A Study on Segmentation-Based Copy-Move Forgery Detection Using DAISY Descriptor

Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 398)

Abstract

Copy-move forgery is one of the most prevalent forms of image forgery and a lot of methods have been developed to detect them. The most important hurdle in the development of such forgery detection methods is that different post-processing operations are done like rotation, scaling, and reflection. JPEG compression, etc., might have been applied on the copied region before it is being pasted, and the method we are using should be invariant to all types of such post-processing. Because of this, most of the methods fail in case of one or the other type of attacks. This paper presents a study on the use of segmentation-based copy-move forgery detection using rotation invariant DAISY descriptors. The paper tries to develop a new method based on three existing methods which have advantages and disadvantages of their own. The expected performance is better than any other existing methods because of the combined effect of three robust methods.

Keywords

Digital image forensics Image forgery Copy-move forgery Segmentation DAISY descriptor Block-based methods Key-point-based methods 

References

  1. 1.
    Amerini I, Ballan L, Caldelli R, Bimbo AD, Sera G (2011) A SIFT based forensic method for copy-move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 6. doi:10.1109/TIFS.2011.2129512
  2. 2.
    Cao Y, Gao T, Fan L, Yang Q (2012) A robust detection algorithm for copy-move forgery in digital images. Forensic Sci Int 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.forsciint.2011.07.015
  3. 3.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Reiss C, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf Forensic Secur 7:1841–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fridrich A, Soukal B, Lukas A (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of digital forensic research workshopGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Guo J, Liu Y, Wu Z (2013) Duplication forgery detection using improved DAISY descriptor. Expert Syst Appl 40:707–714. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.08.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jing L, Shao C (2012) Image copy-move forgery detecting based on local invariant feature. J Multimed 7:90–97. doi:10.4304/jmm.7.1.90-97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kakar P (2012) Passive approaches for digital image forgery detection. PhD dissertation, School of Computer Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Retrieved from http://pkakar.droppages.com/publications
  8. 8.
    Kakar P, Sudha N (2012) Exposing postprocessed copy-paste forgeries through transform-invariant features. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7:1018–1028. doi:10.1109/TIFS.2012.2188390 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Wu X (2013) Detecting copy-move forgery under affine transforms for image forensics. Comput Electr Eng. doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2013.11.034 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li J, Li X, Yang B, Sun X (2015) Segmentation-based image copy-move forgery detection scheme. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(3):507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale invariant keypoints. Int J Comput Vision 60(2):91–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lynch G, Shih FY, Liao HM (2013) An efficient expanding block algorithm for image copy-move forgery detection. Inf Sci 239:253–265. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2013.03.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pan X, Lyu S (2010) Region duplication detection using image feature matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5:857–867. doi:10.1109/TIFS.2010.2078506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Popescu A, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions. Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Technical Report, TR2004-515Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Redi J, Taktak W, Dugelay J (2011) Digital image forensics: a booklet for beginners. Multimed Tools Appl 51:133–162. doi:10.1007/s11042-010-0620-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ryu S, Lee M, Lee H (2010) Detection of copy-rotate-move forgery using zernike moments. In: Proceedings of international workshop on information hiding, Springer, Berlin, pp 51–65Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shivakumar BL, Santhosh Baboo S (2011) Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using SURF. Int J Comput Sci Issues 8:199–205Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Solorio SB, Nandi AK (2011) Exposing duplicated regions affected by reflection, rotation and scaling. In: International conference on acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 1880–1883. doi:10.1109/ICASSP.2011.5946873
  19. 19.
    Tola E, Lepetit V, Fua P (2010) DAISY: an efficient dense descriptor applied to wide-baseline stereo. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 32(5):815–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhong L, Xu W (2013) A robust image copy-move forgery detection based on mixed moments. In: IEEE international conference on software engineering and service sciences, pp 381–384. doi:10.1109/ICSESS.2013.6615329

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNoorul Islam UniversityThuckalayIndia
  2. 2.Department of Information TechnologyNoorul Islam UniversityThuckalayIndia

Personalised recommendations