Universal Counterforensics of Multiple Compressed JPEG Images

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9023)


Detection of multiple JPEG compression of digital images has been attracting more and more interest in the field of multimedia forensics. On the other side, techniques to conceal the traces of multiple compression are being proposed as well. Motivated by a recent trend towards the adoption of universal approaches, we propose a counter-forensic technique that makes multiple compression undetectable for any forensic detector based on the analysis of the histograms of quantized DCT coefficients. Experimental results show the effectiveness of our approach in removing the artifacts of double and also triple compression, while maintaining a good quality of the image.


  1. 1.
    Barni, M., Tondi, B.: The source identification game: an information-theoretic perspective. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 8(3), 450–463 (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barni, M., Fontani, M., Tondi, B.: A universal technique to hide traces of histogram-based image manipulations. In: Proceedings of MM&Sec 2012, 14th ACM workshop on Multimedia & Security, pp. 97–104. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barni, M., Tondi, B.: Multiple-observation hypothesis testing under adversarial conditions. In: Proceedings of WIFS 2013, IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security, pp. 91–96, November 2013Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bonami, P., Kilinc, M., Linderoth, J., et al.: Algorithms and software for convex mixed integer nonlinear programs. Computer Sciences Department, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Techical report (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Comesana-Alfaro, P., Perez-Gonzalez, F.: Optimal counterforensics for histogram-based forensics. In: Proceedings of ICASSP 2013, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 3048–3052, May 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cox, I., Miller, M., Bloom, J., Fridrich, J., Kalker, T.: Digital Watermarking and Steganography, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., Hogea, D.: Steganalysis of JPEG images: breaking the F5 algorithm. In: Petitcolas, F.A.P. (ed.) IH 2002. LNCS, vol. 2578, pp. 310–323. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kirchner, M., Böhme, R.: Tamper hiding: defeating image forensics. In: Furon, T., Cayre, F., Doërr, G., Bas, P. (eds.) IH 2007. LNCS, vol. 4567, pp. 326–341. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lam, E.Y., Goodman, J.W.: A mathematical analysis of the DCT coefficient distributions for images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 9(10), 1661–1666 (2000)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li, B., Shi, Y., Huang, J.: Detecting doubly compressed JPEG images by using mode based first digit features. In: Proceedings of MMSP 2008, IEEE Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 730–735, October 2008Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Milani, S., Tagliasacchi, M., Tubaro, S.: Discriminating multiple JPEG compression using first digit features. In: Proceedings of ICASSP 2012, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 2253–2256, March 2012Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Milani, S., Tagliasacchi, M., Tubaro, S.: Antiforensics attacks to benford’s law for the detection of double compressed images. In: Proceedings of ICASSP 2013, IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pp. 3053–3057, May 2013Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pevný, T., Fridrich, J.: Estimation of primary quantization matrix for steganalysis of double-compressed JPEG images. In: Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 6819, pp. 681911–681911-13 (2008). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.759155
  14. 14.
    Popescu, A.C., Farid, H.: Statistical tools for digital forensics. In: Fridrich, J. (ed.) IH 2004. LNCS, vol. 3200, pp. 128–147. Springer, Heidelberg (2004) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rachev, S.T.: Mass Transportation Problems: Volume I: Theory. Springer, New York (1998) MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 13(4), 600–612 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Watson, A.B.: DCT quantization matrices visually optimized for individual images. In: Proceedings of IS&T/SPIE’s Symposium on Electronic Imaging: Science and Technology, pp. 202–216. International Society for Optics and Photonics (1993)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Engineering and MathematicsUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations