Digital Image Forensics: A Two-Step Approach for Identifying Source and Detecting Forgeries

Conference paper

Abstract

Digital Image Forensics includes two main domains: source device identification and semantic modification detection. Usually, existing works address one aspect only: either source identification or either image manipulation. In this article, we investigate a new approach based on sensor noise that operates in a two-step sequence: the first one is global whereas the second one is local. During the first step, we analyze noise in order to identify the sensor. We reused the method proposed by Jessica Fridrich et al. with an improvement of it useful when only a limited number of images is available to compute noise patterns. Then, having identified the sensor, we examine more locally, using quadtree segmentation, the noise differences between the pattern noise attached to the sensor and the noise extracted from the picture under investigation in order to detect possible alterations. We assume here that the portion of the image that underwent modifications is relatively small with regards to the surface of the whole picture. Finally, we report tests on the first publically available database (i.e. the Dresden database) that makes possible further comparisons of our algorithm with other approaches.

Keywords

Digital image forensic Image authentication Forgeries detection Sensor noise. 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    J. A Redi, W. Taktak and J- L. Dugelay, “Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners”, Multimedia Tools and Applications, Springer, pp. 1–30 October 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Adams, K. Parulski and K. Sapulding, “Color Processing in Digital Cameras”, IEEE Micro, vol. 18, no. 6, 1998Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tran Van Lanh a, Kai-Sen Chong b, Sabu Emmanuel b, Mohan S Kankanhalli «A Survey on Digital Camera Image Forensic Methods. ICME 2007: 16–19Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.C. Popescu and H. Farid, “Statistical tools for digital forensics”, International Workshop on Information Hiding, 2004.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    T. Gloe and R. Bohme,“The Dresden Image Database for benchmarking digital image forensics,” SAC, Sierre, 2010Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. Lukáš, J. Fridrich and M. Goljan, “Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 205–214, June 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M.K. Mihcak, I. Kozintsev and A. Tzortis, “Spatially adaptive statistical modeling of wavelet image coefficients and its application to denoising,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics, speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 6, pp. 3253–3256, Mar 1999Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Delp E.J, Khanna N, Mikkilineni A.K (2009) «Forensic Camera Classification: Verification of Sensor Pattern Noise Approach». Proceeding of the SPIE international Conference on SecurityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Photo tampering throughout history. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/ farid/ research/ digitaltampering/.
  11. 11.
    Jessica Fridrich, David Soukal and Jan Lukas(2003) «Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images» Proceedings of Digital Forensic Research Workshop, www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/Research/copymove.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Multimedia CommunicationEURECOMSophia AntipolisFrance
  2. 2.2229, Route des CrêtesSophia AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations