A Comparative Analysis of Forgery Detection Algorithms

  • Davide Cozzolino
  • Giovanni Poggi
  • Carlo Sansone
  • Luisa Verdoliva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7626)


The aim of this work is to make an objective comparison between different forgery techniques and present a tool that helps taking a more reliable decision about the integrity of a given image or part of it. The considered techniques, all recently proposed in the scientific community, follow different and complementary approaches so as to guarantee robustness with respect to tampering of different types and characteristics. Experiments have been conducted on a large set of images using an automatic copy-paste tampering generator. Early results point out significant differences about competing techniques, depending also on complexity and side information.


forgery detection digital forensics image tampering 


  1. 1.
    Farid, H.: Image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 26, 16–25 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Battiato, S., Messina, G.: Digital Forgery Estimation into DCT Domain - A Critical Analysis. In: ACM Multimedia Workshop on Multimedia in Forensics, pp. 37–42 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gloe, T., Böhme, R.: The Dresden Image Database for Benchmarking Digital Image Forensics Categories and Subject Descriptors. In: ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 1584–1590 (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    IPLab. Image Processing Laboratory - Forensic Database,
  5. 5.
    Li, W., Yuan, Y., Yu, N.: Passive detection of doctored JPEG image via block artifact grid extraction. Signal Processing 89(9), 1821–1829 (2009)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Popescu, A.C., Farid, H.: Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 53(2), 758–767 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen, M., Fridrich, J., Goljan, M., Lukas, J.: Determining Image Origin and Integrity Using Sensor Noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 3, 74–90 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhang, C., Zhang, H.: Exposing Digital Image Forgeries by Using Canonical Correlation Analysis. In: International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pp. 838–841 (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chierchia, G., Parrilli, S., Poggi, G., Sansone, C., Verdoliva, L.: On the influence of denoising in PRNU based forgery detection. In: 2nd ACM Workshop on Multimedia in Forensics, Security and Intelligence (MiFOR), pp. 117–122 (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chierchia, G., Parrilli, S., Poggi, G., Sansone, C., Verdoliva, L.: PRNU-based detection of small size image forgeries. In: 17th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing (DSP), pp. 1–6 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuncheva, L.I.: Combining Pattern Classifiers: Methods and Algorithms. Wiley Interscience (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davide Cozzolino
    • 1
  • Giovanni Poggi
    • 1
  • Carlo Sansone
    • 1
  • Luisa Verdoliva
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Electrical Engineering and Information TechnologiesUniversity Federico II of NaplesNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations