Re: [WM]: Best LSB-Steganalysis algorithm

["Mahdi HashemiNezhad" <mahdi.hd@gmail.com>]

first of all, I just want to thank you all for your reply; specially ms.Jessica Fridrich.

can anyone tell me how could I find this paper as Jessica mentioned? I mean Adnrew Ker's paper at IHW 2005. as I searched the web, I
thought the title of this paper should be "A General Framework for Structural Steganalysis of LSB Replacement".

I think I should read this first b4 talking about my method.

--Mahdi

On 3/3/06, Jessica Fridrich <fridrich@binghamton.edu> wrote:
> Mahdi,
>
> RS is what started the development of reliable and accurate estimators
> of the number of LSB flippings in images. That was back in 2001.
> Dumitrescu, Xu, and Memon explained the simplest version of RS (for
> masks of two pixels -- pixel pairs) in their ICIP 2002 paper and then
> expanded upon it in
> a paper presented at IHW 2002. The most notable improvements and
> expansion
> to groups of multiple pixels come from Andrew Ker. I especially
> recommend his IHW 2005 paper from Barcelona. I would consider this the
> current state
> of the art.
>
> Warning! All methods above are designed for non-adaptive LSB
> steganography,
> i.e., the embedding proceeds along a pseudo-random path through the
> image that is independent of the image content. This is a very
> important assumption. LSB embedding at adaptively selected pixels will
> be in general
> underestimated by RS, Sample Pairs, or their extended versions simply
> because the methods were designed for a different set of assumptions.
> Thus,
> if your method is adaptive, the fact that RS cannot detect it means
> very little and constitutes a poor evidence of the method's security.
> It is like
> proving that the Earth is inhabitable by looking around at the North
> pole and concluding that there is no life on earth. If it is still LSB
> flipping,
> it is very likely that the method is highly detectable by some
> modified versions of RS or some other approaches. When designing a new
> stego method,
> you should spend at least 5 times longer testing its security that
> designing
> it. I strongly recommend testing your scheme with available blind
> steganalysis methods to really see how secure or insecure the method
> is. You
> might find this paper and the references therein useful:
>
> New Blind Steganalysis and its Implications, M. Goljan, J. Fridrich,
> and T.
> Holotyak, Proc. SPIE Electronic Imaging, Photonics West, January 2006.
>
> The paper is available from my web site.
>
> Finally, to see how adaptivity of embedding may fool RS and other
> methods,
> but can be broken with other approaches, see
>
>   author = {A. Westfeld and R. Böhme},
>   title = {Exploiting Preserved Statistics for Steganalysis},
>   booktitle = {Information Hiding, 6th International Workshop, {IH}
> 2004,
> Toronto,
>  Canada, May 23--25, 2004},
>   editor = {J. Fridrich},
>   volume = {3200},
>   series = {LNCS},
>   pages = {82--96},
>   publisher = {Springer-Verlag, Berlin},
>
> Jessica Fridrich, Associate Professor
> SUNY Binghamton
> Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Binghamton, NY
> 13902-6000
> Ph: 607-777-6177
> Fx: 607-777-4464
> E-mail: fridrich@binghamton.edu
> Web: www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mahdi HashemiNezhad" <mahdi.hd@gmail.com>
> To: <watermarking@watermarkingworld.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 3:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [WM]: Best LSB-Steganalysis algorithm
>
>
> hi all,
> sorry for delay, but I'm a little busy right now; so I'll send u more
> info
> on our steganography method soon; and I'll also send some sample photo
> with embedded data.
>
> about the capacity, I tested it on 108 photos from kodak image
> database, an=
> the average of embedded message in which RS could not detect (ie.
> detected it lower than 3%) was 22%. and for some samples the capacity
> was very high.
> for example in best experience, I could embed 70% data that RS could
> not detect it.
>
> yours
>
> --Mahdi
>
> On 3/2/06, mojtaba mahdavi <mahdavi110@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > my second question: is there any steganlysis algorithm better than
> > > RS?
> > >
> > >
> > Rs is not a general steganalysis method and we know that general
> > steganalysis methods can't perform detection very well.
> >
> > Every steganography method needs its special attack. Rs or any other
> > known staganalysis method may not work on your steganography method.
> > Also you should be aware of importance of amount of data that you
> > are hiding. If you hide a few bits in a big carrier, nobody can
> > detect it.
> >
> > Hope this may help.
>
>


______________________________________________________________________________

Watermarking Mailing List - http://www.watermarkingworld.org/ml.html
To unsubscribe send email to "majordomo@watermarkingworld.org" with
"unsubscribe watermarking YOURMAIL" in the body.
______________________________________________________________________________