A false negative study of the steganalysis tool: Stegdetect

School of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, Seoul, South Korea
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1
Subject Areas
Cryptography
Keywords
Steganalysis, Stegdetect, Steganography, False Negative Rates, Data Embedding, Digital Forensics
Copyright
© 2018 Aziz et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Aziz B, Jung J. 2018. A false negative study of the steganalysis tool: Stegdetect. PeerJ Preprints 6:e27339v1

Abstract

Steganography and Steganalysis in recent years have become an important area of research involving dierent applications. Steganography is the process of hiding secret data into any digital media without any signicant notable changes in a cover object, while steganalysis is the process of detecting hiding content in the cover object. In this study, we evaluated one of the modern automated steganalysis tools, Stegdetect, to study its false negative rates when analysing a bulk of images. In so doing, we used JPHide method to embed a randomly generated messages into 2000 JPEG images. The aim of this study is to help digital forensics analysts during their investigations by means of providing an idea of the false negative rates of Stegdetect. This study found that (1) the false negative rates depended largely on the tool's sensitivity values, (2) the tool had a high false negative rate between the sensitivity values from 0.1 to 3.4 and (3) the best sensitivity value for detection of JPHide method was 6.2. It is recommended that when analysing a huge bulk of images forensic analysts need to take into consideration sensitivity values to reduce the false negative rates of Stegdetect.

Author Comment

This is a submission to PeerJ Computer Science for review.

Supplemental Information

False negative rate with different sensitivity value

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-1

Changes in the jphide rate with different sensitivities for seam carve manipulated images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-2

Changes in other algorithms detected with different sensitivities

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-3

The overall false negative rate seam-carving untouched images with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-4

Changes in the jphide rate with different sensitivities for seam carve untouched images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-5

Changes in other algorithms detected with different sensitivities

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-6

The overall false negative rate of Washington university image database with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-7

Changes in the jphide rate with different sensitivities for Washington university image database

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-8

The overall false negative rate of google image database (SAFE ON) with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-9

Changes in the jphide rate with different sensitivities for google image database (SAFE ON)

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-10

The overall false negative rate of google image database (SAFE OFF) with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-11

Changes in the jphide rate with different sensitivities for google image database (SAFE OFF)

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-12

The Overall false negative ratio from all different image databases

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-13

Sample result after analyses on stego images embedded with F5 algorithm

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-14

Sample result after analyses on stego images embedded with Jsteg algorithm

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-15

The rate of sensitivity results from 500 images manipulated by Seam-carve

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-16

Sample results of jphide method

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-17

The results from manipulated images by seam-carve based on sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-18

The rate of sensitivity results from 500 Seam-carving untouched images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-19

The results of 500 images from seam carve untouched images with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-20

The results of 700 images from Washington University image database with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-21

The results of 150 images from google image database (SAFE OFF) with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-22

The overall false negative rates of ALL the different image databases with different sensitivity values

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-23

The detection results for seam carve manipulated images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-24

The detection for seam carve untouched images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-25

The detection results for university of Washington images

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-26

The detection result for google images with safe search option (ON)

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-27

The detection result for google images with safe search option (OFF)

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-28

The detection results for all the different image database

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27339v1/supp-29