Fragile watermarking schemes for image authentication: a survey

Original Article

Abstract

This paper presents a survey of fragile watermarking schemes for image authentication proposed in the past decade. The limited embedding capacity and extent of tampering are some of the important issues among other issues that drive the research in this area. Therefore we have presented in this survey the gist of the fragile watermarking schemes in just enough detail so that the reader may gain a fair idea of the issues, techniques adopted in general to address them and the comparison of results. The general frame work of the fragile watermarking system, different categories of attacks and parameters used to evaluate the schemes are presented in this survey. The comparative analysis and the quantitative comparison of basic schemes and their variations with improvements will help the researchers in quick review of the recent developments in this area.

Keywords

Fragile watermarking Image security Image authentication Survey 

References

  1. 1.
    Rey C, Dugelay J-L (2002) A survey of watermarking algorithms for image authentication. EURASIP J Appl Signal Proc. doi: 10.1155/S1110865702204047 MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haouzia A, Noumeir R (2008) Methods for image authentication: a survey. Multimed Tools Appl 39:1–46Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Han S-H, Chu C-H (2010) Content-based image authentication: current status, issues, and challenges. Int J Inf Secur 9:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lin ET, Delp EJ (1999) A review of fragile image watermarks, in proceedings of multimedia and security Workshop multimedia contents, 25–29Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Verma VS, Jha RK (2015) An overview of robust digital image watermarking. IETE Tech Rev 32(6):479–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wong PW, Memon N (2001) Secret and public key image watermarking schemes for image authentication and ownership verification. IEEE Trans Image Process 10(10):1593–1601CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang C-C, Fan Y-H, Tai W-L (2008) four-scanning attack on hierarchical digital watermarking method. Pattern Recognit 41:654–661CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fridrich J, Goljan M (1999) Protection of digital images using self embedding, in Symposium on Content Security and Data Hiding in Digital Media. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    He H, Chen F, Tai H-M, Kalker T, Zhang J (2012) Performance analysis of a block-neighbourhood-based self-recovery fragile watermarking scheme. IEEE Trans Inform Forens Secur 7(1):185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    He H-J, Zhang J-S, Tai H-M (2009) Self-recovery Fragile Watermarking Using Block-Neighborhood Tampering Characterization, IH, LNCS 5806, pp. 132–145Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lin PL, Hsieh C-K, Huang P-W (2005) A hierarchical digital watermarking method for image tamper detection and recovery. Pattern Recognit 38:2519–2529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee T-Y, Lin SD (2008) Dual watermark for image tamper detection and recovery. Pattern Recognit 41:3497–3506CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li CL, Wang YH, Ma B, Zhang ZX (2011) A novel self-recovery fragile watermarking scheme based on dual redundant-ring structure. Comput Electr Eng 37(6):927–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xiao D, Shih FY (2012) An improved hierarchical fragile watermarking scheme using chaotic sequence sorting and sub-block post-processing. Opt Commun 285:2596–2606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El’arbi M, Amar CB (2014) Image authentication algorithm with recovery capabilities based on neural networks in the DCT domain. IET Image Process 8(11):619–626Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang X, Qian Z, Ren Y, Feng G (2011) Watermarking with flexible self-recovery quality based on compressive sensing and compositive reconstruction. IEEE Trans Inform Foren Secur 6(4):1223–1232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Korus P, Dziech A (2013) Efficient method for content reconstruction with self-embedding. IEEE Trans Image Proc 22(3):1134–1147MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang J, Zhanga Q, Lvba H (2013) A novel image tamper localization and recovery algorithm based on watermarking technology. Optik 124:6367–6371Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dadkhah S, Manaf AA, Hori Y, Hassanien AE, Sadeghi S (2014) An effective SVD-based image tampering detection and self-recovery using active watermarking. Signal Proc Image Comm 29:1197–1210Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee C-W, Tsai W-H (2012) Optimal pixel-level self-repairing authentication method for gray scale images under a mini-max criterion of distortion reduction. Opt Eng 51(5): 0570061–11Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qin C, Chang C-C, Chen K-N (2013) Adaptive self-recovery for tampered images based on VQ indexing and inpainting. Signal Process 93:933–946Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li C, Wang Y, Ma B, Zhang Z (2013) Multi-block dependency based fragile watermarking scheme for fingerprint images protection. Multimed Tools Appl 64:757–776Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    He H-J, Zhang J-S, Chen F (2009) Adjacent-block based statistical detection method for self-embedding watermarking techniques. Signal Process 89:1557–1566Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Singh D, Singh SK (2016) Effective self-embedding watermarking scheme for image tampered detection and localization with recovery capability. J Vis Commun Image R 38:775–789Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Qian Z, Feng G, Zhang X, Wang S (2011) Image self-embedding with high-quality restoration capability. Digit Signal Proc 21:278–286Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huo Y, He H, Chen F (2012) Alterable-capacity fragile watermarking scheme with restoration capability. Opt Commun 285:1759–1766CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen F, He H, Tai H-M, Wang H (2012) Chaos-based self-embedding fragile watermarking with flexible watermark payload. Multimed Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-012-1332-5
  28. 28.
    Qian Z, Feng G (2010) Inpainting assisted self recovery with decreased embedding data. IEEE Signal Process Lett 17(11):929–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu K-C (2012) Colour image watermarking for tamper proofing and pattern-based recovery. IET Image Process 6(5):445–454Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Liu K-C (2014) Self-embedding watermarking scheme for colour images by bi-level moment-preserving technique. IET Image Process 8(6):363–372Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang M-S, Chen W-C (2007) A majority-voting based watermarking scheme for color image tamper detection and recovery. Comput Stand Interfac 29:561–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    He H, Zhang J (2012) Cryptanalysis on majority-voting based self-recovery watermarking scheme. Telecommun Syst 49:231–238. doi: 10.1007/s11235-010-9380-5
  33. 33.
    Zhang X, Wang S (2007) Statistical fragile watermarking capable of locating individual tampered pixels. IEEE Signal Process Lett 14(10):727–730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang X, Wang S (2009) Fragile watermarking scheme using a hierarchical mechanism. Signal Process 89:675–679Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang X, Wang S, Qian Z, Feng G (2011) Self-embedding watermark with flexible restoration quality. Multimed Tools Appl 54:385–395Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bravo-Solorio S, Nandi AK (2011) Secure fragile watermarking method for image authentication with improved tampering localisation and self-recovery capabilities. Signal Proc 91:728–739Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zhang X, Wang S, Qian Z, Feng G (2010) Reversible fragile watermarking for locating tampered blocks in JPEG images. Signal Process 90:3026–3036Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zhang X, Wang S (2008) Fragile Watermarking With Error-Free Restoration Capability. IEEE Trans Multimed 10(8):1490–1499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hsu C-S, Tu S-F (2010) Probability-based tampering detection scheme for digital images. Opt Commun 283:1737–1743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chan CS, Chang CC (2007) An efficient image authentication method based on hamming code. Pattern Recognit 40(2):681–690CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chan C-S (2011) An image authentication method by applying Hamming code on rearranged bits. Pattern Recognit Lett 32:1679–1690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Changa C-C, Chen K-N, Leec C-F, Liu L-J (2011) A secure fragile watermarking scheme based on chaos-and-hamming code. J Syst Softw 84:1462–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Qin C, Chang C-C, Chen P-Y (2012) Self-embedding fragile watermarking with restoration capability based on adaptive bit allocation mechanism. Signal Process 92:1137–1150Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Wang X, Zhang D, Guo X (2013) A novel image recovery method based on discrete cosine transform and matched blocks. Nonlinear Dyn 73:1945–1954Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li C, Zhang A, Liu Z, Liao L, Huang D (2015) Semi-fragile self-recoverable watermarking algorithm based on wavelet group quantization and double authentication. Multimed Tools Appl 74:10581–10604Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yeh FH, Lee GC (2006) Content-based watermarking in image authentication allowing remedying of tampered images. Opt Eng 45(7):0770041–10Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Qin C, Chang C-C, Hsu T-J (2013) Effective fragile watermarking for image authentication with high-quality recovery capability. KSII Trans Internet Inform Syst 7(11):2941–2956Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Huo Y, He H, Chen F (2014) A Restorable Semi-fragile Watermarking Combined DCT with Interpolation, IWDW 2013, LNCS 8389, pp. 393–408Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang X, Xiao Y, Zhao Z (2014) Self-embedding fragile watermarking based on DCT and fast fractal coding. Multimed Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-014-1882-9
  50. 50.
    Pred RO, Vizireanu DN (2015) Watermarking-based image authentication robust to JPEG compression. Electr Lett 51(23):1873–1875Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Singh P, Agarwal S (2015) An efficient fragile watermarking scheme with multilevel tamper detection and recovery based on dynamic domain selection. Multimed Tools Appl. doi: 10.1007/s11042-015-2736-9
  52. 52.
    Rosales-Roldan L, Cedillo-Hernandez M, Nakano-Miyatake M, Perez-Meana H, Kurkoski B (2013) Watermarking-based image authentication with recovery capability using halftoning technique. Signal Process Image Comm 28:69–83Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    He H, Zhang J, Tai H-M (2006) A wavelet-based fragile watermarking scheme for secure image authentication, IWDW 2006, LNCS 4283, pp. 422–432Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chamlawi R, Khan A, Usman I (2010) Authentication and recovery of images using multiple watermarks. Comput Electr Eng 36:578–584CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Qi X, Xin X (2011) A quantization-based semi-fragile watermarking scheme for image content authentication. J Vis Commun Image R 22:87–200Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Preda RO (2013) Semi-fragile watermarking for image authentication with sensitive tamper localization in the wavelet domain. Measurement 46:367–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ullah R, Khan A, Malik AS (2013) Dual-purpose semi-fragile watermark: authentication and recovery of digital images. Comput Electr Eng 39:2019–2030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Tsai M-J, Chien C-C (2008) Authentication and recovery for wavelet-based semi-fragile watermarking. Opt Eng 47(6):0670051–10Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Li C-T, Si H (2007) Wavelet-based fragile watermarking scheme for image authentication. J Electr Imaging 16(1):0130091–10Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Nguyen T-S, Chang C-C, Yang X-Q (2016) A reversible image authentication scheme based on fragile watermarking in discrete wavelet transform domain. Int J Electron Commun (AEÜ) 70:1055–1061CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Phadikar A, Maity SP, Mandal M (2012) Novel wavelet-based QIM data hiding technique for tamper detection and correction of digital images. J Vis Commun Image R 23:454–466Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yang C-W, Shen J-J (2010) Recover the tampered image based on VQ indexing. Signal Process 90:331–343Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Chuang J-C, Hu Y-C (2011) An adaptive image authentication scheme for vector quantization compressed image. J Vis Commun Image R 22:440–449Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Wang S-S, Tsai S-L (2008) Automatic image authentication and recovery using fractal code embedding and image inpainting. Pattern Recognit 41:701–712CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Patra JC, Karthika A, Bornand C (2010) A novel CRT-based watermarking technique for authentication of multimedia contents. Digit Signal Process 20:442–453Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Chen W-C, Wang M-S (2009) A fuzzy c-means clustering-based fragile watermarking scheme for image authentication. Expert Systems Appl 36:1300–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Ghosal SK, Mandal JK (2014) Binomial transform based fragile watermarking for image authentication. J Inform Secur Appl 19:272–281Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lin P-Y, Lee J-S, Chang C-C (2011) Protecting the content integrity of digital imagery with fidelity preservation. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 7(3):15Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Ho ATS, Zhu X, Shen J, Marziliano P (2008) Fragile watermarking based on encoding of the zeroes of the z–Transform. IEEE Trans Inform Foren Secur 3(3):567–569Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CSEJNTUHHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations