Advertisement

Copy-Move Detection Using Gray Level Run Length Matrix Features

  • Saba Mushtaq
  • Ajaz Hussain Mir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 472)

Abstract

Copy-move detection is a well-recognized and active area of research owing to great demand of authenticating genuineness of images. Currently, available techniques for copy-move detection fail to accurately locate the tampered region and lack robustness against common post-processing operations like compression, blurring, and brightness changes. This paper proposes a novel technique for the detection and localization of copy-move regions in image using gray level run length matrix (GLRLM) features. In the proposed method, we first divide the forged image into overlapping blocks and GLRLM features are calculated for each block. Features calculated for each block form feature vectors. Feature vectors thus obtained are lexicographically sorted. Blocks with similar features are identified using Euclidean feature distances. Post-processing isolates similar blocks. Results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed scheme to locate copy-move forgery and robustness against operations like JPEG compression, blurring, and contrast adjustments.

Keywords

Copy-move Region duplication Image forgery detection Image texture GLRLM 

References

  1. 1.
    He Z, Sun W, Lu W, Lu H (2011) Digital image splicing detection based on approximate run length. Pattern Recogn Lett 32(12):1591–1597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2013) Passive detection of copy-move forgery in digital images: state-of-the-art. Forensic Sci Int 231(1):284–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mushtaq S, Mir AH (2014) digital image forgeries and passive image authentication techniques: a survey. Int J Adv Sci Technol 73:15–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Katzenbeisser S, Petitcolas F (2000) Information hiding techniques for steganography and digital watermarking. Artech HouseCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox IJ, Miller ML, Bloom JA, Honsinger C (2002) Digital watermarking. Morgan Kaufmann, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kang L, Cheng XP (2010) Copy-move forgery detection in digital image. In: 3rd international congress on image and signal processing (CISP), vol 5, pp 2419–2421Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memon N (2008) A survey of copy-move forgery detection techniques. In: IEEE Western New York image processing workshop. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jessica F, David S, Jan L (2003) Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of digital forensic research workshop, Cleveland, OHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Popescu AC, Farid H (2004) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image region. Technical report 2004-515. Hanover, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, USA, p 32Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huang Y, Lu W, Sun W, Long D (2011) Improved DCT-based detection of copy-move forgery in images. Forensic Sci Int 206(1):178–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Muhammad G, Hussain M, Bebis G (2012) Passive copy move image forgery detection using undecimated dyadic wavelet transform. Digit Invest 9(1):49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee JC (2015) Copy-move image forgery detection based on Gabor magnitude. J Vis Commun Image Represent 31:320–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jaberi M, Bebis G, Hussain M, Muhammad G (2013) Improving the detection and localization of duplicated regions in copy-move image forgery. In: 2013 18th international conference on digital signal processing (DSP), pp 1–6Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Christlein V, Riess C, Jordan J, Riess C, Angelopoulou E (2012) An evaluation of popular copy-move forgery detection approaches. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 7(6):1841–1854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tang X (1998) Texture information in run-length matrices. IEEE Trans Image Process 7(11):1602–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galloway MM (1975) Texture analysis using gray level run lengths. Comput Graph Image Process 4(2):172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chu A, Sehgal CM, Greenleaf JF (1990) Use of gray value distribution of run lengths for texture analysis. Pattern Recogn Lett 11(6):415–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tralic D, Zupancic I, Grgic S, Grgic M (2013) CoMoFoD—new database for copy-move forgery detection. In: 2013 55th international symposium ELMAR, pp 49–54Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electronics and Communication EngineeringNational Institute of Technology SrinagarSrinagarIndia

Personalised recommendations