Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

jForge: An adversarial method to deceive JPEG forgery localization schemes

  • 1169: Interdisciplinary Forensics: Government, Academia and Industry Interaction
  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Automatic localization of tampered regions of a JPEG image has attracted lots of attention in recent times. It is known that the statistical signatures of single and Double JPEG (DJPEG) compression are distinct, and the presence of both the signatures inside an image is proof of manipulation. Automatic localization of tampered regions is carried out by segregating the singly and doubly compressed regions of an image. However, the robustness of the localization process is questionable as very few attempts are made to highlight their vulnerabilities. Here, we propose an adversarial framework, known as jForge, through which one can create a DJPEG compressed image that only bears the signatures of a single compression, and it renders the localization process ineffective. jForge removes the footprints of JPEG compression using model-based approximation techniques. Arguably, this is the first successful attempt to model the DC coefficients of an image, and it employs polynomial regression of two variables to accomplish the same. Similarly, AC coefficients have been approximated using low degree polynomials. We have mounted jForge on three popular forgery localization schemes, and none of them is effective against it. This raises serious doubt regarding the efficacy of the statistical signature-based paradigm of forgery localization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. alZahir S, Hammad R (2020) Image forgery detection using image similarity. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09502-4

  2. Barni M, Fontani M, Tondi B (2015) Universal counterforensics of multiple compressed jpeg images. In: Shi YQ, Kim HJ, Pérez-González F, Yang CN (eds) Digital-Forensics and Watermarking. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 31–46

  3. Barni M, Stamm MC, Tondi B (2018) Adversarial multimedia forensics: Overview and challenges ahead. In: 2018 26th European signal processing conference (EUSIPCO), pp 962–966

  4. Bhaduri Mandal A, Das TK (2019) Anti-forensics of a nad-jpeg detection scheme using estimation of dc coefficients. In: Proceedings of information systems security - 15th international conference, ICISS 2019, Hyderabad, India, December 16-20, 2019, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 11952. Springer International Publishing, pp 307–323

  5. Bhardwaj D, Pankajakshan V (2018) A jpeg blocking artifact detector for image forensics. Signal Process Image Commun 68:155–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bianchi T, Piva A (2012) Detection of nonaligned double jpeg compression based on integer periodicity maps. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(2):842–848

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bianchi T, Piva A (2012) Image forgery localization via block-grained analysis of jpeg artifacts. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(3):1003–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen Z, Zhao Y, Ni R (2017) Detection of operation chain: Jpeg-resampling-jpeg. Signal Process Image Commun 57:8–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Chu X, Stamm MC, Chen Y, Liu KJR (2015) On antiforensic concealability with rate-distortion tradeoff. IEEE Trans Image Process 24(3):1087–1100

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  10. Cristin R, Ananth JP, Cyril Raj V (2018) Illumination-based texture descriptor and fruitfly support vector neural network for image forgery detection in face images. IET Image Process 12(8):1439–1449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dalmia N, Okade M (2018) Robust first quantization matrix estimation based on filtering of recompression artifacts for non-aligned double compressed jpeg images. Signal Process Image Commun 61:9–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Das TK (2018) Anti-forensics of jpeg compression detection schemes using approximation of dct coefficients. Multimed Tools Appl 77(24):31835–31854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Das TK, Maitra S (2004) Cryptanalysis of correlation-based watermarking schemes using single watermarked copy. IEEE Signal Process Lett 11 (4):446–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fahmy G, Alqallaf A, Wurtz R (2015) Phase based detection of jpeg counter forensics. In: 2015 IEEE International conference on electronics, circuits, and systems (ICECS), pp 37–40

  15. Fan W, Wang K, Cayre F, Xiong Z (2014) Jpeg anti-forensics with improved tradeoff between forensic undetectability and image quality. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 9(8):1211–1226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fan Z, de Queiroz RL (2003) Identification of bitmap compression history: Jpeg detection and quantizer estimation. IEEE Trans Image Process 12 (2):230–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Farid H (2009) Exposing digital forgeries from jpeg ghosts. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 4(1):154–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farooq S, Yousaf MH, Hussain F (2017) A generic passive image forgery detection scheme using local binary pattern with rich models. Comput Electr Eng 62:459–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Huang F, Huang J, Shi YQ (2010) Detecting double jpeg compression with the same quantization matrix. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5(4):848–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Huang HY, Ciou AJ (2019) Copy-move forgery detection for image forensics using the superpixel segmentation and the helmert transformation. EURASIP J Image Video Process 2019(1):68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaiprakash SP, Desai MB, Prakash CS, Mistry VH, Radadiya KL (2020) Low dimensional dct and dwt feature based model for detection of image splicing and copy-move forgery. Multimed Tools Appl. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-020-09415-2

  22. Korus P (2017) Digital image integrity – a survey of protection and verification techniques. Digital Signal Processing 71:1–26

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  23. Lai S, Böhme R (2011) Countering counter-forensics: The case of jpeg compression. In: Information Hiding: 13th International Conference, IH 2011, Prague, Czech Republic, May 18-20, 2011, Revised Selected Papers. Springer, Berlin, pp 285–298

  24. Li B, Ng T, Li X, Tan S, Huang J (2015) Revealing the trace of high-quality jpeg compression through quantization noise analysis. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(3):558–573

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li H, Luo W, Huang J (2015) Anti-forensics of double jpeg compression with the same quantization matrix. Multimed Tools Appl 74(17):6729–6744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Li H, Luo W, Qiu X, Huang J (2018) Identification of various image operations using residual-based features. IEEE Trans Circuits Sys Video Technol 28(1):31–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin Z, He J, Tang X, Tang CK (2009) Fast, automatic and fine-grained tampered jpeg image detection via dct coefficient analysis. Pattern Recogn 42(11):2492–2501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Lukáš J, Fridrich J (2003) Estimation of primary quantization matrix in double compressed jpeg images. In: Proc. of DFRWS

  29. Luo W, Huang J, Qui G (2010) Jpeg error analysis and its applications to digital image forensics. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5(3):480–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mayer O, Stamm MC (2020) Forensic similarity for digital images. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 15:1331–1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Milani S, Tagliasacchi M, Tubaro S (2012) Discriminating multiple jpeg compression using first digit features. In: 2012 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pp 2253–2256

  32. Nasiri M, Behrad A (2019) Using expectation-maximization for exposing image forgeries by revealing inconsistencies in shadow geometry. J Vis Commun Image Represent 58:323–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Niu Y, Li X, Zhao Y, Ni R (2019) An enhanced approach for detecting double jpeg compression with the same quantization matrix. Signal Process Image Commun 76:89–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pevny T, Fridrich J (2008) Detection of double-compression in jpeg images for applications in steganography. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 3(2):247–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Qazi T, Hayat K, Khan SU, Madani SA, Khan IA, Kołodziej J, Li H, Lin W, Yow KC, Xu CZ (2013) Survey on blind image forgery detection. IET Image Processing 7(7):660–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sallee P (2004) Matlab jpeg toolbox. http://www.philsallee.com/jpegtbx/index.html

  37. Schaefer G, Stich M (2003) UCID: an uncompressed color image database. In: Yeung MM, Lienhart RW, Li CS (eds) Storage and retrieval methods and applications for multimedia 2004, vol 5307, pp 472–480

  38. Singh G, Singh K (2017) Improved jpeg anti-forensics with better image visual quality and forensic undetectability. Forensic Sci Int 277:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Stamm MC, Liu KJR (2011) Anti-forensics of digital image compression. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 6(3):1050–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Stamm MC, Tjoa SK, Lin WS, Liu KJR (2010) Anti-forensics of jpeg compression. In: 2010 IEEE International conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 1694–1697

  41. Taimori A, Razzazi F, Behrad A, Ahmadi A, Babaie-Zadeh M (2016) Quantization-unaware double jpeg compression detection. J Math Imaging Vis 54(3):269–286

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  42. Uehara T, Safavi-Naini R, Ogunbona P (2006) Recovering dc coefficients in block-based dct. IEEE Trans Image Process 15(11):3592–3596

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Valenzise G, Nobile V, Tagliasacchi M, Tubaro S (2011) Countering jpeg anti-forensics. In: 2011 18th IEEE international conference on image processing, pp 1949–1952

  44. Wang W, Dong J, Tan T (2014) Exploring dct coefficient quantization effects for local tampering detection. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 9 (10):1653–1666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wei W, Sun L, Tang D, Zhao Y, Li H (2012) A survey of passive image forensics. In: Lei J, Wang FL, Li M, Luo Y (eds) Network computing and information security. Springer, Berlin, pp 45–55

  46. Yang J, Zhu G, Huang J, Zhao X (2015) Estimating jpeg compression history of bitmaps based on factor histogram. Digital Signal Processing 41:90–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Yerushalmy I, Hel-Or H (2011) Digital image forgery detection based on lens and sensor aberration. Int J Comput Vis 92(1):71–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zheng L, Zhang Y, Thing VL (2019) A survey on image tampering and its detection in real-world photos. J Vis Commun Image Represent 58:380–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhu N, Li Z (2018) Blind image splicing detection via noise level function. Signal Process Image Commun 68:181–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Applications, National Institute of Technology Raipur, G.E. Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492010, India

    Arkaprava Bhaduri Mandal & Tanmoy Kanti Das

Authors
  1. Arkaprava Bhaduri Mandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tanmoy Kanti Das
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arkaprava Bhaduri Mandal.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This work is a thoroughly revised and extended version of [4]. Section 3.2 of this paper introduces an improved approximation algorithm for AC coefficients of a JPEG image, and it is an addition over the conference version.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhaduri Mandal, A., Das, T.K. jForge: An adversarial method to deceive JPEG forgery localization schemes. Multimed Tools Appl 81, 22807–22832 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11265-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11265-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation