skip to main content
10.1145/3206004.3206021acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesih-n-mmsecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Facing the Cover-Source Mismatch on JPHide using Training-Set Design

Published:14 June 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This short paper investigates the influence of the image processing pipeline (IPP) on the cover-source mismatch (CSM) for the popular JPHide steganographic scheme. We propose to deal with CSM by combining a forensics and a steganalysis approach. A multi-classifier is first trained to identify the IPP, and secondly a specific training set is designed to train a targeted classifier for steganalysis purposes. We show that the forensic step is immune to the steganographic embedding. The proposed IPP-informed steganalysis outperforms classical strategies based on training on a mixture of sources and we show that it can provide results close to a detector specifically trained on the appropriate source.

References

  1. M. Barni, G. Cancelli, and A. Esposito. 2010. Forensics aided steganalysis of heterogeneous images. In Int. Conf. on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 1690--1693.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. P. Bas, T. Filler, and T. Pevny. 2011. Break our Steganographic System - the ins and outs of organizing BOSS. In 13th workshop on Information Hiding. Springer, Prague, Czech Republic, 59--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. M. Boroumand and J. Fridrich. 2017. Scalable Processing History Detector for JPEG Images. In Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics. IS&T.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cambridge in Colours 2017. Photography tutorials: White balance. (2017). Retrieved Jan 24, 2018 from http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/ white-balance.htmGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Cancelli, G. Doerr, M. Barni, and I. J. Cox. 2008. A comparative study of ±1 steganalyzers. In IEEE 10th Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. 791--796.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. J. Fridrich, J. Kodovský, V. Holub, and M. Goljan. 2011. Breaking HUGO - The Process Discovery. In 13th Int. Conf. on Information Hiding. 85--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Q. Giboulot, R. Cogranne, and P. Bas. 2018. Steganalysis into the Wild: How to Define a Source?. In Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics. IST.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A.D. Ker, P. Bas, R. Böhme, R. Cogranne, S. Craver, T. Filler, J. Fridrich, and T. Pevny. 2013. Moving steganography and steganalysis from the laboratory intoGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. the real world. In Workshop on Information Hiding and Multi-media Security (IH&MMSEC). ACM, 45--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. A. Ker and T. Pevny. 2014. A Mishmash of Methods for Mitigating the Model Mismatch Mess. In Electronic Imaging, Media Watermarking, Security and Forensics, Vol. SPIE Vol. 9028. SPIE, San Francisco, 90280I.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. J. Kodovsky and J. Fridrich. 2012. Steganalysis of JPEG Images Using Rich Models. In Electronic Imaging, Media Watermarking, Security and Forensics. SPIE, San Francisco.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Kodovsky and J. Fridrich. 2013. Steganalysis in Resized Images. In Proc. ICASSP.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. J. Kodovsky, J. Fridrich, and V. Holub. 2012. Ensemble classifiers for steganalysis of digital media. IEEE TIFS 7, 2 (2012), 432 -- 444. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. J. Kodovsky, V. Sedighi, and J. Fridrich. 2014. Study of Cover Source Mismatch in Steganalysis and Ways to Mitigate its Impact. In Electronic Imaging, Media Watermarking, Security and Forensics. SPIE, SPIE, San Francisco, California, 90280J.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. I. Lubenko and A. Ker. 2012. Going from small to large data in steganalysis. In Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics, Vol. 8303. SPIE, 83030M--83030M--10.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. F. Comby M. Yedroudj, M. Chaumont. 2018. How to augment a small learning set for improving the performances of a CNN-based steganalyzer?. In Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics. IS&T.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. J. Pasquet, S. Bringay, and M. Chaumont. 2014. Steganalysis with Cover-Source Mismatch and a small learning database. In Proc. EUSPICO.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. X. Qiu, H. Li, W. Luo, and J. Huang. 2014. A universal Image Forensic Strategy based on Steganalytic Model. In Workshop on Information Hiding and Multi-media Security (IH&MMSEC). Salzburg. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Rawpedia 2015. Gamma differential. (2015). Retrieved Jan 29, 2018 from https: //rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Gamma_-_DifferentialGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. M.S. Tooms. 2016. Colour Reproduction in Electronic Imaging Systems: Photography, Television, Cinematography. John Wiley & Sons, Chapter Appendix H: Deriving the Standard Formula for Gamma Correction, 667--672.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Facing the Cover-Source Mismatch on JPHide using Training-Set Design

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      IH&MMSec '18: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security
      June 2018
      152 pages
      ISBN:9781450356251
      DOI:10.1145/3206004

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 14 June 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      IH&MMSec '18 Paper Acceptance Rate18of40submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate128of318submissions,40%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader