Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A novel steganalysis for TPVD steganographic method based on differences of pixel difference histogram

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tri-way Pixel Value Differencing (TPVD) steganographic method is a new modified version of another well-known method called PVD, which intents to increase embedding capacity and security of its successor by hiding secret bits in both vertical and diagonal edges of a cover image, in addition to the horizontal edges used in PVD. In this paper, it is shown that the histogram of difference values of a stego image under the TPVD algorithms is vulnerable to a particular statistical analysis. So, a new steganalytic measure named Growing Anomalies is introduced that its value has a linear relationship with secret message rate. It is shown empirically and theoretically that proposed steganalysis method based on this measure can estimate the amount of secret bits with a negligible error rate. The proposed steganalyser can classify test images as stego or cover with 97% accuracy when they contain more that 10% secret data. Implementation results indicate that proposed method can estimate secret message rate with an average accuracy of 95%.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /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 excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

Notes

  1. http://sipi.usc.edu/database/

References

  1. Anderson RG, Petitcolas FAP (1998) On the limits of steganography. IEEE J Sel Areas Commun Special Issue on Copyright and Privacy Protection 16:474–481

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bui C, Lee H, Joo J, Lee H (2010) steganalysis method defeating the modified Pixel-value differencing steganography. ICIC 6:3193–3203

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chang K, Chang C, Huang PS, Tu T (2008) A novel image steganographic method using tri-way pixel-value differencing. J Multimedia 3:37–44. doi:10.4304/jmm.3.2.37-44

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fridrich J, Goljan M (2002) Practical steganalysis of digital images-state of the art. Proc. SPIE Photonics West Electron. Imaging 4675:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fridrich J, Goljan M, Du R (2001) Detecting LSB steganography in color and gray-scale images. IEEE Multimedia 8:22–28. doi:10.1109/93.959097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goljan M, Fridrich J, Holotyak T (2006) New blind steganalysis and its implications. in Proc. of the SPIE, Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VI, 6072:1–13.

  7. Gul G, Kurugollu F (2010) SVD-based universal spatial domain image steganalysis. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5:349–353. doi:10.1109/TIFS.2010.2041826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johnson NF, Jajodia S (1998) Steganalysis of images created using current steganography software. LNCS, Springer 1525:273–289. doi:10.1007/3-540-49380-8

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson N, Duric Z, Jajodia S (2001) Information hiding: steganography and watermarking-attacks and countermeasures. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  10. Joo J, Hae-Yeoun L, Cong B, Won-Young Y, Heung-Kyu L (2008) Steganalytic measures for the steganography using pixel-value differencing and modulus function. LNCS, Springer Berlin 5353:476–485. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89796-5_49

    Google Scholar 

  11. Provos N, Honeyman P (2001) Detecting steganographic content on the internet. Technical Report CITI 01-1a, University of Michigan

  12. Sabeti V, Samavi S, Mahdavi M, Shirani S (2007) Steganalysis of pixel-value differencing steganographic method. IEEE Pacific Rim Conference. 292–295.

  13. Sabeti V, Samavi S, Mahdavi M, Shirani S (2009) Steganalysis and payload estimation of embedding in pixel differences using neural networks. Pattern Recognit Lett 43:405–415

    Google Scholar 

  14. Westfeld A (2001) F5-A steganographic algorithm: high capacity despite better steganalysis. IHW, LNCS, Springer-Verlag 2137:289–302

    Google Scholar 

  15. Westfeld A, Pfitzmann A (1999) Attacks on steganographic systems. IHW, LNCS, Springer-Verlag 1768:61–76

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wu DC, Tsai WH (2003) A steganographic method for images by pixel-value differencing. Pattern Recognit Lett 24:1613–1626

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. Zaker N, Hamzeh A, Katebi SD, Samavi S (2009) Improving security of pixel value differencing steganographic method. NTMS'09, IEEE Press, NJ, USA, pp 399–402. doi:10.1109/NTMS.2009.5384692

    Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang X, Wang S (2004) Vulnerability of pixel-value differencing steganography to histogram analysis and modification for enhanced security. Pattern Recognit Lett 25:331–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazanin Zaker.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zaker, N., Hamzeh, A. A novel steganalysis for TPVD steganographic method based on differences of pixel difference histogram. Multimed Tools Appl 58, 147–166 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0714-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-010-0714-9

Keywords