using neural networks. Pattern Recognit Lett 43:405–415Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Westfeld A (2001) F5-A steganographic algorithm: high capacity despite better steganalysis. IHW, LNCS, Springer-Verlag 2137:289–302Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Westfeld A, Pfitzmann A (1999) Attacks on steganographic systems. IHW, LNCS, Springer-Verlag 1768:61–76Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wu DC, Tsai WH (2003) A steganographic method for images by pixel-value differencing. Pattern Recognit Lett 24:1613–1626MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaker N, Hamzeh A, Katebi SD, Samavi S (2009) Improving security of pixel value differencing steganographic method. NTMS'09, IEEE Press, NJ, USA, pp 399–402. doi:10.1109/NTMS.2009.5384692 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang X, Wang S (2004) Vulnerability of pixel-value differencing steganography to histogram analysis and modification for enhanced security. Pattern Recognit Lett 25:331–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CSE and IT Department, ECE SchoolShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations