A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics | Frontiers of Computer Science Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Computer Science in China Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past years, digital images have been widely used in the Internet and other applications. Whilst image processing techniques are developing at a rapid speed, tampering with digital images without leaving any obvious traces becomes easier and easier. This may give rise to some problems such as image authentication. A new passive technology for image forensics has evolved quickly during the last few years. Unlike the signature-based or watermark-based methods, the new technology does not need any signature generated or watermark embedded in advance. It assumes that different imaging devices or processing would introduce different inherent patterns into the output images. These underlying patterns are consistent in the original untampered images and would be altered after some kind of manipulations. Thus, they can be used as evidence for image source identification and alteration detection. In this paper, we will discuss this new forensics technology and give an overview of the prior literatures. Some concluding remarks are made about the state of the art and the challenges in this novel technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Farid H. Digital doctoring: How to tell the real from the fake, Significance, 2006, 3(4):162–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering

  3. Light K, Fonda, Kerry, Photo Fakery. The Washington Post, Saturday 28 Feb. 2004

  4. Voice of the Mirror. Sorry. we were hoaxed: Iraqi PoW abuse pictures handed to us WERE fake. Daily Mirror Newspaper, 15 May 2004

  5. Zhu B, Swanson M, Tewfik A. When seeing isn’t believing [multimedia authentication technologies]. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, Mar. 2004, 21(2): 40–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hartung F, Kutter M. Multimedia watermarking techniques. Proc. IEEE, July 1999, 87(7): 1079–1107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ng T T, Chang S F, Lin C Y, et al. Multimedia Security Technologies for Digital Rights, chap. Passive-Blind image forensic, Elsvier, 2006

  8. http://www.exif.org

  9. Farid H. Digital image ballistics from jpeg quantization. Tech. Rep. TR2006-583, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2006

  10. Adams J, Parulski K, Spaulding K. Color processing in digital cameras. IEEE Micro, Nov.–Dec. 1998, 18(6): 20–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kharrazi M, Sencar H, Memon N. Blind source camera identification. In: Proceedings of ICIP’04, 24–27 Oct. 2004, 1: 709–712

  12. Chang C, Lin C. LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines. Software available at:http://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/:_cjlin/libsvm, 2001

  13. Geradts Z J, Bijhold J, Kieft M, et al. Methods for identification of images acquired with digital cameras. In: SPIE Enabling Technologies for Law Enforcement and Security, 2001, 4232(1): 505–512

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lukas J, Fridrich J, Goljan M. Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Trans. Information Forensics and Security, June 2006, 1(2): 205–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lukas J, Fridrich J, Goljan M. Determining digital image origin using sensor imperfections. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Image and Video Communications and Processing 2005, 2005, 5685(1): 249–260

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lukas J, Fridrich J, Goljan M. Digital “bullet scratches” for images. In: Processings of ICIP’ 05, 11–14 Sept. 2005, 3: 65–68

  17. Lukas J, Fridrich J, Goljan M. Detecting digital image forgeries using sensor pattern noise. In: Processings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, 16–20 Jan. 2006, 6072(1): 60720Y

  18. Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu K J R. Non-intrusive forensic analysis of visual sensors using output images. In: Proceedings of ICASSP’06, Toulouse, France, 14–19 May 2006, 5: 401–404

  19. Popescu A, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries in color filter array interpolated images. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 2005, 53(10): 3948–3959

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  20. Holst G C. CCD Arrays, Cameras, and Displays. 2nd ed. JCD Publishing & SPIE Pres, USA, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kurosawa K, Kuroki K, Saitoh N. Ccd fingerprint method-identification of a video camera from videotaped images. In: Processings of ICIP’99, 24–28 Oct. 1999, 3: 537–540

  22. Adams J J E. Interactions between color plane interpolation and other image processing functions in electronic photography. In: C.N. Anagnostopoulos, M.P. Lesser, eds., Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Cameras and Systems for Electronic Photography and Scientific Imaging, 1995, 2416(1): 144–151

  23. Bayram S, Sencar H, Memon N, et al. Source camera identification based on cfa interpolation. In: Proceedings of ICIP’05, 11–14 Sept. 2005, 3: 69–72

  24. Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu K J R. Component forensics of digital cameras: A non-intrusive approach. In: Proceedings of Conference on Information Sciences and Systems (CISS), Princeton, NJ, Mar. 2006, 1194–1099

  25. Lyu S. Natural Image Statistics for Digital Image Forensics. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lyu S, Farid H. How realistic is photorealistic? IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 2005, 53(2): 845–850

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  27. Ng T T, Chang S F, Hsu J, et al. Physics-motivated features for distinguishing photographic images and computer graphics. In: Proceedings of ACM Multimedia, Singapore, Nov. 2005, 5: 239–248

  28. Dehnie S, Sencar T H, Memon N. Digital image forensics for identifying computer generated and digital camera images. In: Proceedings of ICIP’06, Polytechnic University, 2006, 2313–2316

  29. Ng T T, Chang S F, Hsu J, et al. Columbia photographic images and photorealistic computer graphics dataset. ADVENT Technical Report 205-2004-5, Columbia University, Feb. 2005

  30. Ng T T, Chang S F. An online system for classifying computer graphics images from natural photographs. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, USA, Jan. 2006, 6072:397–405

  31. Lyu S, Rockmore D, Farid H. A digital technique for art authentication. Proc. National Academy of Sciences, 2004, 101(49): 17006–17010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lyu S, Rockmore D, Farid H. Wavelet analysis for authentication, in Art+Math=X, Boulder, CO, 2005

  33. Farid H, Lyu S. Higher-order wavelet statistics and their application to digital forensics. In: IEEE Workshop on Statistical Analysis in Computer Vision (in conjunction with CVPR), Madison, Wisconsin, 2003

  34. Wei L Y. Texture Synthesis by Fixed Neighborhood Searching. Ph.d. dissertation, Stanford University, Nov. 2001

  35. Criminisi A, Perez P, Toyama K. Region filling and object removal by exemplar-based image inpainting. IEEE Trans. Image Processing, Sept. 2004, 13(9): 1200–1212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bertalmio M, Sapiro G, Caselles V, et al. Image inpainting. In: Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH’2000, 2000, 417–424

  37. Farid H. Creating and detecting doctored and virtual images: Implications to the child pornography prevention act. Technical Report TR2004-518, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2004

  38. Wallace G. The jpeg still picture compression standard. IEEE Trans. Consumer Electronics, Feb. 1992, 38(1): xviii–xxxiv

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Fan Z, de Queiroz R. Maximum likelihood estimation of jpeg quantization table in the identification of bitmap compression history. In: Proceedings of ICIP’ 00, 10–13 Sept. 2000, 1: 948–951

  40. Fan Z, de Queiroz R. Identification of bitmap compression history: Jpeg detection and quantizer estimation..IEEE Trans. Image Processing, Feb. 2003, 12(2): 230–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Fridrich J, Goljan M, Du R. Steganalysis based on jpeg compatibility. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Multimedia Systems and Applications, 2001, 4518(1): 275–280

    Google Scholar 

  42. Neelamani R, Baraniuk R, de Queiroz R. Compression color space estimation of jpeg images using lattice basis reduction. In: Proceedings of ICIP’ 01, 7–10 Oct. 2001, 1: 890–893

  43. Neelamani R, de Queiroz R, Fan Z, et al. Jpeg compression history estimation for color images. In: Proceedings of ICIP’ 03, 14–17 Sept. 2003, 3: 245–248

  44. Neelamani R, de Queiroz R, Fan Z, et al. Jpeg compression history estimation for color images. IEEE Trans. Image Processing, June 2006, 15(6): 1365–1378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lukas J, Fridrich J. Estimation of primary quantization matrix in double compressed jpeg images. In: Proceedings of DFRWS, Cleveland, OH, USA, 5–8 Aug. 2003

  46. Popescu A. Statistical Tools for Digital Image Forensics. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  47. Fu D D, Shi Y Q, Su W. A generalized Benford’s law for jpeg coefficients and its applications in image forensics. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, 2007 (in press), 6505: 58

    Google Scholar 

  48. Schaefer G, Stich M. Ucid: an uncompressed color image database. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Storage and Retrieval Methods and Applications for Multimedia, 2003, 5307(1): 472–480

    Google Scholar 

  49. Luo W Q, Qu Z H, Huang J W, et al. A novel method for detecting cropped and recompressed image block. In: Proceedings of ICASSP’07, 2007(in press)

  50. Fridrich J, Soukal D, Lukas J. Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In: Processings of DFRWS, Cleveland, OH, USA, 5–8 Aug. 2003

  51. Popescu A, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions, Tech. Rep. TR2004-515, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2004

  52. Luo W Q, Huang J W, Qiu G P. Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital image. In: Proceedings of ICPR’06, 20–24 Aug. 2006, 4: 746–749

  53. Ng T T, Chang S F. A model for image splicing. In: Proceedings of ICIP’ 04, 24–27 Oct. 2004, 2: 1169–1172

  54. Ng T T, Chang S F. A data set of authentic and spliced image blocks. ADVENT Technical Report 203-2004-3, Columbia University, June 2004

  55. Farid H. A picture tells a thousand lies, New Scientist, 6 Sept. 2003, 179(2411): 38–41

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ng T T, Chang S F, Sun Q. Blind detection of photomontage using higher order statistics. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Circuits and Systems, 23–26 May 2004, 5: 688–691

  57. Ng T T, Chang S F. Blind detection of digital photomontage using higher order statistics. ADVENT Technical Report 201-2004-1, Columbia University, June 2004

  58. Johnson M, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. In: Proceedings of ACM the 7th workshop on Multimedia and Security Workshop, New York, NY, 2005, 1–10

  59. Hsu Y F, Chang S F. Detecting image splicing using geometry invariants and camera characteristics consistency. In: Proceedings of ICME’06, Toronto, Canada, July 2006

  60. Chen W, Shi Y Q, Su W. Image splicing detection using 2-d phase congruency and statistical moments of characteristic function. In: Proceedings of SPIE Electronic Imaging, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents, 2007(to appear), 6505: 27

    Google Scholar 

  61. Farid H. Detecting digital forgeries using bispectral analysis. Tech. Rep. AIM-1657, AI Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1999

  62. Ng T T, Chang S F, Tsui M P. Camera response function estimation from a single-channel image using differential invariants. ADVENT Technical Report 216-2006-2, Columbia University, Mar. 2006

  63. Shi Y Q, Xuan G R, Zou D, et al. Image steganalysis based on moments of characteristic functions using wavelet decomposition, prediction-error image, and neural network. In: Proceedings of ICME’05, 6–8 July 2005, 4

  64. Swaminathan A, Wu M, Liu K J R. Image tampering identification using blind deconvolution. In: Proceedings of ICIP’ 06, Atlanta, GA, Oct. 2006, 2311–2314

  65. Grossberg M, Nayar S. What is the space of camera response functions?. In: Proceedings of CVPR’03, 18–20 June 2003, 2: 602–609

  66. Farid H. Blind inverse gamma correction, IEEE Trans. Image Processing, 2001, 10(10): 1428–1433

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  67. Lin S, Zhang L. Determining the radiometric response function from a single grayscale image. In: Proceedings of CVPR’05, 20–25 June 2005, 2: 66–73

  68. Lin Z C, Wang R R, Tang X O, et al. Detecting doctored images using camera response normality and consistency. In: Proceedings of CVPR’05, 20–25 June 2005, 1: 1087–1092

  69. Johnson M, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries through chromatic aberration. In: Proceedings of ACM the 8th workshop on Multimedia and Security Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, 48–55

  70. Willson R, Shafer S. What is the center of the image? In: Proceedings of CVPR’93, 15–17 June 1993, 670–671

  71. Popescu A, Farid H. Statistical tools for digital forensics. In: 6th International Workshop on Information Hiding, Toronto, Canada, May 2004, 3200: 128–147

  72. Popescu A, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of re-sampling. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, 2005, 53(2): 758–767

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang W, Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries in video by detecting double mpeg compression. In: Proceedings of ACM the 8th workshop on Multimedia and Security Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, 37–47

  74. Farid H. Exposing digital forgeries in scientific images. In: Proceedings of ACM the 8th workshop on Multimedia and Security Workshop, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006, 29–36

  75. Avcibas I, Bayram S, Memon N, Ramkumar M, Sankur B. A classifier design for detecting image manipulations. In: Proceedings of ICIP’04, 24–27 Oct. 2004, 4: 2645–2648

  76. Johnson M, Farid H. Metric measurements on a plane from a single image. Technical Report TR2006-579, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College, 2006

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Guangdong Key Lab of Information Security Technology, Guangzhou, 510275, China

    Luo Weiqi, Qu Zhenhua, Pan Feng & Huang Jiwu

  2. School of Information Science and Technology, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, China

    Luo Weiqi, Qu Zhenhua, Pan Feng & Huang Jiwu

Authors
  1. Luo Weiqi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qu Zhenhua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pan Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Huang Jiwu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Huang Jiwu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Luo, W., Qu, Z., Pan, F. et al. A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics. Front. Comput. Sc. China 1, 166–179 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-007-0017-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11704-007-0017-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation