Residual Information of Redacted Images Hidden in the Compression Artifacts
Many digital images need to be redacted before they can be disseminated. A common way to remove the sensitive information replaces the pixels in the sensitive region with black or white values. Our goal is to study the effectiveness of this simple method in purging information. Since digital images are usually lossily compressed via quantization in the frequency domain, each pixel in the spatial domain will be “spread” to its surroundings, similar to the Gibbs-effect, before it is redacted. Hence, information of the original pixels might not be completely purged by replacing pixels in the compressed image. Although such residual information is insufficient to reconstruct the original, it can be exploited when the content has low entropy. We consider a scenario where the goal of the adversary is to identify the original among a few templates. We give two approaches and investigate their effectiveness when the image is compressed using JPEG or wavelet-based compression scheme. We found that, if a redacted image is compressed in higher bit rate compared to the compression of the original image, then the correct template can be identified with noticeable certainty. Although the requirements are stringent, it will not be surprising that redacted images matching the requirements can be found in the public domain. Hence, our findings highlight a subtle attack that must be considered when declassifying images.
KeywordsGaussian White Noise Document Image JPEG Compression Sensitive Region Compression Scheme
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Anderson, G.B., Gross, B.P., Marlin, J.W., Tucker, V.D.: Method for storing and retrieving annotations and redactions in final form documents. US Patent (5581682) (1996)Google Scholar
- 2.Berger, S., Kjeldsen, R., Pinhanez, C., Podlaseck, M., Narayanaswami, C., Raghunath, M.: Using symbiotic displays to view sensitive information in public. In: IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communications, pp. 139–148 (2005)Google Scholar
- 6.Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., Du, R.: Steganalysis based on jpeg compatibility. In: SPIE Multimedia Systems and Applications, pp. 275–280 (2001)Google Scholar
- 8.Johnson, D.: Redacting pdf files: A survey of tools. Adobe Acrobat User community Newsletter (2006), http://www.acrobatusers.com/
- 9.Kelly, D., Foster, B.: A process for electronic document redaction. WO Patent (WO/2006/041318) (2006)Google Scholar
- 10.Lopresti, D., Spitz, A.L.: Quantifying information leakage in document redaction. In: 1st ACM workshop on Hardcopy Document Processing, pp. 63–69 (2004)Google Scholar
- 12.Marcellin, M.W., Gormish, M.J., Bilgin, A., Boliek, M.P.: An overview of JPEG-2000. In: IEEE Data Compression Conference, pp. 523–541 (2000)Google Scholar
- 13.Popescu, A.C.: Statistical tools for digital image forensics (2004)Google Scholar
- 14.Quaeler, L., Charnock, E., Dhakouani, N.: Method and apparatus to provide a unified redaction system. United States Patent and Trademark Office (Application number: 20070030528) (2007)Google Scholar
- 15.Sallee, P.: Matlab JPEG toolbox, http://www.philsallee.com/jpegtbx/index.html
- 16.Ye, S., Sun, Q., Chang, E.-C.: Detecting digital image forgeries by measuring inconsistencies of blocking artifact. In: IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. (2007)Google Scholar