Abstract
With the immensely growing rate of cyber forgery today, the integrity and authenticity of digital multimedia data are highly at stake. In this work, we deal with forensic investigation of cyber forgery in digital videos. The most common types of inter-frame forgery in digital videos are frame insertion, deletion and duplication attacks. A number of significant researches have been carried out in this direction, in the past few years. In this paper, we propose a two-step forensic technique to detect frame insertion, deletion and duplication types of video forgery. In the first step, we detect outlier frames, based on Haralick coded frame correlation; and in the second step, we perform a finer degree of detection, to eliminate false positives, hence to optimize the forgery detection accuracy. Our experimental results prove that the proposed method outperforms the state–of–the–art with an average F1 score of 0.97 in terms of inter–frame video forgery detection accuracy.









Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
References
Aghamaleki JA, Behrad A (2016) Inter-frame video forgery detection and localization using intrinsic effects of double compression on quantization errors of video coding. Signal Process Image Commun 47:289–302
Aghamaleki JA, Behrad A (2017) Malicious inter-frame video tampering detection in mpeg videos using time and spatial domain analysis of quantization effects. Multimed Tools Appl 76(20):20691–20717
Amidan BG, Ferryman TA, Cooley SK (2005) Data outlier detection using the Chebyshev theorem. In: IEEE aerospace conference, pp 3814–3819
Binh VP, Yang SH (2013) A better bit-allocation algorithm for h.264/svc. Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on information and communication technology. pp 18–26
Chao J, Jiang X, Sun T (2013) A novel video inter-frame forgery model detection scheme based on optical flow consistency. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on digital forensics and watermaking, IWDW’12. Springer, Berlin, pp 267–281
Chen W, Shi YQ (2008) Detection of double mpeg compression based on first digit statistics. In: International workshop on digital watermarking. Springer, Berlin, pp 16–30
de Almeida CW, de Souza RM, Candeias ALB (2010) Texture classification based on co-occurrence matrix and self-organizing map. In: IEEE international conference on systems man and cybernetics (SMC), pp 2487–2491
Fu X, Wei W (2008) Centralized binary patterns embedded with image euclidean distance for facial expression recognition. In: Fourth Int Conf Nat Comput, vol 4, pp 115–119
Hall G (2015) Pearson’s correlation coefficient. http://www.hep.ph.ic.ac.uk/~hallg/UG_2015/Pearsons.pdf, pp 1-4
Hall-beyer M (2017) Glcm texture: a tutorial v 3.0 March 2017. https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/1880/51900/texture%20tutorial%20v%203_0%20180206.pdf?sequence=11&isAllowed=y
Haralick RM, Shanmugam K, et al. (1973) Textural features for image classification. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern (6):610–621
Kekre H, Thepade SD, Sarode TK, et al. (2010) Image retrieval using texture features extracted from glcm, lbg and kpe. Int J Comput Theory Eng 2(5):695
Kobayashi M, Okabe T, Sato Y (2010) Detecting forgery from static-scene video based on inconsistency in noise level functions. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 5 (4):883–892
Li Z, Zhang Z, Guo S, et al. (2016) Video inter-frame forgery identification based on the consistency of quotient of mssim. Secur Commun Netw 9(17):4548–4556
Liao SX, Pawlak M (1998) A study of Zernike moment computing. In: Asian conference on computer vision. Springer, Berlin, pp 394–401
Lin P-Y (2009) Basic image compression algorithm and introduction to jpeg standard. National Taiwan University, Taipei
Liu H, Li S, Bian S (2014) Detecting frame deletion in h.264 video. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 262–270
Liu Y, Huang T (2017) Exposing video inter-frame forgery by Zernike opponent chromaticity moments and coarseness analysis. Multimed Syst 23(2):223–238
Luo W, Wu M, Huang J (2008) Mpeg recompression detection based on block artifacts. In: Security, forensics, steganography, and watermarking of multimedia contents X. International Society for Optics and Photonics, vol 6819, pp 68190X
Ojala T, Pietikäinen M, Harwood D (1996) A comparative study of texture measures with classification based on featured distributions. Pattern Recogn Lett 29 (1):51–59
Pulipaka A, Seeling P, Reisslein M, et al. (2013) Traffic and statistical multiplexing characterization of 3-d video representation formats. IEEE Trans Broadcast 59(2):382–389
Qadir G, Yahahya S, Ho A (2012) A Surrey university library for forensic analysis (sulfa). In: Proceedings of the IET IPR
Richardson IE (2004) H. 264 and MPEG-4 video compression: video coding for next-generation multimedia. Wiley, New York
Sahoo M (2011) Biomedical image fusion and segmentation using glcm. In: International journal of computer application special issue on 2nd national conference—computing, communication and sensor network CCSN, pp 34–39
Shanableh T (2013) Detection of frame deletion for digital video forensics. Digit Investig 10(4):350–360
Singh C, Upneja R (2012) Fast and accurate method for high order Zernike moments computation. Appl Math Comput 218(15):7759–7773
Sitara K, Mehtre B (2016) Digital video tampering detection: an overview of passive techniques. Digit Investig 18(Supplement C):8–22
Sonka M, Hlavac V, Boyle R (2014) Image processing, analysis, and machine vision. Cengage Learning, Boston
Su Y, Zhang J, Liu J (2009) Exposing digital video forgery by detecting motion-compensated edge artifact. In: International conference on computational intelligence and software engineering, pp 1–4
Su Y, Nie W, Zhang C (2011) A frame tampering detection algorithm for mpeg videos. In: 6th IEEE joint international information technology and artificial intelligence conference, vol 2, pp 461–464
Tuceryan M (1994) Moment-based texture segmentation. Pattern Recogn Lett 15(7):659–668
Wang Q, Li Z, Zhang Z et al (2014) Video inter-frame forgery identification based on consistency of correlation coefficients of gray values. J Comput Commun 2 (04):51
Wu Y, Jiang X, Sun T, et al. (2014) Exposing video inter-frame forgery based on velocity field consistency. In: IEEE international conference on acoustics speech and signal processing (ICASSP), pp 2674–2678
Yu L, Wang H, Han Q, et al. (2016) Exposing frame deletion by detecting abrupt changes in video streams. Neurocomputing 205:84–91
Zhang Y (1999) Optimisation of building detection in satellite images by combining multispectral classification and texture filtering. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 54(1):50–60
Zhang Z, Hou J, Ma Q, et al. (2015) Efficient video frame insertion and deletion detection based on inconsistency of correlations between local binary pattern coded frames. Secur Commun Netw 8(2):311–320
Acknowledgments
This work is funded by Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences (BRNS), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Govt. of India, Grant No. 34/20/22/2016-BRNS/34363, dated: 16/11/2016.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
In this section, we present the fourteen Haralick features proposed in [11], which have been adopted in our work. They are defined based on the following notations:
P(i,j) = (i,j)th entry in normalized Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix (GLCM).
Px(i) = i th entry in the Marginal–Probability Matrix obtained by summing the rows of P(i,j), i.e, \(P_{x}(i)={\sum }_{j}^{N_{g}} P(i,j)\), where Ng = number of distinct gray levels in the quantized image.
Py(j) = j th entry in the Marginal–Probability Matrix obtained by summing the columns of P(i,j), i.e, \(P_{y}(j)={\sum }_{i}^{N_{g}} P(i,j)\).
\(P_{x+y}(k) = {\sum }_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}{\sum }_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}P(i,j)\), where k = i + j ∈ [2,⋯ , 2Ng].
\(P_{x-y}(k)= {\sum }_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}{\sum }_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}P(i,j)\), where k = |i − j|∈ [0,⋯ ,Ng − 1].
Mathematical equations to compute the fourteen Haralick features, based on the above notations, are as follows:
-
1.
Angular Second Moment (Energy): This feature measures the uniformity of an image, computes as:
$$Angular Second Moment = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}} P^{2}(i,j) $$ -
2.
Contrast: It measures the frequency of local changes in an image, by computing intensity contrast between a pixel and its neighborhood. This represents the neighborhood based gray tone linear dependencies in an image. This feature is computed as follows:
$$Contrast=\sum\limits_{|i-j|= 0}^{N_{g} - 1}|i-j|^{2}\left( \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}P(i,j)\right) $$For a constant image, contrast is 0.
-
3.
Sum of Squares (Variance): This is a measure of heterogeneity in an image, and strength of its correlation to first order statistical variables such as standard deviation. Variance is proportional to difference between gray level values and their mean, computed as:
$$Variance= \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}(i-\mu)^{2}P(i,j) $$where μ is the mean of Px(i).
-
4.
Correlation: This feature measures how correlated a pixel is to its neighborhood. It is the measure of gray tone linear dependencies in the image.
$$Correlation= \frac{{\sum}_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}{\sum}_{j = 1}^{N_{g}} (i,j)P(i,j) - \mu_{x}\mu_{y}}{\sigma_{x}\sigma_{y}} $$where μx, μy, σx and σy are the means and standard deviations of Px and Py, respectively.
-
5.
Sum Average:
$$\sum\limits_{i = 2}^{2N_{g}}i ~P_{x+y}(i) $$where x and y represent the row and column respectively of a GLCM entry, and Px + y(i) is the probability of GLCM coordinates summing to x + y.
-
6.
Sum Entropy:
$$\sum\limits_{i = 2}^{2N_{g}}P_{x+y}(i)\log{P_{x+y}(i)} $$ -
7.
Sum Variance:
$$\sum\limits_{i = 2}^{2N_{g}}(1-SE)^{2} P_{x+y}(i) $$where SE = Sum Entropy.
-
8.
Inverse Difference Moment (Homogeneity): This feature measures the similarity between pixels and their neighborhoods. Local textures having minimal changes, lead to high homogeneity. It is computed as:
$$Inverse ~Difference ~Moment= \sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}} \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}\frac{P(i,j)}{1+(i-j)^{2}} $$ -
9.
Entropy: Entropy measures the textural randomness within an image. Entropy is computed as:
$$Entropy = -\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}}P(i,j)\log_{2}(P(i,j)) $$ -
10.
Difference Variance:
$$\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{N_{g}-1} i^{2} P_{x-y}(i) $$ -
11.
Difference Entropy:
$$-\sum\limits_{i = 0}^{N_{g}-1} P_{x-y}(i)\log({P_{x-y}(i)}) $$ -
12.
Information Measure of Correlation 1:
$$\frac{HXY-HXY1}{max\{HX,HY\}} $$where,
$$\begin{array}{@{}rcl@{}} HXY&=&-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}} P(i,j)\log(P(i,j))\\ HXY1&=&-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}} P(i,j)\log{P_{x}(i)P_{y}(j)}\\ HX&=&\text{Entropy of}~P_{x}(i), HY = \text{Entropy of} ~P_{y}(j) \end{array} $$ -
13.
Information Measure of Correlation 2:
$$(1-\exp {[-2(HXY2-HXY)]})^{\frac{1}{2}}$$where
$$HXY2=-\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N_{g}}\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{N_{g}} P_{x}(i) P_{y}(j) \log ({P_{x}(i) P_{y}(j)}) $$ -
14.
Max Correlation Coefficient:
$$\sqrt{\text{Second largest eigenvalue of Q}} $$where,
$$Q(i,j)=\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{N_{g}} \frac{P(i,k) P(j,k)} {P_{x}(i) P_{y}(k)} $$
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bakas, J., Naskar, R. & Dixit, R. Detection and localization of inter-frame video forgeries based on inconsistency in correlation distribution between Haralick coded frames. Multimed Tools Appl 78, 4905–4935 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6570-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6570-8