Tampering detection using hybrid local and global features in wavelet-transformed space with digital images

Abstract

The widespread availability of advanced digital image technology and powerful image editing tools has made it extremely easy to manipulate image content. One popular technique that is challenging for tampering detection methods is the copy–move forgery. Here, one part of the image is copied and is pasted into another part of the same image. Image tampering is very difficult to detect with the naked eye. The authenticity of digital images is critical when they are used as evidence in court, for news reports or insurance claims, as they have the power to influence decisions and outcomes. Hence, this paper presents an efficient method for copy–move forgery detection by means of a HOG descriptor and local binary pattern variance algorithms. The copy–move forgery detection (CMFD) approach is introduced and is applied to the forged region by determining suitable post-processing techniques. The proposed technique is evaluated using MICC-F220, MICC-F2000, UCID, CoMoFoD and CASIA TIDE data sets in which translation, flipping, rotation, scaling, color reduction, brightness change and JPEG compression are applied to an image. The experimental performance of the proposed technique is assessed in terms of the true- and false-detection rates. Ultimately, our proposed method is highly suitable for detecting the altered region, and accurate CMFD results are obtained in forensic image applications.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18

References

  1. AI-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2013) Passive detection of copy–move forgery in digital images: state-of-the-art. Forensic Sci Int 231(1):284–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alkawaz M, Sulong G, Saba T, Rehman A (2018) Detection of copy–move image forgery based on discrete cosine transform. Neural Comput Appl 30(1):183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Qershi OM, Khoo BE (2018) Evaluation of copy–move forgery detection: datasets and evaluation metrics. Multimed Tools Appl 77:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Amerini I, Lamberto R, Alberto GS (2011) A SIFT-based forensic method for copy–move attack detection and transformation recovery. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 6(3):1099–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ardizzone E, Bruno A, Mazzola G (2015) Copy–move forgery detection by matching triangles of keypoint. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(10):2084–2094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bayram S, Sencar HT, Memom N (2009) An efficient and robust method for detecting copy–move forgery. In: Acoustics, speech and signal processing, pp 1053–1056

  7. Bravo-Solorio S, Nandi AK (2011) Automated detection and localisation of duplicated regions affected by reflection, rotation and scaling in image forensics. Sig Process 91(8):1759–1770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen L, Lu W, Ni J, Sun W, Huang J (2013) Region duplication detection based on Harris corner points and step sector statistics. J Vis Commun Image Represent 24(3):244–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Cozzolino D, Poggi G, Verdoliva L (2015) Efficient dense-field copy–move forgery detection. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(11):2284–2297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dixit R, Naskar R, Mishra S (2017) Blur invariant copy–move forgery detection technique with improved detection accuracy utilizing SWT-SVD. IET Image Proc 11(5):301–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fridrich AJ, Soukal BD, Rehman A (2003) Detection of copy–move forgery in digital images. In: Proceedings of digital forensic workshop

  12. Guo Z, Zhang L, Zhang D (2010) Rotation invariant texture classification using LBP variance with global matching. Pattern Recogn 43(3):706–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hossain S, Muhammad G, Qurishi MA (2018) Verifying the image authenticity in cognitive internet of things (CIoT)-oriented cyber physical system. Mobile Netw Appl 23:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu R, Collomosse J (2013) A performance evaluation of gradient field hog descriptor for sketch based image retrieval. Comput Vis Image Underst 117(7):790–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Imamoglu MB, Ulutas G, Ulutas M (2013) Detection of copy–move forgery using Krawtchouk moment in electrical engineering. In: International conference on IEEE, pp 311–314

  16. Jaberi M, Bebis G, Hussain M, Muhammad G (2014) Accurate and robust localization of duplicated region in copy–move image forgery. Mach Vis Appl 25:451–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kakar P, Sudha N (2012) Exposing post processed copy–paste forgeries through transform invariant features. Inf Forensics Secur IEEE Trans 7:1018–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kang X, Wei S (2009) Identifying tampered regions using singular value decomposition in digital image forensics. In: International conference on computer science and software engineering, vol 3, pp 926–930

  19. Khizear H, Qazi T (2017) Forgery detection in digital images via discrete wavelet and discrete cosine transforms. Comput Electr Eng 62:448–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Li Y (2013) Image copy–move forgery detection based on polar cosine transform and approximate nearest neighbour searching. Forensic Sci Int 224:59–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li L, Li S, Wang J (2012) Copy–move forgery detection based on PHT. In: Information and communication technologies (WICT), pp 1061–1065

  22. Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Chu C, Roddick F, Pan JS (2013) An efficient scheme for detecting copy–move forged images by local binary patterns. J Inf Hiding Multimed Signal Process 4:46–56

    Google Scholar 

  23. Li L, Li S, Zhu H, Wu X (2014) Detecting copy–move forgery under affine transforms for image forensics. Comput Electr Eng 40(6):1951–1962

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Li J, Li X, Yang B, Sun X (2015) Segmentation-based image copy–move forgery detection scheme. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(3):507–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lowe DG (2004) Distinctive image features from scale invariant keypoint. Int J Comput Vision 60(2):91–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mahadian B, Sai S (2009) Using noise inconsistencies for blind image forensics. Image Vis Comput 27:1497–1503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mahmood T, Nawaz T, Ashraf R, Shah M, Khan Z, Irtaza A, Mehmood Z (2015) A survey on block based copy move image forgery detection techniques. In: Emerging technologies (ICET), pp 1–6

  28. Mahmood T, Nawaz T, Irtaza A, Ashraf R, Shah M, Mahmood MT (2016) Copy–move forgery detection technique for forensic analysis in digital images. Math Probl Eng 2016:13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mahmood T, Mehmood Z, Shah S (2018) A robust technique for copy–move forgery detection and localization in digital images via stationary wavelet and discrete cosine transform. J Vis Commun Image Represent 53:202–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Popescu AC, Farid H (2005) Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Trans Sig Process 53(2):758–767

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pun C-M, Xiao-Chen Y, Bi X-L (2015) Image forgery detection using adaptive over segmentation and feature point matching. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(8):1705–1716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Quershi MA, Deriche M (2015) A bibliography of pixel-based blind image forgery detection techniques. Sig Process Image Commun 39:46–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ryu SJ, Kirchner M, Lee MJ, Lee HK (2013) Rotation invariant localization of duplicated image regions based on zernike moments. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 8(8):1355–1370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sadeghi S, Jalab HA, Wong KS, Uliyan D, Dadkhah S (2017) Keypoint based authentication and localization of copy–move forgery in digital image. Malays J Comput Sci 30(2):117–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schaefer G, Stich M (2004) UCID: an uncompressed color image database. Storage Retr Methods Appl Multimed 5307:472–481

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sujatha K, Punithavathani DS (2018) Optimized ensemble decision-based multi-focus image fusion using binary genetic Grey-Wolf optimizer in camera sensor networks. Multimedia Tools Appl 77(2):1735–1759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sundararaj V (2016) An efficient threshold prediction scheme for wavelet based ECG signal noise reduction using variable step size firefly algorithm. Int J Intell Eng Syst 9(3):117–126

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sundararaj V (2019) Optimal task assignment in mobile cloud computing by queue based ant-bee algorithm. Wireless Pers Commun 104(1):173–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sundararaj V, Muthukumar S, Kumar RS (2018) An optimal cluster formation based energy efficient dynamic scheduling hybrid MAC protocol for heavy traffic load in wireless sensor networks. Comput Secur 77:277–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Thirunavukkaras V, Kumar J, Chae G, Kishorkumar J (2018) Non-intrusive forensic detection method using DSWT with reduced feature set for copy–move image tampering. Wireless Pers Commun 98(4):3039–3057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Tralic D, Zupancic I, Sona, Mislay (2013) CoMoFoD—new database for copy–move forgery detection. In: ELMAR, pp 49–54

  42. Uliyan DM, Jalab HA, Wahab AWA, Sadeghi S (2016) Image region duplication forgery detection based on angular radial partitioning and Harris key-points. Symmetry (Basel) 8(7):62

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wang X-Y, Liu Y-N, Huan X, Wang P, Yang H-Y (2018) Robust copy–move forgery detection using quaternion exponent moments. Pattern Anal Appl 21(2):451–467

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Xiuli C-MP, Yuan X-C (2016) Multilevel dense descriptor and hierarchical feature matching for copy–move forgery detection. Inf Sci 345:226–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Yang ZC, Li Z-H (2012) An anti-JPEG compression digital watermarking technology with an ability in detecting forgery region for color images. In: International conference on computer distributed control and intelligent environmental monitoring, pp 93–97

  46. Zhang J, Feng Z, Su Y (2017) A new approach for detecting copy–move forgery in digital images. In: Communication systems, pp 362–366

  47. Zhangi Z, Ren Y, Ping X-J, He Z-Y, Zhang S-Z (2008) A survey on passive-blind image forgery by doctor method detection. Int Conf Mach Learn Cybern Kunming 6:3463–3467

    Google Scholar 

  48. Zhao J, Guo J (2013) Passive forensics for copy–move forgery using a method based on DCT and SVD. Forensic Sci Int 233(1–3):158–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Nirmal Jothi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with animal/human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Communicated by V. Loia.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nirmal Jothi, J., Letitia, S. Tampering detection using hybrid local and global features in wavelet-transformed space with digital images. Soft Comput 24, 5427–5443 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04298-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Altered image
  • Forensics
  • Square block
  • Circular block
  • Passive method