skip to main content
10.1145/3465481.3470061acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaresConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

JPEG File Fragmentation Point Detection using Huffman Code and Quantization Array Validation

Published:17 August 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

File carving is a data recovery technique used in many investigations in digital forensics, with some limitations. Especially JPEG files are difficult to recover when fragmented, because they consist almost entirely of large blobs of highly compressed entropy-coded data, with no clearly discernible structure.

This paper describes an approach that leverages two observations about many JPEG files in practice. First, the Huffman tables used to decode a large proportion of the entropy-coded data often do not use all possible code values at their longest code length, offering possibilities to detect errors when invalid codes are encountered. Second, after translating Huffman codes to symbols, the next step in decoding involves filling quantization arrays with exactly 64 values, offering another possibility to detect errors when an overflow is encountered.

This paper presents an algorithm to validate the entropy-coded data using these two observations and finds that the odds of finding fragmentation points are quite high, especially with regard to invalid Huffman codes. It will work with the example Huffman tables provided by the JPEG standard that are used by many digital cameras, but also with many optimized Huffman tables generated by specialized applications.

References

  1. Brandon Birmingham, Reuben A. Farrugia, and Mark Vella. 2017. Using thumbnail affinity for fragmentation point detection of JPEG files. In 17th International Conference on Smart Technologies (IEEE EUROCON). IEEE, 3–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Simson L Garfinkel. 2007. Carving contiguous and fragmented files with fast object validation. Digital Investigation 4(2007), 2–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. ITU/CCIT/JPEG. 1992. Recommendation T.81: Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous-Tone Still Images - Requirements and Guidelines. Technical Report. International Telecommunication Union.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Martin Karresand and Nahid Shahmehri. 2008. Reassembly of fragmented JPEG images containing restart markers. In 2008 European Conference on Computer Network Defense. IEEE, 25–32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Qiming Li, Bilgehan Sahin, Ee-Chien Chang, and Vrizlynn L. L. Thing. 2011. Content based JPEG fragmentation point detection. In IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Dutch T. Meyer and William J. Bolosky. 2012. A study of practical deduplication. ACM Transactions on Storage 7, 4 (2012), 14:1–14:20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kamaruddin Malik Mohamad and Mustafa Mat Deris. 2009. Fragmentation Point Detection of JPEG Images at DHT Using Validator. In First International Conference on Future Generation Information Technology (FGIT). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 173–180.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Anandabrata Pal and Nasir Memon. 2009. The evolution of file carving. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 26, 2 (2009), 59–71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Anandabrata Pal, Husrev T Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2008. Detecting file fragmentation point using sequential hypothesis testing. Digital Investigation 5(2008), S2–S13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Husrev T Sencar and Nasir Memon. 2009. Identification and recovery of JPEG files with missing fragments. Digital Investigation 6(2009), S88–S98.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Yanbin Tang, Junbin Fang, KP Chow, SM Yiu, Jun Xu, Bo Feng, Qiong Li, and Qi Han. 2016. Recovery of heavily fragmented JPEG files. Digital Investigation 18(2016), S108–S117.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Vincent van der Meer, Hugo Jonker, Guy Dols, Harm van Beek, Jeroen van den Bos, and Marko van Eekelen. 2019. File Fragmentation in the Wild: a Privacy-Friendly Approach. In IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS). IEEE, 1–6.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Hwei-Ming Ying and Vrizlynn L. L. Thing. 2010. A Novel Inequality-Based Fragmented File Carving Technique. In Third International ICST Conference, e-Forensics(LNICST, Vol. 56). Springer, 28–39.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

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 Other conferences
    ARES '21: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security
    August 2021
    1447 pages
    ISBN:9781450390514
    DOI:10.1145/3465481

    Copyright © 2021 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: 17 August 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate228of451submissions,51%
  • Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

    Other Metrics

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format