Cited by 26Digital Media Forensic DetectionAdvanced Steganography and Watermarking TechniquesAdvanced Image Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DIPPAS: a deep image prior PRNU anonymization scheme

Open access
Picetti, Francesco, Mandelli, Sara, Bestagini, Paolo, Lipari, Vincenzo, Tubaro, Stefano·2022·EURASIP Journal on Information Security

Abstract

Source device identification is an important topic in image forensics since it allows to trace back the origin of an image. Its forensics counterpart is source device anonymization, that is, to mask any trace on the image that can be useful for identifying the source device. A typical trace exploited for source device identification is the photo response non-uniformity (PRNU), a noise pattern left by the device on the acquired images. In this paper, we devise a methodology for suppressing such a trace from natural images without a significant impact on image quality. Expressly, we turn PRNU anonymization into the combination of a global optimization problem in a deep image prior (DIP) framework followed by local post-processing operations. In a nutshell, a convolutional neural network (CNN) acts as a generator and iteratively returns several images with attenuated PRNU traces. By exploiting straightforward local post-processing and assembly on these images, we produce a final image that is anonymized with respect to the source PRNU, still maintaining high visual quality. With respect to widely adopted deep learning paradigms, the used CNN is not trained on a set of input-target pairs of images. Instead, it is optimized to reconstruct output images from the original image under analysis itself. This makes the approach particularly suitable in scenarios where large heterogeneous databases are analyzed. Moreover, it prevents any problem due to the lack of generalization. Through numerical examples on publicly available datasets, we prove our methodology to be effective compared to state-of-the-art techniques.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13635-022-00128-7

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Anti-forensic techniques such as DIPPAS can deliberately suppress PRNU traces while preserving high visual fidelity.

    “Furthermore, anti-forensic techniques such as DIPPAS [12] can deliberately suppress PRNU traces while preserving high visual fidelity.”
  • PRNU has shown strong abilities in source device identification and source anonymization.

    “PRNU has shown strong abilities in source device identification (Marra et al. 2017; Saito, Tomioka, and Kitazawa 2017) and source anonymization (Picetti et al. 2022).”

    From Noise Based Deepfake Detection via Multi-Head Relative-Interaction (2023) · cites this paper as Picetti et al. 2022

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. J. Lukáš, J. Fridrich, M. Goljan, Digital camera identification from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. (TIFS). 1:, 205–214 (2006). · DOI · Paper page
  2. M. Chen, J. Fridrich, M. Goljan, J. Lukas, Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. (TIFS). 3:, 74–90 (2008). · DOI
  3. M. Kirchner, C. Johnson, in IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security. SPN-CNN: boosting sensor-based source camera attribution with deep learning (IEEENew York, 2019).
  4. S. Mandelli, D. Cozzolino, P. Bestagini, L. Verdoliva, S. Tubaro, CNN-based fast source device identification. IEEE Signal Process. Lett.27:, 1285–1289 (2020). · DOI
  5. M. Chen, J. Fridrich, M. Goljan, J. Lukas, in SPIE Electronic Imaging (EI). Source digital camcorder identification using sensor photo-response nonuniformity (SPIEBellingham, 2007).
  6. A. Karaküçük, A. E. Dirik, Adaptive photo-response non-uniformity noise removal against image source attribution. J Digit. Investig.12:, 66–76 (2015). · DOI
  7. H. Zeng, J. Chen, X. Kang, W. Zeng, in IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). Removing camera fingerprint to disguise photograph source (IEEENew York, 2015).
  8. N. Bonettini, L. Bondi, D. Güera, S. Mandelli, P. Bestagini, S. Tubaro, E. J. Delp, in 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). Fooling PRNU-based detectors through convolutional neural networks (IEEENew York, 2018), pp. 957–961. · DOI
  9. K. Rosenfeld, H. T. Sencar, in IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging (EI). A study of the robustness of PRNU-based camera identification (SPIEBellingham, 2009).
  10. J. Bernacki, On robustness of camera identification algorithms. Multimedia Tools Appl.80:, 921–942 (2021). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11042-020-09133-9. · DOI
  11. A. E. Dirik, H. T. Sencar, N. Memon, Analysis of seam-carving-based anonymization of images against PRNU noise pattern-based source attribution. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. (TIFS). 9:, 2277–2290 (2014). · DOI
  12. J. Entrieri, M. Kirchner, in IS&T Electronic Imaging (EI). Patch-based desynchronization of digital camera sensor fingerprints (IS&TSpringfield, 2016).
  13. S. Mandelli, L. Bondi, S. Lameri, V. Lipari, P. Bestagini, S. Tubaro, in IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). Inpainting-based camera anonymization (IEEENew York, 2017).
  14. D. Ulyanov, A. Vedaldi, V. Lempitsky, in The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Deep image prior (IEEENew York, 2018).
  15. T. Gloe, R. Böhme, The Dresden image database for benchmarking digital image forensics. J Dig. Forensic Pract.3:, 150–159 (2010). · DOI
  16. D. Shullani, M. Fontani, M. Iuliani, O. A. Shaya, A. Piva, Vision: a video and image dataset for source identification. EURASIP J. Inf. Secur.15: (2017). https://jis-eurasipjournals.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13635-017-0067-2. · DOI
  17. P. Moulin, J. Liu, Analysis of multiresolution image denoising schemes using generalized gaussian and complexity priors. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory. 45(3), 909–919 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1109/18.761332. · DOI
  18. T. Tirer, R. Giryes, Back-projection based fidelity term for ill-posed linear inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Image Process.29:, 6164–6179 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2020.2988779. · DOI
  19. W. Dong, P. Wang, W. Yin, G. Shi, F. Wu, X. Lu, Denoising prior driven deep neural network for image restoration. IEEE Trans. Patt. Anal. Mach. Intell.41(10), 2305–2318 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TPAMI.2018.2873610. · DOI
  20. B. Lin, X. Tao, J. Lu, Hyperspectral image denoising via matrix factorization and deep prior regularization. IEEE Trans. Image Process.29:, 565–578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2019.2928627. · DOI
  21. H. K. Aggarwal, M. P. Mani, M. Jacob, Modl: model-based deep learning architecture for inverse problems. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 38(2), 394–405 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2018.2865356. · DOI
  22. K. Zhang, W. Zuo, Y. Chen, D. Meng, L. Zhang, Beyond a gaussian denoiser: residual learning of deep CNN for image denoising. IEEE Trans. Image Process. (TIP). 26(7), 3142–3155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2017.2662206. · DOI · Paper page
  23. C. Cruz, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, K. Egiazarian, Nonlocality-reinforced convolutional neural networks for image denoising. IEEE Signal Process. Lett.25(8), 1216–1220 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2018.2850222. · DOI
  24. F. Kong, F. Picetti, V. Lipari, P. Bestagini, S. Tubaro, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2020. Deep prior-based seismic data interpolation via multi-res U-Net, (2020), pp. 3159–3163. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2020-3426173.1. · DOI
  25. S. Mandelli, F. Borra, V. Lipari, P. Bestagini, A. Sarti, S. Tubaro, in SEG Technical Program Expanded Abstracts 2018. Seismic data interpolation through convolutional autoencoder, (2018), pp. 4101–4105. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2018-2995428.1. · DOI
  26. Z. Zhou, M. M. R. Siddiquee, N. Tajbakhsh, J. Liang, Unet++: redesigning skip connections to exploit multiscale features in image segmentation. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging. 39(6), 1856–1867 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMI.2019.2959609. · DOI
  27. R. E. Jurdi, C. Petitjean, P. Honeine, F. Abdallah, Bb-unet: U-Net with bounding box prior. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Signal Process.14(6), 1189–1198 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/JSTSP.2020.3001502. · DOI
  28. O. Sidorov, J. Y. Hardeberg, in 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW). Deep hyperspectral prior: single-image denoising, inpainting, super-resolution, (2019), pp. 3844–3851. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2019.00477. · DOI
  29. F. Picetti, V. Lipari, P. Bestagini, S. Tubaro, Seismic image processing through the generative adversarial network. Interpretation. 7(3), 15–26 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1190/INT-2018-0232.1. · DOI
  30. F. Devoti, C. Parera, A. Lieto, D. Moro, V. Lipari, P. Bestagini, S. Tubaro, in SEG Tech. Program Expanded Abstr. 2019. Wavefield compression for seismic imaging via convolutional neural networks, (2019), pp. 2227–2231. https://doi.org/10.1190/segam2019-3216395.1. · DOI
  31. N. Ibtehaz, M. S. Rahman, Multiresunet: rethinking the U-Net architecture for multimodal biomedical image segmentation. Neural Netw.121:, 74–87 (2020). · DOI
  32. C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, A. Rabinovich, in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Going deeper with convolutions (IEEENew York, 2015).
  33. K. Dabov, A. Foi, V. Katkovnik, K. Egiazarian, Image denoising by sparse 3D transform-domain collaborative filtering. IEEE Trans. Image Process. (TIP). 16:, 2080–2095 (2007). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Picetti, F., Mandelli, S., Bestagini, P., Lipari, V., & Tubaro, S.
Affiliations
Politecnico di Milano (IT)
Corresponding author
Picetti, Francesco
Venue
EURASIP Journal on Information Security
Published
2022-02-14
Volume
2022
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1687-4161 (ISSN-L)
  • 2510-523X
OpenAlex
W3110986789
Cited by
26
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EURASIP Journal on Information Security (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Virtual Community of Pathological Anatomy (University of Castilla La Mancha) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Nvidia
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (FA8750-20-2-1004, PRIN 2017, FA8750)
  • Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Air Force Research Laboratory (FA8750-20-2-1004)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Digital Media Forensic Detection
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Steganography and Watermarking Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Image Processing Techniques
Keywords
image forensics, deep image prior, PRNU, image reconstruction, image anonymization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review