A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity

PAOLA CAPASSO∗∗ , University of Salerno, Italy

GIUSEPPE CATTANEO, University of Salerno, Italy
MARIA DE MARSICO, Sapienza University of Roma, Italy
The outbreak of digital devices on the Internet, the exponential difusion of data (images, video, audio, and text), along with
their manipulation/generation also by Artiicial Intelligence (AI) models, e.g., Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), have
created a great deal of concern in the ield of forensics. A malicious use can afect relevant application domains, which often
include counterfeiting biomedical images, and deceiving biometric authentication systems, as well as their use in scientiic
publications, in the political world, and even in school activities. It has been demonstrated that manipulated pictures most
likely represent indications of malicious behavior, such as photos of minors to promote child prostitution or false political
statements. Following this widespread behavior, various forensic techniques have been proposed in the scientiic literature
over time both to defeat these spooing attacks as well as to guarantee the integrity of the information. Focusing on Image
Forensics, which is currently a very hot topic area in Multimedia Forensics, this paper will discuss the whole scenario in
which a target image could be modiied. The aim of this comprehensive survey will be 1) to provide an overview of the types
of attacks and contrasting techniques and 2) to evaluate to what extent the former can deceive prevention methods and the
latter can identify counterfeit images. The results of this study highlight how forgery detection techniques, sometimes limited
to a single type of real scenario, are not able to provide exhaustive countermeasures and could/should therefore be combined.
Currently, the use of neural networks, such as CNNs, is already heading, synergistically, in this direction.
CCS Concepts: · General and reference → Surveys and overviews;
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Digital Forensics (DF), Image Forensics, Image Forgery Detection (IFD), Active Meth-
ods(AM), Passive Methods(PM), Dependent and Independent Techniques, Pixel Non-Uniformity noise (PNU), Photo Response
Non-Uniformity (PRNU)

1 INTRODUCTION
With the increasingly pervasive intentional or unintentional manipulation of data (images, video, audio, and text),
the focus on forgery/counterfeit detection is growing exponentially [274]. As highlighted in Fig. 1, Multimedia
Forensics is a broad disciplinary area that requires a lot of attention in terms of scientiic and forensic activities.
It bears the great responsibility of producing and disseminating methods to check internet data, which is often
manipulated, altered, and even generated, maliciously, with intentional anti-forensics AF techniques (AFTs)[120].
Restricting the scope to Image Forensics, which is currently a hot topic in Multimedia Forensics, the paper will
focus on Image Manipulation, which occurs when operations are performed on an image to modify it. In current
literature, Image Forgery considers how the entire image is manipulated with malicious intent while in Image
∗ All authors contributed equally to this research.

Authors’ addresses: Paola Capasso, [email protected], [email protected], University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 Fisciano, Salerno,
Italy, 84084; Giuseppe Cattaneo, University of Salerno, Via Giovanni Paolo II, 132 Fisciano, Salerno, Italy, 84084, [email protected]; Maria De
Marsico, Sapienza University of Roma, Via Salaria 113, 00198 Roma, Rome, Italy, [email protected].

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 proit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the irst 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 speciic permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from
[email protected].
© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
1551-6857/2023/11-ART $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3633203

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

2 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Fig. 1. The Goal of Forgery Detection.

Tampering, only parts of the image are intentionally modiied. Image Generation uses computer software or
algorithms to produce an image or part of an image simulating real-world scenes. The common denominator
of these classes of operations is the malicious intention to violate the integrity of an image to deceive the
observer, whereas Steganography has the objective of transporting secret messages from a sender to a recipient.
In the latter, the image is modiied so that it can store secret information invisible to the human eye, therefore
maintaining the original appearance as much as possible. The goal of research in the ield of Image Manipulation
detection and identiication is to examine, analyze, and deine an acceptable conidence threshold to ensure data
integrity and authenticity. At present, machine learning, and in particular approaches involving deep networks,
are playing a supporting role both on the side of the attackers (see GANs[129]), and the defenders (see CNNs
[193]), whether they are researchers, Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs), or in general operators in the forensic
sector. Transparent editing operations (manipulation) for tampering, retouching, and enhancement on multimedia
objects, which are uploaded or shared through social media or web platforms, alter the original content of the
images impeding to still consider them as authentic [247, 309]. However, even without manipulation, two types
of artifacts inevitably remain in the image: image acquisition and compression artifacts. The intrinsic properties
of these artifacts are essential forensic clues as they difer before and after the manipulation process [179, 198].
All this leads to a lack of a sure and obvious answer on the origin of the image, the user or device capturing it,
as well as the truthfulness and originality of the acquired scene. As a consequence, many problems arise in the
forensic ield, creating a deal of interest in the search for substantial and cutting-edge solutions. The scientiic
community has unanimously proposed a twofold classiication of all the diferent approaches to assure/verify
image integrity. As shown in Fig. 2 "active" technologies usually embed data or signatures into the original image
during its digitalization, either in the spatial or frequency domain; "passive" technologies, which are increasingly
sophisticated, are based exclusively on digital content and operate without any knowledge of either the original
image or pre-deined data or signature, therefore just relying on, e.g., statistical anomalies and/or artifacts. This
investigation is a forensic contribution to the general scenario of forgery detection techniques. It will deal with
the whole scenario where a target image could be modiied. The aim will be 1) to provide an overview of the

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 3

types of attacks and contrasting techniques and 2) to evaluate to what extent the former can deceive prevention
methods and the latter to identify counterfeit images. The widespread difusion of digital technologies has led,
in the forensic ield, to a constant increase in cases in which the use of digital evidence has been decisive in
identifying the solution. It is easy to understand how their use will soon be pervasive and well-codiied within
forensic procedures. However, not all the approaches present in the current literature meet the requirements to
be exploited in forensic activities [50]. Whenever a method is reproducible and replicable, it can be considered
valid in a court and/or in front of a judge, and therefore it is forensic. The evaluation of the Conidence measure
to obtain depends only on the common objective of the involved parties. This review has considered this forensic
aspect an essential prerogative: all the methods mentioned in the paper have an experimental part, thus appearing
as replicable and hence forensically sound. Thanks to the Budapest Convention [269, 322] and according to the
reproducibility principle, digital evidence has been made admissible in courts. The Convention and the resulting
regulations stipulate that all digital evidence is collected, archived, and presented according to a well-codiied
and recognized process. Once a scientiic method has been identiied, it will always be necessary to carry out
an experimental evaluation phase before it can become a so-called Best Practice and its expected utility can be
recognized by also carrying out a technology transfer action to operators in the sector. The European community
boasts a network of experts (ENFSI-European Network of Forensics Science Institutes) that promotes knowledge
sharing, experience exchange, and the reaching of mutual agreements in the ield of forensic sciences through
the development and use of good practices and their collection in a devoted manual (ENFSI BPM 1 ) also ofering a
diferent taxonomy that can inspire further insight into the problems dealt with. Starting from these assumptions
as well as current literature, the survey projects itself into an exhaustive search for reliable and forensically
sound methodologies to support technological solutions aimed above all at Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs)
and Forensics Personnel. It will represent those treated aspects of the same problem assuming that there are
counterfeits but doubting that they are always reproducible in court. This is where Best Practices should come
into play, by possibly considering a joint use of diferent techniques having the same forensic purpose.
Other available surveys in literature often focus on speciic kinds of forgery and/or detection strategies (see for
example [59] on keypoint-based copy-move forgery detection methods or the recent work in [339] about deep
learning approaches). This work aims to provide as wide and encompassing an account as possible of existing
strategies, orienting readers in this extremely variated ield. Many emerging topics like anti-forensic attacks and
deepfake would deserve a deeper and wider critical analysis and discussion of open problems, which is beyond
the scope of this survey. However, besides mentioning those topics we suggest references that ofer related
suicient and thorough insight. Therefore, although methodologies have evolved up to deep learning and CNNs,
this survey demonstrates that the basic work done by traditional techniques, which still support and are the basis
for neural networks, is still considerable and indispensable. It also wants to represent a testimony of continuity
and tries to establish a common line between traditional and non-traditional approaches. It is worth noting how
the statistics show the efective use of these techniques [16] in real operative scenarios. The conceptual map
below (Fig.2) proposes an updated scheme of real approaches to identify counterfeits.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 formally introduces Image Forgery Detection, the
basic Concepts, the Problem Deinition, and the Worklow of blind approaches. Section 3 reviews the methods
of Forgery Detection proposed in the current literature, and Section 4 presents an evaluation of benchmark
datasets itting this purpose. Section 5 discusses the Research Challenges and Directions. Section 6 draws some
conclusions. Finally, due to the broad scope of the subject, contrasting with the journal’s strict space restrictions,
further insights, examples, and igures have been included in the Online Appendix available for the online version
of the paper.

1 ThisBest Practice Manual for Digital Image Authentication was funded by the European Union’s Internal Security Fund – Police and it is
currently available for download: https://enfsi.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/BPM_Image-Authentication _ENFSI-BPM-DI-003-1.pdf

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

4 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

2 FUNDAMENTALS
Image and Video Forensics (or Forensics, for short) refers to a speciic area of Digital Forensics (DF, for
short)[43, 255] that deals with the study and analysis of images (and videos) for their validation and use in Forensics
[24]. The ield of Image Forgery Detection (IFD) has developed 1) to combat the problem of image distortion
in various application areas such as forensic and criminal investigation, insurance processing, surveillance
systems, intelligence services, medical imaging, journalism [214], and 2) to reply to some important and complex
technological questions such as determining if an image is authentic, doctored, or computer generated [99].

2.1 What is Image Forgery?

Counterfeiting can be deined as copying something with the intent to deceive; with it becoming a serious
crime when it represents the making of realistic and fraudulent imitations of objects and documents to make
them to be considered authentic either for proit or to mislead surveillance systems. There is a slight diference
in the law between forgery and counterfeiting, with the former referring to forging documents and images,
while the latter to material assets such as money, securities, and consumer products. In this article, the two
terms, implying intentional illegality, will be used interchangeably to identify deception. The most frequent
tasks in photo manipulation are: deleting/hiding a region in the image, adding a new object to the image, and
misrepresenting image information [214].

2.2 Problem Definition

According to current literature [111, 213, 228, 312], Forgery Detection (FD) falls into two categories, namely,
active and passive techniques (Fig.2). They can only extract forensic evidence if some information exists in the
image [102].
Active Approach (AAFD - Active Approach to Forgery Detection) (3.1.1): as the name suggests, active
methods of detection (see Fig.2 left-side) focus on the information that is hidden in an image at the time of its ac-
quisition/digitalization. Given an image, the AAFD algorithms aim to detect the source and therefore forgery using
• 1. Watermarking • 2. Digital Signatures • 3. Cryptography techniques
for image authenticity conirmation. They require prior knowledge of the elements associated with the original
image, digital watermarking, or digital signatures. When checking the image, if the additional information found
is incorrect, the image can be identiied as tampered with; otherwise, the image is genuine. These approaches
require special hardware or software to insert the authentication code inside the image before the image is
distributed [225].
Passive Approach (PAFD - Passive Approach to Forgery Detection) (3.1.2): passive forensic techniques
(Fig.2 right-side) do not rely on any additional information in the image and aim to ind traces left during the
image processing phases (acquisition and storage). They extract features from an image to detect the forgery.
These so-called "blind methods" can be classiied as: 1. Against Tampering Operations: Forgery Type-Dependent
or Forgery Type-Independent; 2. Based on Intrinsic Regularities & Inconsistencies ; 3. Handling Natural
& Computer Graphic/AI Images.

2.3 Some Basic Concepts

This section discusses some concepts that have been mentioned in our previous introduction but will not be
included anymore in the following. However, it is worth mentioning their role.
Image Generation (IG) encompasses methods that use machine and deep learning-based techniques to
produce artiicial images containing real-world objects and scenes from an existing data set: generating a fake
image does not necessarily imply a forgery. For this, IG is not considered to be a part of Image Forgery. However,
the advent of DeepFake (from Deep Learning and Fake) [4, 267] is quickly changing the way IG is regarded by

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 5

the forensic community [13, 131, 135, 170, 192, 310, 321]. Basically, it refers to a recent manipulation technique
allowing to synthesizing of images or videos from scratch, e.g. using Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)
and overimposing them on existing images or videos [134]. For example, it allows counterfeiting the identity of a
person in a video/photo.
Image Warping (IW) is the geometric deformation of a single object in a given image. Warping can be used
for correcting image distortion as well as for creative purposes.
Image Resizing is simply changing the size of the images without changing the number of pixels. When an
image is resized, its pixel information changes. For example, if an image is reduced in size, all the unnecessary
pixel information will be deleted from the photo editor. When an image is enlarged, the photo editor must create
and add new pixel information, based on its best guesses, to achieve a larger size.

2.4 Generalized Workflow of the Passive (or Blind) Forgery Detection Process on the Image
In the passive approaches, before even getting to the identiication of the kind of counterfeit, the main objective
is to classify whether a given image is original (or authentic) or forged. A generalized scheme includes the steps
below and is among the most used in the literature [1, 6, 94, 206, 213, 228, 273].
• Image Pre-processing: before dealing with any image, an initial optional step [94], almost always enforced in
best practices, is the image pre-processing . Possible operations performed on the image include image iltering,
image retouching, cropping, resizing, low-bypass iltering, the transformation from RGB to grayscale, and the
modiication of DCT coeicients. The choice of this step and the type of operation also depends on the calculation.
• Feature Extraction: given an input image, feature selection provides both a separation between diferent
image classes and a decrease in computational complexity [153]. Of course, more traditional methods extract
hand-crafted features that are engineered according to the chosen method and usually play a speciic role in the
procedure depending on the kind of forgery and the detection strategy. When Deep Learning-based methods are
rather involved in the worklow, the feature extraction step is completely demanded by the network, so that the
obtained embeddings are autonomously learned by the architecture and lack a precise explanation.
• Feature Matching & Filtering: a classiier, e.g., LDA (Latent Dirichlet Allocation), SVM (Support Vector
Machine), or a neural network in general, will be chosen according to the set of features extracted from the
previous step. It will determine if the image is original or not [97, 203, 205].
• Image Post-processing operations : tampering operations often involve post-processing operations to smooth
the boundaries of tampered regions, to make the inal artifact less visually suspectable (active-post-processing)
or may be unintentionally introduced to tampered images during data transmission, e.g., JPEG compression,
noise adding, and color reduction (passive post-processing) [350]. On the other hand, they can help detect those
manipulations, such as location tracking, that might be included in the forged images. To improve the forgery
localization several mathematical morphological operations could be performed [123, 228].

3 NOTABLE METHODS OVERVIEW

Digital Image Forgery started to occur a decade after the irst image was created in various ways. At present,
it exploits various image manipulation software, available for almost all trading platforms. Among the irst
technical issues to be addressed, the identiication of the forgery is especially relevant since the authenticity of
the images also follows from it. To achieve this, several FD techniques were used which will be examined in this
section (see Fig.2). For the sake of completeness, Table 6 outlines the information. Special attention will be given
to forensics-viable methods according to the Budapest Convention.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

6 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Fig. 2. Conceptual map of Forgery Detection Methods.

3.1 Taxonomy of Digital Forgery Detection Methods

Digital Image Forgery Detection methods aim to detect those manipulations of a digital image that change the
semantics of the visual message. As discussed above, the DF techniques are classiied into two categories [274]:
3.1.1 Active (see Fig.2 (left-side)); 3.1.2 Passive (see Fig.2 (right-side)).
This taxonomy depends on the accessibility of the original picture. Each strategy can be further sub-partitioned
(Fig.2).
3.1.1 Active Methods. Active methods are robust mechanisms for safeguarding the integrity of digital images
and exploiting certain information entered into them during the process of image acquisition and digitalization
[58]. Alterations in an image are detected by analyzing such embedded (known) data. The main applications of
these image authentication methods include intellectual and owner identiication. They are classiied according to
whether they ensure strict integrity, content authentication, and the storage strategy of authentication data (i.e.,
watermark or external signature). These approaches include Watermarking, Digital Signatures, and conventional
Cryptography [139].
• Digital Watermarking techniques: A large amount of literature currently deals with the topic [76, 110, 152,
188, 225]. Intuitively, Image Watermarking alters an image by inserting a mark that guarantees its authenticity.
Watermarking methods are classiied into three categories: 1) fragile watermarks 2) semi-fragile watermarks 3)
robust watermarks.
Fragile watermarking methods only allow a strict integrity check, while semi-fragile watermarking methods,
based on external signatures, ensure content authentication. The former watermarking methods are highly
sensitive to any type of tampering even in the modiication of a single bit. The results obtained with these
techniques show that they are both robust and secure and are therefore the best solution for copyright protection.
The latter semi-fragile watermarking methods can be used for forensic purposes. Through these techniques,
the authenticator can distinguish the original images from those whose content is intentionally modiied while
preserving the content of an image. The results ofered by them show that despite their computational complexity,
these techniques are secure and robust for all types of counterfeiting attacks. Finally, there are the kinds of robust

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 7

(a) Final efects on images due to forgery based on intrinsic regularities.

(b) Final efects on images due to forgery-dependent tampering operations.

(c) Final efects on images due to forgery- independent tampering operations.

Fig. 3. Passive approach: each (sub-figure) represents efects on images due to diferent types of Forgery.

watermarking algorithms that can survive the content by preserving changes such as compression, noise addition,
and iltering, as well as geometric changes such as resize, translation, rotation, cropping, and many more. They
are used for ownership authentication [64]. These approaches have a high computational complexity and also
ofer less embedding capability. Fragile watermarking methods remain the simplest to implement ([271]). In
digital watermarking, a speciic message (digest) is inserted when an image is captured from a digital device. The
watermarking is either žvisiblež or žinvisible ([223]) and is, generally, independent of the image data ([323]). The
basic underlying idea is that any attempt to alter the content of an image will also alter the watermark itself. In the
following stages, a summary is then extracted from it to verify its legitimacy to compare it with the original digest.
The result will indicate whether the image has been modiied after acquisition. Therefore, the watermarking
techniques consist of two phases: in the irst, the image is generated and the watermark is also inserted. In the
second stage, once the destination is reached, the watermark is extracted from the image and compared with the
initial watermark. These techniques can be broadly classiied into two categories depending on the kind of image
transformation: 1) the Spatial Domain (LSB (Least Signiicant Bit) [284], SS (Spread Spectrum) [46], RIF (Random
Insertion in File) [36]); 2) the Frequency Domain (DWT (Discrete Wavelet Transform) [304], DCT (Discrete Cosine

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

8 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Transform) [95], DFT (Discrete Fourier Transform) [306], SVD (Singular Values Decomposition) [217]). It has
been pointed out that the frequency domain methods are more robust than the spatial domain techniques [79].
Advantages: These methods provide authenticated multimedia content and focus on four essential features:
robustness, security, capacity, and invisibility. Disadvantages: 1) Few (and generally expensive) devices have
the function to incorporate a watermark in the image acquisition process. 2) These techniques, which require
specialized software to incorporate the abstract into the image, are unable to distinguish the legitimate manipula-
tions performed for the enhancement of the image quality (enhancement of contrast, sharpening, etc.) from the
illegitimate ones (see [271]).
• Cryptographic techniques : Encryption techniques involve two steps: in the encryption stage, the plaintext
is converted into ciphertext using a cipher. Conversely, in the decryption stage, the same cipher is used to convert
ciphertext to plaintext. Approaches, e.g., classic cryptographically secure hash functions such as MD-4, MD-5
(message digest), CRC-32 (32-bit cyclic redundancy check), and SHA-1 (secure hash algorithms), are just some of
the many methods existing in the literature that adopt a common general procedure. Due to the large research
ield, interested readers are advised to see [127, 194, 323, 328, 329, 336].
•Digital Signatures techniques: The validation of the authenticity of digital messages is normally based
on a digital signature. Thanks to the valid signature, the recipient can assume that the message belongs to the
known sender. The digital signature guarantees that the content is authentic, reliable, and from an authentic
source. Applications of these techniques have been found to improve data integrity and image authentication
in many industries, and some techniques are combined with watermarking, steganography, and cryptographic
techniques [15, 181, 259, 301].
In Conclusion, in active methods, a trustworthy camera calculates a digital watermark or signature from the
image at capture time, and any subsequent changes to the image can be detected by checking the value of the
digital watermark or digital signature value at the time of its use. The disadvantages of active methods include
that digital cameras must be equipped with a watermarking chip or a digital signature chip which, using a private
key wired into the camera itself, authenticates each captured image before storing it on the memory card. This
implies the deinition of a common standard protocol: a requirement that would limit the application of such
solutions only to very limited scenarios [254].

3.1.2 Passive Methods. As discussed above, active methods use specially designed digital signatures and
watermarking tools in cameras. Passive methods, sometimes known as blind methods, overcome this limitation by
exclusively analyzing the binary information of an image[101], relying directly on image statistics, without requir-
ing any prior information on image acquisition. Passive methods fall into three categories: a) based on Tampering
Operations, b) based on Intrinsic Regularities and Inconsistencies and, c) coping with Natural & Computer Graphic
Images. The most characteristic is certainly the irst and second ones. The irst is divided into forgery-dependent
and forgery-independent methods [35, 42, 242, 264, 312]: forgery type-dependent techniques depend on
the diferent types of forgery performed on the image and include methods to detect the most popular kinds of
attack copy-move and image slicing; forgery type -independent techniques are independent of the type of attack.

a. Based on tampering operations

Forgery Type-Dependent Techniques
• Copy-Move Forgery. Copy-Move attack refers to forgeries that use a single image to copy a region from it
and paste it into the same image to hide or duplicate speciic objects. The copied part may or may not be modiied.
Since it belongs to the same image, its essential properties such as noise, color, and texture do not change, so the
inal forged image has homogeneous characteristics. This makes it diicult to even locate the forgery. Further
operations such as rescaling, iltering, and noise scattering can be applied to hide any traces of the forgery.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 9

Copy-Move Forgery Detection techniques is the process of identifying the occurrence of a copy-move in
an image and can be classiied into three categories, namely: 1) Brute Force detection 2) Block-based detection
and 3) Keypoint-based detection. Due to the computational time complexity of the irst category, literature mainly
refers to approaches based on blocks and key points.
- 1. Brute Force detection is based on an exhaustive search and autocorrelation technique, which checks for
any position change. The exhaustive search examines the corresponding image segment through circular shifts,
producing a large number of comparisons. The computational times are relatively high.
- 2. Block-based detection divides the forged image into overlapping or non-overlapping blocks to analyze
the block features in the frequency domain.
In the Phase of Block Feature Extraction (see Fig. 6) several approaches have been applied:
�) Since the Local Binary Patterns (LBP) operator is a texture descriptor for rotation-invariant grayscale images, it
is widely used as a grayscale operator. LBP codes can be extracted from blocks beyond block texture veriication.
The approach in [105] proposed a generic passive image forgery scheme that combines a spatial rich model (SRM)
with a textural feature based on the LBP operator. The combination of LBP with co-occurrence matrices makes
the model capable of detecting almost all types of forgeries with improved detection accuracy.
��) The use of the frequency domain, through a signal transform, can carry on the signatures for the image blocks,
thus allowing for the identiication of duplicate regions. In [215] Mahmood et al. used the stationary wavelet
transform (SWT) and DCT to detect and localize the copy-move operation in digital images. The SWT allows it
to work in both spatial and spectral domains, and the feature vectors are reduced by applying DCT. Dimension
reduction processes are widely used to enhance the performance of the frameworks. Table 1 references the most
used algorithms.
- 3. Keypoint-based detection. Feature-based or Keypoint-based approaches extract key points from forged
images. They use a two-step process of locating and describing the local interest points. Robust local descriptors
are constructed which must be invariant to aine alterations. They are not only robust to noise and geometric
transformations but also use scale and rotation invariant feature detectors and descriptors. Table 1 lists the main
algorithms used in the Feature Extraction phase (see Fig. 5). These methods rely on the identiication and selection
of high-entropy image regions (i.e. the "key points"): one feature vector per keypoint is then extracted. As a
result, fewer feature vectors are estimated, resulting in reduced computational complexity of feature matching
and post-processing. Post-processing thresholds are also lower than those of block-based methods. The downside
is that the copied regions are not always covered by a satisfactory number of corresponding key points. If the
copied regions show little structure, the region may be completely missing. Recently, [331] proposed a key
point-based copy-move forgery detection and location technique based on a hierarchical point matching that
reduces the number of points to improve the matching process. Feature-based approaches are relatively better
than block-based and brute force methods in terms of computational eiciency, complexity, and robustness
against many transformations such as scaling, rotation, cropping, etc. [167].
In the Phase of Matching and Filtering, both in Block-based and Keypoint-based detection approaches,
in identifying matching amongst the feature descriptors and to reduce the probability of false matches, most
authors propose the use of main similarity measures and algorithms such as the Euclidean Distance, Correlation
Coeicient, Sorting (lexicographic sorting, KD-tree, radix sort), Hash (counting bloom ilters, locality-sensitive
hashing), DCT and Sequential Clustering, Best Bin First, 2NNg, 2NN, Clustering (HAC, WPGMC) and others.
In Conclusion, both classes of methods have strengths and limitations. To address the limitation of these
methods in lat regions, some approaches (see in [111]) also implemented mixed processes to tackle copy-
move tampering detection problems, combining techniques based on features with block-based techniques.
The approach in [140] combines the key point-based SIFT method with the block-based method using the
dyadic wavelet transform (DyWT). Also in [295] a combination of the two diferent approaches is proposed by

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

10 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Table 1. a. Based on tampering operations - 1st Part - Main methods.

A - BASED ON TAMPERING OPERATIONS - 1st PART

FORGERY TYPE-DEPENDENT TECHNIQUES
Copy-Move Forgery Detection techniques : Main methods
Block-based detection
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Discrete Wavelet Transform (DWT) [123, 169, 187, 330, 342] Texture and Intensity [146, 222, 300, 314]
Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) [93, 167, 187] Discrete Cosine Transform (DCT) [114, 190]
Fourier Transform (Fourier-Mellin Transform) [33] Log-Polar Coordinates or transform [47, 227]
Log-Polar Fast Fourier Transform (LPFFT) [325] Radix Sort [195]
Dyadic Wavelet Transform (DyWT) [224, 261] Wiener Filter Wavelet [70]
Multi-resolution wavelet decomposition [22] Principle Component Analysis (PCA) [256]
Moments Invariant [209] Dimension Reduction [180]
SVD (Singular Value Decomposition) [187, 317] KPCA [21, 86]
Radon Transformation and Phase Correlation [241] Local Binary Patterns (LBP) [317]
Fast Walsh Hadamard Transform (FWHT) [289] Zernike Moments [216, 245, 272]
Keypoint-based detection
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform) [11, 150, 166, 191] Principle Component Analysis (PCA) [286]
ORB (OrientedFAST and rotated BRIEF) [295] Harris Corner Detector [154]
BRISK (Binary Robust Invariant Scalable KPs) [182]
Splicing Forgery Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Bispectral Analysis [98] Bicoherence magnitude and phase feature [235]
Inverse camera response functions (CRF) [115, 240] Expectation/maximization (EM) algorithm [74, 230]
Based on the use of the VGG-16 CNN [178] Wavelet decomposition-D phase congruency [97, 115]
Multi-size block discrete cosine transform [285] Moment features and Image Quality metrics [282]
CRF signature [234, 282] DCT coeicients and SVM [202]
Based on DCT and image quality features [347] Gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) [315]
Based on computing the inverse CRF functions [200] Hilbert-Huang transform (HHT) [65, 115, 252]
Planar homography constraint [345] Based on Chroma spaces [349]
Artiicial NN, indip. CA, and auto-regres. coef. [130, 142] Based on Sobel edge detc.,deriv. op., Hough transf. [160]
Based on the image of a person’s eyes [164] Based on geometry invariants [147, 148]
Based on statistics of 2-D phase congruency [97] Based on natural image model [285]
Based on a NN architecture called CAU-Net [250] Based on a fully convolutional network (FCN) [275]
Based on a ringed residual U-Net (RRU-Net) [37] Based on SVM [91]
Based on computing the inverse CRF functions [200] Locally Planar Irradiance Points and CFR [149]

extracting the key SIFT points in an image and then combining LPP (Locality Preserving Projection) to obtain
low-dimensional feature descriptors.
• Image Splicing. Splicing is the process of cutting out a section of an image and pasting it onto the same
image or another image. To create a fake image, splicing entails merging a minimum of two images. When
images with contrasting bases have been well blended the edges between the spliced regions can be visually
imperceptible. Unlike copy-move forgery, in splicing used objects are harvested from more than one image. The
splicing, however, disturbs the higher-order Fourier statistics. These insights can then be used as an element to
distinguish fakes [115, 237, 238, 348].
Image Splicing Detection is fundamental in Image Forgery Detection[42]. Table 1 lists the main related
algorithms.
It appears from the literature that many of the methods mentioned work well when the analyzed image is
compressed by a high-quality factor. Otherwise, compression artifacts make it very diicult to spot the fake.

Forgery Type-Independent Techniques

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 11

Table 2. a. Based on tampering operations - 2nd Part - Main methods.

A - BASED ON TAMPERING OPERATIONS - 2nd PART

FORGERY TYPE-INDEPENDENT TECHNIQUES
J-Compression Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Maximum likelihood estimation to identify what [96, 253] Double compression by examining the histograms of the [257]
quantization table was used DCT coeicients
Operations based on DCT coeicient structure [231] Histograms of coeicient subbands analysis [303]
Benford’s law statistical model for probability [116] Exploration of conditions under which primary quantization [290]
distributions of the block-DCT irst digits coeicients are identiied
Tampered areas detection in double JPEG2000 [343] Mismatch information of BAG as a clue of copy-paste [189]
compression tampered images forgery
Shifted DJPEG with a convolutive model [262] Markov process/transition probability matrix [61]
Probabilities of the irst digits of quantized DCT [184] Classiication from the irst order statistics of DCT modes [252]
coeicients from alternate current modes of low-frequency DCT coeicient
Double/multiple quantization efects and CNN- [25–27, 141, 179, 199] Detection of either block-aligned or misaligned recompres- [68]
First Quantization Estimation solutions sion
PCA on separate diferent SFQ noises [291] Detection of the presence of NA-JPEG images [38–40]
Detection via B-G analysis of Jpeg artifacts [41] First quantization matrix estimation [119]
Analysis of the blocking periodicity [67] Analysis of the properties of the image blocks [187]
Maximum likelihood estimation of JPEG quanti- [96] Detection of composites created by JPEG images of diferent [100]
zation steps was developed qualities
Detection of DJPEG images with periodic arti- [107] Analysis of weakness/strength points of the current solu- [28]
facts of re-quantization and discontinuities tions on DCT and JPEG properties
Exploration of the image-speciic artifacts [212] Estimation of the kind of source encoder [196]
Based on blocking artifacts [335] Based on Multi-domain CNN [12]
Re-Sampling Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Preiltering/derivation vs. resampling traces [82] Detection of adaptive scaling of images [112]
Relations: rotation angle/frequencies at peaks [277] Property of 2°der. of interpolated periodicity of images [118, 229]
Decomposition and random matrix principles [311] EM algorithm to estimate probability maps [258]
Multidirectional high-pass ilters on an image [248] Re-sampling detection in JPEG images [176]
Cyclostationary process [211] Zero-crossings of the second diference signal [260]
ML to distinguish between seam-carved (or seam- [277] Dual-iltering-based CNN to extract features directly from [251]
inserted) and normal images the images
Cumulative periodograms [174, 319] Radon transformation [211]
Retouching Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Identify/rebuild gamma correction operations [51] Identify the use of histogram equalization [292, 293]
Two contrast enhancement-based algorithms via [53] PRNU-based forgery detection algorithm based on the whole [69]
histogram peak/gap artifacts analysis image
To measure the distortion between two images, [18] Statistical anomalies through the Laplace modeling of the [34]
the irst original and the second processed derivative histogram
Algorithm vs cut-and-paste image forgery [197] Image sharpening detection methods [351]
Detection of USM sharpening op. in images [52] A JPEG-robust forensic method based on CNN [283]

• J-Compression. Editing an image involves loading it, modifying it, and then saving it again. Knowing the
history of these compression operations, as well as whether a bitmap image has been previously compressed, is a
clue in FD.
Image J-Compression Detection techniques. Table 2 lists the main used methods.
These methods work well for detecting saved images: the problem is when they are rotated, resized, and/or
enhanced.
• Image Re-Sampling. When spatial transformations such as resizing, rotation, and stretching are applied to
a digital image (to a speciic object in the image or to all the image content), the type of forgery is known as
re-sampling. The resizing of an image changes the dimensions of an object but does not improve the quality of
that object. Re-sampling can be performed in diferent ways: Up/Down-sampling, Mirroring, Skewing, and Seam
Carving.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

12 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Table 3. a. Based on tampering operations - 3rd Part - Main methods.

A - BASED ON TAMPERING OPERATIONS - 3rd PART

FORGERY TYPE-INDEPENDENT TECHNIQUES
Morphing Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
De-morphing method without needing a reference im- [19] Wavelet domain analysis to gain insight into the [3]
age or prior information about the morphing process spatial-frequency content of a morphed face
De-morphing generative adversarial network (FD- [249] FM Detection strategy with 3 modules (ICAO-aligned [233]
GAN) to restore the accomplice’s facial image pre-processing, feature extraction, and classiication
module)
NN exploiting layer-wise relevance propagation (LRP) [281] StirTrace framework towards benchmarking face mor- [144]
to analyze the diferences in the decision-making pro- phing forgeries extending it by additional scaling func-
cess of the diferently trained neural networks tions for the face biometrics scenario
MAP methodology vs. the Morphing potential attack [109] Framework for the Continual Learning Strategies [45]
Demorphing approach to protecting ABControl sys- [108] Micro-texture variations extraction using BSIF with [265]
tems SVM
Morphing attack detection approach based on convo- [280] Use of transferable features from pre-trained Deep [266]
lutional neural networks CNN to detect both digital and print-scanned morphed
face images
Discriminative 2D Discrete Wavelet Transform (2D- [2] The Fourier spectrum of sensor pattern noise (FS-SPN) [344]
DWT)
Morph detection algorithm based on an analysis of [85] Distribution of Benford features extracted in Jpeg im- [218]
PRNU ages
TDA (Topological Data Analysis ) approach to detect [156] Morphing detection by using state-of-the-art facial [313]
various known morphing attacks recognition algorithms based on hand-crafted features
and D-CNN
Detection for FM forgeries on image degradation [232] Facial landmarks shifting patterns reference/probe [83]
image
Deep MS Context Aggregation Net for denoised im- [307, 308] Automated morph detection on pat.-recog. algorithms [279]
ages
Inconsistencies (Image Processing Operations) Detection techniques: Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Classiiers of distortion between original/processed [18, 30, Based on blind deconvolution [297]
images 32]
Based on image segmentation techniques [17] Based on non-intrusive component forensics [175, 298]

Image Re-Sampling Detection: To create a fake image, some selected regions need to undergo geometric
transformations such as rotate, scale, stretch, skew, lip, and so on. For example: if the face of a person is larger
in an image, it should be scaled to the extent that the sizes of the faces are similar in the composite image.
This requires re-sampling the image to compose a new sample and adding periodic correlations between pixels
in the neighborhood. These transformations leave traces that are not typically present in the original images,
and forgery techniques seek to identify such traces that constitute re-sampling cues. The interpolation phase
also (e.g., nearest neighbor, bilinear, bicubic) plays an important role in the re-sampling process and introduces
non-negligible statistical changes due to the speciic periodic correlations in the image. These correlations can be
used to recognize falsehoods caused by re-sampling [210, 259]. Table 2 summarizes several elements proposed
and combined over time.
• Image Retouching. The image retouching forgery aims to enhance an object or image to exhibit or hide
a speciic feature such as coloring, lighting, or background changing. It is commonly used for aesthetic and

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 13

Table 4. b. Based on Intrinsic Regularities & Inconsistencies - Main methods.

B - BASED ON INTRINSIC REGULARITIES & INCONSISTENCIES

Optical Regularities Detection Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
How the direction of a point light source is esti- [161–165] Automatic estimation of chromatic and aberration [126, 162, 337]
mated
Based on the geometric and photometric con- [103, 168] Based on the focus on lens radial distortion [71]
straints
To calculate the surface normal matrix of the im- [207] Based on camera lens-distortion correction [128]
age
Processing Regularities Detection Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Detection framework of demosaicing regularity [54, 299] A 3-layer feedforward backpropagation NN(BPN) [151]
Sensors Regularities Detection Detection techniques : Main methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Based on imperfections of CCD pixels [122] Based on the detection of sensor dust characteris- [89]
tics
Based on sensor noise [63, 172, 185] Based on camera response normality and consis- [200]
tency
The color ilter array (CFA) is examined [31, 258] Based on signiicant noise residual regions [201]
Based on the PRNU & PNU [8, 49, 55, 204] Based on Colour-Decoupled PRNU (CD-PRNU) [186]
Statistical Regularities Detection techniques : Main Methods
Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Based on binary similarity and image quality mea- [57] By analyzing image variations using Statistical [23]
sures, higher-order wavelet statistics with SVM Process Control
Class
SVD-based image manipulation detection [137] To categorize a camera model [104, 173]

Table 5. c. Natural & Computer Graphic Images (CGI).

C - NATURAL & COMPUTER GRAPHIC IMAGES (CGI) : MAIN METHODS

Algorithms Ref. Algorithms Ref.
Edge properties features [183] Residual pattern noise [171]
Statistical moments of 1-D and 2-D characteristic func- [296] Color, edge, and texture properties [80]
tions
An aggregate of existing features [276] Features to identify computer-generated images [87,
88]
Zero connectivity and fuzzy membership [324] Progressive randomization [221]
Models on 1)irst-order and higher-order wavelet statis- [66, The combination of three diferent algorithms based on [236,
tics 2)characteristic function of the image and wavelet 208] the geometry, the wavelet, and the cartoon features 239]
subbands

commercial purposes, to enhance or reduce image features, and to create a compelling composite of two images
which may require transformations such as rotating, stretching, or scaling, one of the images.
Image Retouching Detection: Many methods have been proposed for the detection of retouched forgeries,
which is diicult if the image is signiicantly changed from the original image. Also, human intervention is often
required to interpret the result. Table 2 lists the main related proposals.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

14 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

• Image Morphing. A gradual transformation from one graphical object or image (source) to another
graphical object or image (target) is called Image Morphing [155]. Diferently from Warping, Image Morphing
interpolates two or more graphical objects. It is a combination of image warping and blending techniques to
interpolate objects to create a novel one. The basic idea of morphing is to distort the irst image into another
image by some predeined set of rules. The two basic principles of image morphing are image warping and
cross-fading which must be coupled. Obviously, during this transformation, the central image, i.e., the generated
one, is the key point of the technology because it decides whether the sequence will look good or not. It is
intuitive to think that as the source image evolves, it begins to degrade and the target image evolves with new
characteristics. The irst images in the sequence will look more like the source. The central image will have the
characteristics of both the source and the inal images and will be distorted [60].
Image Morphing Attack Detection (MAD): Table 3 lists the basis of the latest generation algorithms and
Automated MAD approaches recently proposed [219, 307].
• Inconsistencies (Image Processing Operations). An altered image has undergone basic image processing
operations (Brightness&Contrast, Cropping&Recompressed, Sharpening&Blurring, and Filtering Operations).
Tampering produces inconsistencies in the regular models and the traces of these operations can be useful in
identifying forgery.
Image Processing Operations Detection. Table 3 lists the most recently proposed techniques.

b. Based on Intrinsic Regularities & Inconsistencies. Image regularities are of diferent nature, e.g., Optical,
Processing-related, Sensor-related, and Statistical.
• Optical Regularities. Imperfections due to illumination, radial distortion of the lens, and chromatic
aberration.
Optical Regularities Detection. Table 4 lists the most recently proposed techniques.
• Processing Regularities. Demosaicing, White Balancing, and Gamma Correction.
Processing Regularities Detection. Table 4 lists the most recently proposed techniques.
• Sensor Regularities (Pixel Non-Uniformity - PNU for short) . The Source Camera Identiication (SCI, for
short) techniques identify the intrinsic evidence left in images by the corresponding digital cameras responsible
for their acquisitions. It is worth mentioning Sensor Pattern noise ( the photo response non-uniformity (PRNU),
Dust pattern, Feature Extraction, and Camera Response Function (CRF).
Sensor Regularities Detection. Table 4 lists the most recently proposed techniques.
• Statistical Regularities. Color Features, Image Quality Metrics, Natural Image Statistics.
Statistical Regularities Detection. Table 4 lists the most recently proposed techniques.
Methods based on image features do not work well when the image from a camera having a similar CCD [312].

c. Natural & Computer Graphic Images (CGI). Graphic software can generate photorealistic images. A
challenging problem is to distinguish between computer-generated photorealistic and real (photographic) images.
Natural & Computer Graphic Image Detection. Table 5 lists the main bases for the proposed algorithms.

3.2 Summary Table: a summary outline

Table 6 reports some essential helpful information for the identiication of the main classes of methods in this
context.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 15

4 DATASETS AND EVALUATIONS

4.1 Benchmark Image Datasets.
This subsection presents some public benchmark datasets (see Table 7) for the training and evaluation of the
PAFD approaches. Each dataset was created for speciic forgery attack detection methods. A combination of
existing ones can be used for a wide range of applications. However, this requires some preliminary work to create
a uniied structure with consistent annotations. It is worth underlining that it would be extremely interesting to
compare the real performance of methods and their efectiveness in the wild. However, a serious and thorough
performance comparison would entail a shared benchmark and widely acknowledged protocols that are presently
missing. These requirements represent an engaging challenge for the future, especially assembling a single dataset
for all the detection methods.

5 DISCUSSION: LIMITATIONS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

At present, generative AI techniques [270] and difusion models [75] are a continuous source of new challenges.
These techniques are spreading so quickly and in such a pervasive way that they would deserve much more space
than a section herein. We hope that the suggested references can efectively complement the present survey.
Difusion models can be used also for audio synthesis [341]. As can be deduced from Fig. 2, Multimedia Forensics,
in addition to Image Forensics, also includes Audio and Video. In particular, following the increasing popularity
of DeepFakes, interest in Video Forensics is growing more and more. Currently, Deepfake detection is classiied
into machine learning-based classical methods, and more recent ones based on deep learning-based (the most
widely used), statistical, and blockchain-based techniques [267]. Literature testiies that most deepfake detection
research uses DL algorithms looking for inconsistencies in deepfake videos. However, since these are generated
through adversarial training (often GANs), their ability to evade AI-based detection systems will improve as they
become familiar with new detection methods. The challenge of recognizing them is increasingly diicult. The
wide range of forensic video products available nowadays for forensic investigators [157] provides an overview
that is not able to tackle all challenges. For a complete discussion of this area of research we suggest referring to
exhaustive related works [9, 92, 113, 124, 133, 136, 143, 294, 332, 333].
The main challenge in detecting tampering is represented by the structural changes that occur in digital
images. Due to their massive and widespread use in every ield of application and considering the speed by
which neural networks tackle/propose challenges, research is increasingly projected towards a combined use
of traditional techniques with machine learning solutions. In addition to the traditional detection techniques

Table 6. A summary outline of the public forgery type detection methodologies considered in this review.

Rif. Name CategoryOperation2Class. Rif. Name CategoryOperation2 Class.

3.1.1 Digital Signature Active Ð Ð 3.1.2 Copy-Move Passive ATO Dependent forgery
3.1.1 Digital Watermarking Active Ð Ð 3.1.2 Image Splicing Passive ATO Dependent forgery
3.1.1 Cryptography Active Ð Ð 3.1.2 J-Compression Passive ATO Independent forgery
3.1.2 Optical Regularities Passive BOIR Ð 3.1.2 Image Re- Passive ATO Independent forgery
Sampling
3.1.2 Source Camera Identiica- Passive BOIR Ð 3.1.2 Image Morphing Passive ATO Independent forgery
tion
3.1.2 Processing Regularities Passive BOIR Ð 3.1.2 Inconsistencies Passive ATO Independent forgery
3.1.2 Statistical Regularities Passive BOIR Ð 3.1.2 Image Retouching Passive ATO Independent forgery
Ð Ð Ð Ð – 3.1.2 Others Passive N&CGI Ð
2 BOIR: Based on intrinsic regularities & inconsistencies. ATO: Against Tampered Operations. N&CGI:Natural & Computer Graphic
Images.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

16 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

Table 7. List of the Public Forgery Digital Image Datasets.2

Ref. Dataset Name Year Forgery Type Ref. Dataset Name Year Forgery Type
[278] UCID 2003 For Source Camera Identiication pur- [56] UniSA TIDE 2014 Tampered color images with diferent
poses resolutions, splicing operations, blur il-
tering
[237] COLUMBIA 2004 SCI: Splicing, BMP format gray images [288] CMH 2015 Copy-move, rotation, resizing, rotation,
GRAY and resizing
[147] COLUMBIA 2006 Splicing, TIFF format color images [14] CVIP 2015 Translation, copy-move, rotation, scal-
COLOUR ing
[158] INRIA_Copy 2008 Cropping, scaling, jpeg compression, [84] RAISE 2015 SCI: High luminance images, uncom-
Days combined strong attacks pressed images, and camera native im-
ages
[90] SIDD 2008 For Source Camera Identiication pur- [327] SCUT-FBP 2015 For automatic facial beauty perception
poses
[90] CASIA v1.0 2009 SCI: Jpeg formatting and splicing (at pre- [318] Wattanachote 2015 Seam-carved/seam-inserted images at
processing) various quality factors
[90] CASIA v2.0 2009 SCI: Copy-move and splice images [338] Wild WEB 2015 SCI: Cut&paste,copy-move, erase forg-
ing
[11, DRESDEN 2010 SCI: Multiple cameras, multiple ile for- [320] COVERAGE 2016 Copy-move along with interpretations
125] mats, and diferent visual qualities
[20] BOSS_Bases 2011 Greyscale, no PGM, multiple camera [132] NC 2016 Splice and localization detection, prove-
v0.93 models, and appropriate raw EIF nance modiication
[11] MICC-2000 2011 SCI: Coloring, copy-move, and jpeg for- [177] RTD v.2.0 2017 Modiications, PRNU signatures,
matting TIFF/PNG formatting, Ground Truth
Maps of 3-level
[11] MICC-F220 2011 SCI: Coloring,copy-move, jpeg-format, [287] VISION 2017 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
images with no mask, lacks post- poses
processing
[41] Bianchi 2012Jpeg and TIFF formatting [5] DHFI 2018 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
poses
[72] CMEN 2012 Copy-move images, resized images [121] KAGGLE 2018 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
poses
[72] IMD 2012 Copy-move images [132] MFC 2018 Splicing investigates processing events,
source modiication camera veriication,
GAN modiications
[72] MANIP 2012 Copy-move images [302] DSID_DAXING 2019 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
poses
[305] CoMoFoD 2013 Coloring PNG/jpeg formatting,copy- [117] SOCRATES 2019 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
move poses
[106] IEEE IFS-TC 2013 Copy-move images and Splicing [138] FODB- 2020 For Source Camera Identiication pur-
FORCHHEIM poses
[10] MICC-F600 2013 SCI: Coloring PNG and jpeg formatting, [243] IMD 2020 Multiple-forged advanced GAN,
copy-move inpainting-forged-images,images-
from-2322-device
[77] CMFDdb grip 2014 Rotation, scaling, jpeg compression [48] UNISA2020 2021 For SCI(on PNU): images from multi-
ple conventional digital cameras of the
same type
1 The columns provide the following information for each dataset (from left to right): reference section, name, year, and forgery type.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 17

mentioned above, convolutional neural networks (CNNs, for short) can represent an ambitious and efective
solution to detect counterfeits. Touted as one of the most popular deep learning methods, CNN-based approaches
are recently gaining success in Digital Image Forensics [12, 29, 62, 73, 78, 145, 220, 268, 316, 346]. In Active
Forgery Detection, Kandi et al. in [340] proposed a watermarking technique based on an auto-encoder CNN
network for robust non-blind watermarking, that achieves better performance than that of domain transform
techniques. On the other hand, in Passive Forgery Detection, a CNN has been used to identify the camera that
captured the particular image. Yao et al. in [334] proposed a multi-classiier based on CNNs that subjected images
to post-processing attacks such as JPEG compression and adding noise. Several CNN-based approaches deal with
copy-move operation [44, 78, 159, 226, 326]. Ouyang et al. in [244] used an adjusted network obtained from an
existing trained ImageNet model and obtained a satisfactory performance compared to automatically generated
spoofed images, while it does not apply to real spoofed images. Quan et al. in [263] proposed a CNN generic
framework to classify images as computer-generated or natural with robust results against resampling (resizing)
and JPEG compression. In [7] a useful list of CNN-based techniques with related comparisons is mentioned.
Actually, in the context of image tampering, new proposed solutions based on Image Anomaly Detection
(IAD) and Deep Anomaly Detection are emerging. Anomaly Detection, or Novelty Detection, is referred
to as the process of discovering data instances that deviate signiicantly from the majority of data instances.
Due to the complexity of the problem and diiculty of learning, an advanced approach such as Deep Anomaly
Detection is currently also required [246]. The work in [81] surveyed the concerns and eforts made so far to
optimize and improve Anomaly/Tampering Detection methods. It includes a comprehensive table that summarizes
image tampering detection and image anomaly detection datasets it for purpose. The direction of all these
aforementioned eforts introduces the need for a rigorous consideration of new and increasingly complex
challenges related to tampered image detection. The most promising trend in terms of research, challenges, and
opportunities is the use of machine learning techniques.

6 CONCLUSIONS
The huge difusion of data (images, video, audio, and text), often uploaded/shared via social media or web
platforms, and the possibility of their manipulation/generation also through Artiicial Intelligence (AI) models,
poses serious problems. Some examples are counterfeiting biomedical images, deceiving biometric authentication
systems, cheating in scientiic publications, in the political world, and in school activities.
In particular, the Deepfake technique, e.g. photo-realistic video or image content creation via DL methods,
with the associated social and legal problems, poses serious threats to the privacy, reputation, and security of the
victims. Despite many recent proposals for Deepfake detection, the rapid progress in multimedia technology
and the proliferation of application tools continuously pose new challenges calling for a reliable and deinitive
solution [135]. A side efect is a decreased focus on more traditional forgery techniques, that, however, still
represent not completely solved problems.
Whatever the nature of the manipulation, once a digital image represents a crime, it is necessary to detect
the forgery. This document has presented a comprehensive overview of current and past research specially
developed to list Image Forgery Detection algorithms in the Digital Forensics scenario. The paper overviews the
most important methodologies used so far, restricting the scope to cases where the solution is forensic. Taking
into account the various other public investigations for the detection of forgery images available in the current
literature, it aims to provide a comprehensive longitudinal overview of the entire image-related forensic scenario.
As mentioned in the introduction, retracing the fundamental work carried out so far, this investigation aims to
represent a testimony of continuity between traditional and non-traditional approaches. We hope this survey
will help forensic groups to tackle the detection of existing attacks, and get basic information about the rising

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

18 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

ones while providing a compass for a deeper insight. In the future, we plan to move the focus toward deep
manipulation detection in the context of deep fake applications.

REFERENCES
[1] Nor Bakiah Abd Warif, Ainuddin Wahid Abdul Wahab, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, Roziana Ramli, Rosli Salleh, Shahaboddin Shamshirband,
and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo. 2016. Copy-move forgery detection: survey, challenges and future directions. Journal of Network and
Computer Applications 75 (2016), 259–278.
[2] Poorya Aghdaie, Baaria Chaudhary, Sobhan Soleymani, Jeremy Dawson, and Nasser M Nasrabadi. 2021. Detection of morphed face
images using discriminative wavelet sub-bands. In 2021 IEEE International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF). IEEE, 1–6.
[3] Poorya Aghdaie, Baaria Chaudhary, Sobhan Soleymani, Jeremy Dawson, and Nasser M. Nasrabadi. 2022. Morph Detection Enhanced
by Structured Group Sparsity. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW). 311–320.
https://doi.org/10.1109/WACVW54805.2022.00037
[4] Zahid Akhtar. 2023. Deepfakes Generation and Detection: A Short Survey. Journal of Imaging 9, 1 (2023), 18.
[5] Omar Al Shaya, Pengpeng Yang, Rongrong Ni, Yao Zhao, and Alessandro Piva. 2018. A new dataset for source identiication of high
dynamic range images. Sensors 18, 11 (2018), 3801.
[6] Amani Alahmadi, Muhammad Hussain, Hatim Aboalsamh, Ghulam Muhammad, George Bebis, and Hassan Mathkour. 2017. Passive
detection of image forgery using DCT and local binary pattern. Signal, Image and Video Processing 11 (2017), 81–88.
[7] SS Ali, II Ganapathi, NS Vu, SD Ali, N Saxena, and N Werghi. 2022. Image Forgery Detection Using Deeplearning by Recompressing
Images. Electronics 2022, 11, 403.
[8] Erwin J Alles, Zeno JMH Geradts, and Cor J Veenman. 2009. Source camera identiication for heavily jpeg compressed low resolution
still images. Journal of forensic sciences 54, 3 (2009), 628–638.
[9] Irene Amerini, Gianmarco Baldini, and Francesco Leotta. 2021. Image and Video Forensics. Journal of Imaging 7, 11 (2021). https:
//doi.org/10.3390/jimaging7110242
[10] Irene Amerini, Lamberto Ballan, Roberto Caldelli, Alberto Del Bimbo, Luca Del Tongo, and Giuseppe Serra. 2013. Copy-move forgery
detection and localization by means of robust clustering with J-Linkage. Signal Processing: Image Communication 28, 6 (2013), 659–669.
[11] I. Amerini, L. Ballan, R. Caldelli, A. Del Bimbo, and G. Serra. 2011. A SIFT-based forensic method for copy-move attack detection and
transformation recovery. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 6, 3 PART 2 (2011), 1099–1110. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TIFS.2011.2129512 cited By 624.
[12] Irene Amerini, Tiberio Uricchio, Lamberto Ballan, and Roberto Caldelli. 2017. Localization of JPEG Double Compression Through
Multi-domain Convolutional Neural Networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).
1865–1871. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2017.233
[13] Muhammad Aoun. 2023. Deep Fake Detection in Social Media Forensic Taxonomy, Challenges, Future Directions. LC International
Journal of STEM (ISSN: 2708-7123) 4, 1 (2023), 16–26.
[14] Edoardo Ardizzone, Alessandro Bruno, and Giuseppe Mazzola. 2015. Copy–move forgery detection by matching triangles of keypoints.
IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 10, 10 (2015), 2084–2094.
[15] Rizky Damara Ardy, Oktaviana Rena Indriani, Christy Atika Sari, Eko Hari Rachmawanto, et al. 2017. Digital image signature using
triple protection cryptosystem (RSA, Vigenere, and MD5). In 2017 International Conference on Smart Cities, Automation & Intelligent
Computing Systems (ICON-SONICS). IEEE, 87–92.
[16] Matthew PJ Ashby. 2017. The value of CCTV surveillance cameras as an investigative tool: An empirical analysis. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research 23, 3 (2017), 441–459.
[17] JANLUK AśS. [n. d.]. DIGITAL IMAGE AUTHENTICATION USING IMAGE FILTERING TECHNIQUES. In Conference on Scientiic
Computingpp, Vol. 236. Citeseer, 244.
[18] I. Avcibas, S. Bayram, N. Memon, M. Ramkumar, and B. Sankur. 2004. A classiier design for detecting image manipulations. In 2004
International Conference on Image Processing, 2004. ICIP ’04., Vol. 4. 2645–2648 Vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2004.1421647
[19] Sudipta Banerjee, Prateek Jaiswal, and Arun Ross. 2022. Facial De-morphing: Extracting Component Faces from a Single Morph. In
2022 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB). 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCB54206.2022.10007977
[20] Patrick Bas, Tomáš Filler, and Tomáš Pevnỳ. 2011. ž Break our steganographic systemž: the ins and outs of organizing BOSS. In
Information Hiding: 13th International Conference, IH 2011, Prague, Czech Republic, May 18-20, 2011, Revised Selected Papers 13. Springer,
59–70.
[21] M Bashar, K Noda, N Ohnishi, and K Mori. 2010. Exploring duplicated regions in natural images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing
(2010).
[22] Md Khayrul Bashar, Keiji Noda, Noboru Ohnishi, Hiroaki Kudo, Tetsuya Matsumoto, and Yoshinori Takeuchi. 2007. Wavelet-Based
Multiresolution Features for Detecting Duplications in Images.. In MVA. 264–267.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 19

[23] Philip Bateman, Anthony T. S. Ho, and Alan Woodward. 2009. Image forensics of digital cameras by analysing image variations using
Statistical Process Control. In 2009 7th International Conference on Information, Communications and Signal Processing (ICICS). 1–5.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICS.2009.5397649
[24] Sebastiano Battiato, Fausto Galvan, Martino Jerian, and Matteo Salcuni. 2013. Linee guida per l’autenticazione forense di immagini.
Chapter in IISFA Memberbook (2013).
[25] Sebastiano Battiato, Oliver Giudice, Francesco Guarnera, and Giovanni Puglisi. 2021. Estimating previous quantization factors on
multiple JPEG compressed images. EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2021, 1 (2021), 1–11.
[26] Sebastiano Battiato, Oliver Giudice, Francesco Guarnera, and Giovanni Puglisi. 2021. First quantization estimation by a robust data
exploitation strategy of DCT coeicients. IEEE Access 9 (2021), 73110–73120.
[27] Sebastiano Battiato, Oliver Giudice, Francesco Guarnera, and Giovanni Puglisi. 2022. CNN-based irst quantization estimation of double
compressed JPEG images. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 89 (2022), 103635.
[28] Sebastiano Battiato and Giuseppe Messina. 2009. Digital forgery estimation into DCT domain: a critical analysis. In Proceedings of the
First ACM workshop on Multimedia in forensics. 37–42.
[29] Belhassen Bayar and Matthew C Stamm. 2016. A deep learning approach to universal image manipulation detection using a new
convolutional layer. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on information hiding and multimedia security. 5–10.
[30] Sevinç Bayram, İsmail Avcıbaş, Bülent Sankur, and Nasir Memon. 2006. Image manipulation detection. Journal of Electronic Imaging
15, 4 (2006), 041102–041102.
[31] S. Bayram, H. Sencar, N. Memon, and I. Avcibas. 2005. Source camera identiication based on CFA interpolation. In IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing 2005, Vol. 3. III–69. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2005.1530330
[32] Sevinc Bayram, Husrev T Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2008. Classiication of digital camera-models based on demosaicing artifacts.
digital investigation 5, 1-2 (2008), 49–59.
[33] Sevinc Bayram, Husrev Taha Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2009. An eicient and robust method for detecting copy-move forgery. In 2009
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE, 1053–1056.
[34] S Bharathiraja. 2019. Anti-forensics contrast enhancement detection (AFCED) technique in images based on laplace derivative
histogram. Mobile Networks and Applications 24, 4 (2019), 1174–1180.
[35] Charmil Nitin Bharti and Purvi Tandel. 2016. A survey of image forgery detection techniques. In 2016 International Conference on
Wireless Communications, Signal Processing and Networking (WiSPNET). IEEE, 877–881.
[36] Sharbani Bhattacharya. 2012. Additive watermarking in optimized digital image. IEEE Beacon, IEEE (Delhi Section) publication in 31, 1
(2012), 79.
[37] Xiuli Bi, Yang Wei, Bin Xiao, and Weisheng Li. 2019. RRU-Net: The ringed residual U-Net for image splicing forgery detection. In
Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops. 0–0.
[38] Tiziano Bianchi, Alessia De Rosa, and Alessandro Piva. 2011. Improved DCT coeicient analysis for forgery localization in JPEG
images. In 2011 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2444–2447.
[39] Tiziano Bianchi and Alessandro Piva. 2011. Detection of non-aligned double JPEG compression with estimation of primary compression
parameters. In 2011 18th IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. 1929–1932. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2011.6115848
[40] Tiziano Bianchi and Alessandro Piva. 2011. Detection of nonaligned double JPEG compression based on integer periodicity maps. IEEE
transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7, 2 (2011), 842–848.
[41] Tiziano Bianchi and Alessandro Piva. 2012. Image forgery localization via block-grained analysis of JPEG artifacts. IEEE Transactions
on Information Forensics and Security 7, 3 (2012), 1003–1017.
[42] Gajanan K. Birajdar and Vijay H. Mankar. 2013. Digital image forgery detection using passive techniques: A survey. Digital Investigation
10, 3 (2013), 226–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2013.04.007
[43] Rainer Böhme, Felix C Freiling, Thomas Gloe, and Matthias Kirchner. 2009. Multimedia forensics is not computer forensics. In
Computational Forensics: Third International Workshop, IWCF 2009, The Hague, The Netherlands, August 13-14, 2009. Proceedings 3.
Springer, 90–103.
[44] Luca Bondi, Silvia Lameri, David Güera, Paolo Bestagini, Edward J. Delp, and Stefano Tubaro. 2017. Tampering Detection and
Localization Through Clustering of Camera-Based CNN Features. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Workshops (CVPRW). 1855–1864. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2017.232
[45] Guido Borghi, Gabriele Graieti, Annalisa Franco, and Davide Maltoni. 2022. Incremental Training of Face Morphing Detectors. In
2022 26th International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR). 914–921. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICPR56361.2022.9956395
[46] Anirban Bose and Santi Prasad Maity. 2017. Spread spectrum watermark detection on degraded compressed sensing. IEEE Sensors
Letters 1, 5 (2017), 1–4.
[47] Sergio Bravo-Solorio and Asoke K. Nandi. 2009. Passive forensic method for detecting duplicated regions afected by relection, rotation
and scaling. In 2009 17th European Signal Processing Conference. 824–828.
[48] Andrea Bruno, Paola Capasso, Giuseppe Cattaneo, Umberto Ferraro Petrillo, and Riccardo Improta. 2022. A novel image dataset for
source camera identiication and image based recognition systems. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022), 1–17.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

20 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[49] Andrea Bruno, Giuseppe Cattaneo, Umberto Ferraro Petrillo, and Paola Capasso. 2021. PNU Spooing: a menace for biometrics
authentication systems? Pattern Recognition Letters 151 (2021), 3–10.
[50] Eric Van Buskirk and Vincent T. Liu. 2006. Digital Evidence: Challenging the Presumption of Reliability. Journal of Digital Forensic
Practice 1, 1 (2006), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567280500541421 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/15567280500541421
[51] Gang Cao, Yao Zhao, and Rongrong Ni. 2010. Forensic estimation of gamma correction in digital images. In 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, 2097–2100.
[52] Gang Cao, Yao Zhao, Rongrong Ni, and Alex C. Kot. 2011. Unsharp Masking Sharpening Detection via Overshoot Artifacts Analysis.
IEEE Signal Processing Letters 18, 10 (2011), 603–606. https://doi.org/10.1109/LSP.2011.2164791
[53] Gang Cao, Yao Zhao, Rongrong Ni, and Xuelong Li. 2014. Contrast Enhancement-Based Forensics in Digital Images. IEEE Transactions
on Information Forensics and Security 9, 3 (2014), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2014.2300937
[54] Hong Cao and Alex C Kot. 2009. Accurate detection of demosaicing regularity for digital image forensics. IEEE Transactions on
Information Forensics and Security 4, 4 (2009), 899–910.
[55] Paola Capasso, Lucia Cimmino, Andrea F Abate, Andrea Bruno, and Giuseppe Cattaneo. 2022. A PNU-Based Methodology to Improve
the Reliability of Biometric Systems. Sensors 22, 16 (2022), 6074.
[56] Giuseppe Cattaneo and Gianluca Roscigno. 2014. A possible pitfall in the experimental analysis of tampering detection algorithms. In
2014 17th International Conference on Network-Based Information Systems. IEEE, 279–286.
[57] Oya Celiktutan, Bülent Sankur, and Ismail Avcibas. 2008. Blind identiication of source cell-phone model. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics
Secur. 3, 3 (2008), 553–566.
[58] B Chaitra and PV Bhaskar Reddy. 2019. A study on digital image forgery techniques and its detection. In 2019 International conference
on contemporary computing and informatics (IC3I). IEEE, 127–130.
[59] Devanshi Chauhan, Dipali Kasat, Sanjeev Jain, and Vilas Thakare. 2016. Survey on keypoint based copy-move forgery detection
methods on image. Procedia Computer Science 85 (2016), 206–212.
[60] Rahul Chauhan, Preeti Mishra, and RC Joshi. 2020. An overview of digital image forensics: image morphing and forgery detection
algorithms. Information Security and Optimization (2020), 107–120.
[61] Chunhua Chen, Yun Q Shi, and Wei Su. 2008. A machine learning based scheme for double JPEG compression detection. In 2008 19th
international conference on pattern recognition. IEEE, 1–4.
[62] Jiansheng Chen, Xiangui Kang, Ye Liu, and Z Jane Wang. 2015. Median iltering forensics based on convolutional neural networks.
IEEE Signal Processing Letters 22, 11 (2015), 1849–1853.
[63] Mo Chen, Jessica Fridrich, Miroslav Goljan, and Jan Lukás. 2008. Determining image origin and integrity using sensor noise. IEEE
Transactions on information forensics and security 3, 1 (2008), 74–90.
[64] Tao Chen and Hongtao Lu. 2012. Robust spatial LSB watermarking of color images against JPEG compression. In 2012 IEEE Fifth
International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI). IEEE, 872–875.
[65] Wen Chen, Yun Q. Shi, and Wei Su. 2007. Image splicing detection using 2D phase congruency and statistical moments of characteristic
function. In Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents IX, Edward J. Delp III and Ping Wah Wong (Eds.),
Vol. 6505. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 65050R. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.704321
[66] Wen Chen, Yun Q Shi, and Guorong Xuan. 2007. Identifying computer graphics using HSV color model and statistical moments of
characteristic functions. In 2007 ieee international conference on multimedia and expo. IEEE, 1123–1126.
[67] Yi-Lei Chen and Chiou-Ting Hsu. 2008. Image tampering detection by blocking periodicity analysis in JPEG compressed images. In
2008 IEEE 10th Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. 803–808. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMSP.2008.4665184
[68] Yi-Lei Chen and Chiou-Ting Hsu. 2011. Detecting recompression of JPEG images via periodicity analysis of compression artifacts for
tampering detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 6, 2 (2011), 396–406.
[69] Giovanni Chierchia, Giovanni Poggi, Carlo Sansone, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2014. A Bayesian-MRF approach for PRNU-based image
forgery detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 9, 4 (2014), 554–567.
[70] Hyeokho Choi and R. Baraniuk. 1998. Analysis of wavelet-domain Wiener ilters. In Proceedings of the IEEE-SP International Symposium
on Time-Frequency and Time-Scale Analysis (Cat. No.98TH8380). 613–616. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFSA.1998.721499
[71] Kai San Choi, Edmund Y. Lam, and Kenneth K. Y. Wong. 2006. Source camera identiication using footprints from lens aberration. In
Digital Photography II, Nitin Sampat, Jefrey M. DiCarlo, and Russel A. Martin (Eds.), Vol. 6069. International Society for Optics and
Photonics, SPIE, 60690J. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.649775
[72] Vincent Christlein, Christian Riess, Johannes Jordan, Corinna Riess, and Elli Angelopoulou. 2012. An evaluation of popular copy-move
forgery detection approaches. IEEE Transactions on information forensics and security 7, 6 (2012), 1841–1854.
[73] Sara Concas, Gianpaolo Perelli, Gian Luca Marcialis, and Giovanni Puglisi. 2022. Tensor-Based Deepfake Detection In Scaled And
Compressed Images. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 3121–3125.
[74] Valentina Conotter, Giulia Boato, and Hany Farid. 2010. Detecting photo manipulation on signs and billboards. In 2010 IEEE International
Conference on Image Processing. 1741–1744. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2010.5652906

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 21

[75] Riccardo Corvi, Davide Cozzolino, Giada Zingarini, Giovanni Poggi, Koki Nagano, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2023. On the detection of
synthetic images generated by difusion models. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 1–5.
[76] Ingemar Cox, Matthew Miller, Jefrey Bloom, and Chris Honsinger. 2002. Digital watermarking. Journal of Electronic Imaging 11, 3
(2002), 414–414.
[77] Davide Cozzolino, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2014. Copy-move forgery detection based on patchmatch. In 2014 IEEE
international conference on image processing (ICIP). IEEE, 5312–5316.
[78] Davide Cozzolino and Luisa Verdoliva. 2016. Single-image splicing localization through autoencoder-based anomaly detection. In 2016
IEEE international workshop on information forensics and security (WIFS). IEEE, 1–6.
[79] S. Craver, N. Memon, B.-L. Yeo, and M.M. Yeung. 1998. Resolving rightful ownerships with invisible watermarking techniques: limitations,
attacks, and implications. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 16, 4 (1998), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1109/49.668979
[80] Florin Cutzu, Riad Hammoud, and Alex Leykin. 2005. Distinguishing paintings from photographs. Computer Vision and Image
Understanding 100, 3 (2005), 249–273.
[81] Kelton A.P. da Costa, João P. Papa, Leandro A. Passos, Danilo Colombo, Javier Del Ser, Khan Muhammad, and Victor Hugo C. de
Albuquerque. 2020. A critical literature survey and prospects on tampering and anomaly detection in image data. Applied Soft
Computing 97 (2020), 106727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2020.106727
[82] Nahuel Dalgaard, Carlos Mosquera, and Fernando Pérez-González. 2010. On the role of diferentiation for resampling detection. In
2010 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. 1753–1756. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2010.5652358
[83] Naser Damer, Viola Boller, Yaza Wainakh, Fadi Boutros, Philipp Terhörst, Andreas Braun, and Arjan Kuijper. 2019. Detecting face
morphing attacks by analyzing the directed distances of facial landmarks shifts. In Pattern Recognition: 40th German Conference, GCPR
2018, Stuttgart, Germany, October 9-12, 2018, Proceedings 40. Springer, 518–534.
[84] Duc-Tien Dang-Nguyen, Cecilia Pasquini, Valentina Conotter, and Giulia Boato. 2015. Raise: A raw images dataset for digital image
forensics. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM multimedia systems conference. 219–224.
[85] Luca Debiasi, Ulrich Scherhag, Christian Rathgeb, Andreas Uhl, and Christoph Busch. 2018. PRNU-based detection of morphed face
images. In 2018 International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBF.2018.8401555
[86] Chandan Deep Kaur and Navdeep Kanwal. 2019. An analysis of image forgery detection techniques. Statistics, Optimization &
Information Computing 7, 2 (2019), 486–500.
[87] Sintayehu Dehnie, Taha Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2006. Digital image forensics for identifying computer generated and digital camera
images. In 2006 International Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, 2313–2316.
[88] Ahmet Emir Dirik, Sevinç Bayram, Husrev T Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2007. New features to identify computer generated images. In
2007 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, Vol. 4. IEEE, IV–433.
[89] Ahmet Emir Dirik, Husrev Taha Sencar, and Nasir Memon. 2008. Digital single lens relex camera identiication from traces of sensor
dust. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 3, 3 (2008), 539–552.
[90] Jing Dong, Wei Wang, and Tieniu Tan. 2013. Casia image tampering detection evaluation database. In 2013 IEEE China summit and
international conference on signal and information processing. IEEE, 422–426.
[91] Jing Dong, Wei Wang, Tieniu Tan, and Yun Q. Shi. 2009. Run-Length and Edge Statistics Based Approach for Image Splicing Detection.
In Digital Watermarking, Hyoung-Joong Kim, Stefan Katzenbeisser, and Anthony T. S. Ho (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin,
Heidelberg, 76–87.
[92] Ricard Durall, Margret Keuper, and Janis Keuper. 2020. Watch your up-convolution: Cnn based generative deep neural networks
are failing to reproduce spectral distributions. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition.
7890–7899.
[93] Brandon Dybala, Brian Jennings, and David Letscher. 2007. Detecting Filtered Cloning in Digital Images. In Proceedings of the 9th
Workshop on Multimedia & Security (Dallas, Texas, USA) (MM & Sec ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
43–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288869.1288877
[94] Mohamed A Elaskily, Heba K Aslan, Osama A Elshakankiry, Osama S Faragallah, Fathi E Abd El-Samie, and Mohamed M Dessouky.
2017. Comparative study of copy-move forgery detection techniques. In 2017 Intl Conf on advanced control circuits systems (ACCS)
Systems & 2017 Intl conf on new paradigms in electronics & information technology (PEIT). IEEE, 193–203.
[95] Ferda Ernawan and Muhammad Nomani Kabir. 2018. A Robust Image Watermarking Technique With an Optimal DCT-Psychovisual
Threshold. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 20464–20480. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2819424
[96] Zhigang Fan and Ricardo L De Queiroz. 2003. Identiication of bitmap compression history: JPEG detection and quantizer estimation.
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 12, 2 (2003), 230–235.
[97] Zhen Fang, Shuozhong Wang, and Xinpeng Zhang. 2009. Image Splicing Detection Using Camera Characteristic Inconsistency. In 2009
International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security, Vol. 1. 20–24. https://doi.org/10.1109/MINES.2009.208
[98] Hany Farid. 1999. Detecting Digital Forgeries Using Bispectral Analysis. Technical Report. USA.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

22 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[99] Hany Farid. 2004. Creating and Detecting Doctored and Virtual Images: Implications to The Child Pornography Prevention Act.
Technical Report TR2004-518, Department of Computer Science, Dartmouth College,2004.
[100] Hany Farid. 2009. Exposing digital forgeries from JPEG ghosts. IEEE transactions on information forensics and security 4, 1 (2009),
154–160.
[101] Hany Farid. 2009. Image forgery detection. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 26, 2 (2009), 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2008.931079
[102] Hany Farid. 2016. Photo forensics. MIT press.
[103] Hany Farid and Mary J Bravo. 2010. Image forensic analyses that elude the human visual system. In Media forensics and security II,
Vol. 7541. SPIE, 52–61.
[104] Giovanni Maria Farinella, Mario Valerio Giufrida, Vincenzo Digiacomo, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2015. On blind source camera
identiication. In Advanced Concepts for Intelligent Vision Systems: 16th International Conference, ACIVS 2015, Catania, Italy, October
26-29, 2015. Proceedings 16. Springer, 464–473.
[105] Sundus Farooq, Muhammad Haroon Yousaf, and Fawad Hussain. 2017. A generic passive image forgery detection scheme using local
binary pattern with rich models. Computers & Electrical Engineering 62 (2017), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2017.05.
008
[106] Sundus Farooq, Muhammad Haroon Yousaf, and Fawad Hussain. 2017. A generic passive image forgery detection scheme using local
binary pattern with rich models. Computers & Electrical Engineering 62 (2017), 459–472.
[107] Xiaoying Feng and Gwenaël J. Doërr. 2010. JPEG recompression detection. In Electronic imaging.
[108] Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, and Davide Maltoni. 2017. Face demorphing. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security
13, 4 (2017), 1008–1017.
[109] Matteo Ferrara, Annalisa Franco, Davide Maltoni, and Christoph Busch. 2022. Morphing Attack Potential. In 2022 International
Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBF55382.2022.9794509
[110] Pasquale Ferrara, Tiziano Bianchi, Alessia De Rosa, and Alessandro Piva. 2012. Image forgery localization via ine-grained analysis of
CFA artifacts. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7, 5 (2012), 1566–1577.
[111] William D. Ferreira, Cristiane B.R. Ferreira, Gelson da Cruz Júnior, and Fabrizzio Soares. 2020. A review of digital image forensics.
Computers & Electrical Engineering 85 (2020), 106685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106685
[112] Claude Fillion and Gaurav Sharma. 2010. Detecting content adaptive scaling of images for forensic applications. In Media Forensics and
Security II, Nasir D. Memon, Jana Dittmann, Adnan M. Alattar, and Edward J. Delp III (Eds.), Vol. 7541. International Society for Optics
and Photonics, SPIE, 75410Z. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.838647
[113] Joel Frank, Thorsten Eisenhofer, Lea Schönherr, Asja Fischer, Dorothea Kolossa, and Thorsten Holz. 2020. Leveraging frequency
analysis for deep fake image recognition. In International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 3247–3258.
[114] Jessica Fridrich. 2003. Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In Proc. Digital Forensic Research Workshop, 2003.
[115] Dongdong Fu, Yun Q Shi, and Wei Su. 2006. Detection of image splicing based on Hilbert-Huang transform and moments of characteristic
functions with wavelet decomposition. In Digital Watermarking: 5th International Workshop, IWDW 2006, Jeju Island, Korea, November
8-10, 2006. Proceedings 5. Springer, 177–187.
[116] Dongdong Fu, Yun Q. Shi, and Wei Su. 2007. A generalized Benford’s law for JPEG coeicients and its applications in image forensics.
In Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents IX, Edward J. Delp III and Ping Wah Wong (Eds.), Vol. 6505.
International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 65051L. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.704723
[117] Chiara Galdi, Frank Hartung, and Jean-Luc Dugelay. 2019. SOCRatES: A Database of Realistic Data for SOurce Camera REcognition on
Smartphones.. In ICPRAM. 648–655.
[118] Andrew C Gallagher. 2005. Detection of linear and cubic interpolation in JPEG compressed images. In The 2nd Canadian Conference on
Computer and Robot Vision (CRV’05). IEEE, 65–72.
[119] Fausto Galvan, Giovanni Puglisi, Arcangelo Ranieri Bruna, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2014. First quantization matrix estimation from
double compressed JPEG images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 9, 8 (2014), 1299–1310.
[120] Simson Garinkel. 2007. Anti-forensics: Techniques, detection and countermeasures. In 2nd International Conference on i-Warfare and
Security, Vol. 20087. 77–84.
[121] Michael Geiger. 2018. Geiger, Michael, "2018 IEEE Signal Processing Cup: Forensic Camera Model Identiication Challenge" (2018).Honors
Theses. 1577. (2018).
[122] Zeno J Geradts, Jurrien Bijhold, Martijn Kieft, Kenji Kurosawa, Kenro Kuroki, and Naoki Saitoh. 2001. Methods for identiication of
images acquired with digital cameras. In Enabling technologies for law enforcement and security, Vol. 4232. SPIE, 505–512.
[123] Mehdi Ghorbani, Mohammad Firouzmand, and Ahmad Faraahi. 2011. DWT-DCT (QCD) based copy-move image forgery detection. In
2011 18th International Conference on Systems, Signals and Image Processing. IEEE, 1–4.
[124] Oliver Giudice, Luca Guarnera, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2021. Fighting deepfakes by detecting gan dct anomalies. Journal of Imaging 7,
8 (2021), 128.
[125] Thomas Gloe and Rainer Böhme. 2010. The’Dresden Image Database’for benchmarking digital image forensics. In Proceedings of the
2010 ACM symposium on applied computing. 1584–1590.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 23

[126] Thomas Gloe, Karsten Borowka, and Antje Winkler. 2010. Eicient estimation and large-scale evaluation of lateral chromatic aberration
for digital image forensics. In Media Forensics and Security II, Nasir D. Memon, Jana Dittmann, Adnan M. Alattar, and Edward J. Delp III
(Eds.), Vol. 7541. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 754107. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.839034
[127] Oded Goldreich and Oded Goldreich. 1999. The foundations of modern cryptography. Modern Cryptography, Probabilistic Proofs and
Pseudorandomness (1999), 1–37.
[128] Miroslav Goljan and Jessica Fridrich. 2012. Sensor-ingerprint based identiication of images corrected for lens distortion. In Media
Watermarking, Security, and Forensics 2012, Vol. 8303. Spie, 132–144.
[129] Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio.
2020. Generative adversarial networks. Commun. ACM 63, 11 (2020), 139–144.
[130] E.S. Gopi, N. Lakshmanan, T. Gokul, S. KumaraGanesh, and Prerak.r. Shah. 2006. Digital Image Forgery Detection using Artiicial
Neural Network and Auto Regressive Coeicients. In 2006 Canadian Conference on Electrical and Computer Engineering. 194–197.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCECE.2006.277398
[131] Diego Gragnaniello, Davide Cozzolino, Francesco Marra, Giovanni Poggi, and Luisa Verdoliva. 2021. Are GAN generated images easy
to detect? A critical analysis of the state-of-the-art. In 2021 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). IEEE, 1–6.
[132] Haiying Guan, Mark Kozak, Eric Robertson, Yooyoung Lee, Amy N Yates, Andrew Delgado, Daniel Zhou, Timothee Kheyrkhah, Jef
Smith, and Jonathan Fiscus. 2019. MFC datasets: Large-scale benchmark datasets for media forensic challenge evaluation. In 2019 IEEE
Winter Applications of Computer Vision Workshops (WACVW). IEEE, 63–72.
[133] Luca Guarnera, Oliver Giudice, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2020. Fighting deepfake by exposing the convolutional traces on images. IEEE
Access 8 (2020), 165085–165098.
[134] Luca Guarnera, Oliver Giudice, Francesco Guarnera, Alessandro Ortis, Giovanni Puglisi, Antonino Paratore, Linh M. Q. Bui, Marco
Fontani, Davide Alessandro Coccomini, Roberto Caldelli, Fabrizio Falchi, Claudio Gennaro, Nicola Messina, Giuseppe Amato, Gianpaolo
Perelli, Sara Concas, Carlo Cuccu, Giulia Orrù, Gian Luca Marcialis, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2022. The Face Deepfake Detection
Challenge. Journal of Imaging 8, 10 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging8100263
[135] Luca Guarnera, Oliver Giudice, Cristina Nastasi, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2020. Preliminary forensics analysis of deepfake images. In
2020 AEIT international annual conference (AEIT). IEEE, 1–6.
[136] Luca Guarnera, Oliver Giudice, Matthias Niesner, and Sebastiano Battiato. 2022. On the exploitation of Deepfake model recognition.
2022 IEEE. In CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).
[137] Gokhan Gul, Ismail Avcibas, and Fatih Kurugollu. 2010. SVD based image manipulation detection. In 2010 IEEE International Conference
on Image Processing. 1765–1768. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2010.5652854
[138] Benjamin Hadwiger and Christian Riess. 2021. The Forchheim image database for camera identiication in the wild. In Pattern
Recognition. ICPR International Workshops and Challenges: Virtual Event, January 10ś15, 2021, Proceedings, Part VI. Springer, 500–515.
[139] Adil Haouzia and Rita Noumeir. 2008. Methods for image authentication: a survey. Multimedia tools and applications 39 (2008), 1–46.
[140] Mohammad Farukh Hashmi, Vijay Anand, and Avinas G. Keskar. 2014. Copy-move Image Forgery Detection Using an Eicient and
Robust Method Combining Un-decimated Wavelet Transform and Scale Invariant Feature Transform. AASRI Procedia 9 (2014), 84–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aasri.2014.09.015 2014 AASRI Conference on Circuit and Signal Processing (CSP 2014).
[141] Junfeng He, Zhouchen Lin, Lifeng Wang, and Xiaoou Tang. 2006. Detecting Doctored JPEG Images Via DCT Coeicient Analysis. In
European Conference on Computer Vision.
[142] Jonatan Henríquez and Werner Kristjanpoller. 2019. A combined Independent Component Analysis–Neural Network model for
forecasting exchange rate variation. Applied Soft Computing 83 (2019), 105654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105654
[143] Young-Jin Heo, Woon-Ha Yeo, and Byung-Gyu Kim. 2023. Deepfake detection algorithm based on improved vision transformer. Applied
Intelligence 53, 7 (2023), 7512–7527.
[144] Mario Hildebrandt, Tom Neubert, Andrey Makrushin, and Jana Dittmann. 2017. Benchmarking face morphing forgery detection:
Application of stirtrace for impact simulation of diferent processing steps. In 2017 5th International Workshop on Biometrics and
Forensics (IWBF). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/IWBF.2017.7935087
[145] Zahra Hossein-Nejad and Mehdi Nasri. 2022. Clustered redundant keypoint elimination method for image mosaicing using a new
Gaussian-weighted blending algorithm. The Visual Computer 38, 6 (2022), 1991–2007.
[146] Peter Howarth and Stefan Rüger. 2004. Evaluation of Texture Features for Content-Based Image Retrieval. In Image and Video Retrieval,
Peter Enser, Yiannis Kompatsiaris, Noel E. O’Connor, Alan F. Smeaton, and Arnold W. M. Smeulders (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
Berlin, Heidelberg, 326–334.
[147] Yu-Feng Hsu and Shih-Fu Chang. 2006. Detecting image splicing using geometry invariants and camera characteristics consistency. In
2006 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, 549–552.
[148] Yu-Feng Hsu and Shih-Fu Chang. 2007. Image Splicing Detection using Camera Response Function Consistency and Automatic
Segmentation. In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. 28–31. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2007.4284578
[149] Yu-Feng Hsu and Shih-Fu Chang. 2010. Camera Response Functions for Image Forensics: An Automatic Algorithm for Splicing
Detection. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 5, 4 (2010), 816–825. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2010.2077628

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

24 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[150] Hailing Huang, Weiqiang Guo, and Yu Zhang. 2008. Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images Using SIFT Algorithm. In 2008
IEEE Paciic-Asia Workshop on Computational Intelligence and Industrial Application, Vol. 2. 272–276. https://doi.org/10.1109/PACIIA.
2008.240
[151] Yizhen Huang and Yangjing Long. 2008. Demosaicking recognition with applications in digital photo authentication based on a
quadratic pixel correlation model. In 2008 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 1–8.
[152] Muhammad Hussain, Ghulam Muhammad, Sahar Q Saleh, Anwar M Mirza, and George Bebis. 2013. Image forgery detection using
multi-resolution Weber local descriptors. In Eurocon 2013. IEEE, 1570–1577.
[153] Rabha W Ibrahim, Zahra Moghaddasi, Hamid A Jalab, and Raidah Md Noor. 2015. Fractional diferential texture descriptors based on
the Machado entropy for image splicing detection. Entropy 17, 7 (2015), 4775–4785.
[154] Meera Mary Isaac and M. Wilscy. 2015. Copy-Move Forgery Detection Based on Harris Corner Points and BRISK. In Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on Women in Computing and Informatics (Kochi, India) (WCI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery,
New York, NY, USA, 394–399. https://doi.org/10.1145/2791405.2791453
[155] Md Baharul Islam, Md. Tukhrejul Inam, and Balaji Kaliyaperumal. 2013. Overview and Challenges of Diferent Image Morphing
Algorithms. International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Electronics Engineering 2 (2013).
[156] Sabah Jassim and Aras Asaad. 2018. Automatic detection of image morphing by topology-based analysis. In 2018 26th European Signal
Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 1007–1011.
[157] Abdul Rehman Javed, Zunera Jalil, Wisha Zehra, Thippa Reddy Gadekallu, Doug Young Suh, and Md Jalil Piran. 2021. A comprehensive
survey on digital video forensics: Taxonomy, challenges, and future directions. Engineering Applications of Artiicial Intelligence 106
(2021), 104456.
[158] Herve Jegou, Matthijs Douze, and Cordelia Schmid. 2008. Hamming embedding and weak geometry consistency for large scale image
search-extended version. (2008).
[159] Jesse S Jin, Changsheng Xu, Min Xu, Dai-Kyung Hyun, Min-Jeong Lee, Seung-Jin Ryu, Hae-Yeoun Lee, and Heung-Kyu Lee. 2013.
Forgery detection for surveillance video. In The Era of Interactive Media. Springer, 25–36.
[160] Wang Jing and Zhang Hongbin. 2006. Exposing Digital Forgeries by Detecting Traces of Image Splicing. In 2006 8th international
Conference on Signal Processing, Vol. 2. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOSP.2006.345714
[161] Micah K Johnson and Hany Farid. 2005. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting inconsistencies in lighting. In Proceedings of the 7th
workshop on Multimedia and security. 1–10.
[162] Micah K Johnson and Hany Farid. 2006. Exposing digital forgeries through chromatic aberration. In Proceedings of the 8th workshop on
Multimedia and security. 48–55.
[163] Micah K Johnson and Hany Farid. 2007. Exposing digital forgeries in complex lighting environments. IEEE Transactions on Information
Forensics and Security 2, 3 (2007), 450–461.
[164] Micah K. Johnson and Hany Farid. 2008. Detecting Photographic Composites of People. In Digital Watermarking (Guangzhou,
China) (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), Yun Q. Shi, Hyoung-Joong Kim, and Stefan Katzenbeisser (Eds.). Springer, 19–33. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92238-4_3
[165] Micah K Johnson and Hany Farid. 2008. Detecting photographic composites of people. Digital watermarking (2008), 19–33.
[166] Pravin Kakar and N. Sudha. 2012. Exposing Postprocessed Copy–Paste Forgeries Through Transform-Invariant Features. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 7, 3 (2012), 1018–1028. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2012.2188390
[167] XiaoBing Kang and ShengMin Wei. 2008. Identifying Tampered Regions Using Singular Value Decomposition in Digital Image Forensics.
In 2008 International Conference on Computer Science and Software Engineering, Vol. 3. 926–930. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSSE.2008.876
[168] Eric Kee and Hany Farid. 2010. Exposing digital forgeries from 3-D lighting environments. In 2010 IEEE International Workshop on
Information Forensics and Security. IEEE, 1–6.
[169] Er Saiqa Khan and Er Arun Kulkarni. 1801. An eicient method for detection of copy-move forgery using discrete wavelet transform.
International Journal on Computer Science and Engineering 2, 5 (1801), 2010.
[170] Ihtiram Raza Khan, Saman Aisha, Deepak Kumar, and Tabish Mufti. 2023. A Systematic Review on Deepfake Technology. Proceedings
of Data Analytics and Management: ICDAM 2022 (2023), 669–685.
[171] Nitin Khanna, George T-C Chiu, Jan P Allebach, and Edward J Delp. 2008. Forensic techniques for classifying scanner, computer
generated and digital camera images. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE, 1653–1656.
[172] Nitin Khanna, Aravind K Mikkilineni, and Edward J Delp. 1740. Forensic camera classiication: Veriication of sensor pattern noise
approach. Fed Bur Invest 11, 1 (1740).
[173] M. Kharrazi, H.T. Sencar, and N. Memon. 2004. Blind source camera identiication. In 2004 International Conference on Image Processing,
2004. ICIP ’04., Vol. 1. 709–712 Vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2004.1418853
[174] Matthias Kirchner. 2010. Eicient estimation of CFA pattern coniguration in digital camera images. In Media Forensics and Security
II, Nasir D. Memon, Jana Dittmann, Adnan M. Alattar, and Edward J. Delp III (Eds.), Vol. 7541. International Society for Optics and
Photonics, SPIE, 754111. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.839102

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 25

[175] Matthias Kirchner and Rainer Bohme. 2008. Hiding Traces of Resampling in Digital Images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics
and Security 3, 4 (2008), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2008.2008214
[176] Matthias Kirchner and Thomas Gloe. 2009. On resampling detection in re-compressed images. In 2009 First IEEE international workshop
on information forensics and security (WIFS). IEEE, 21–25.
[177] Paweł Korus and Jiwu Huang. 2016. Multi-scale analysis strategies in PRNU-based tampering localization. IEEE Transactions on
Information Forensics and Security 12, 4 (2016), 809–824.
[178] A Kuznetsov. 2019. Digital image forgery detection using deep learning approach. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1368, 3 (nov
2019), 032028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1368/3/032028
[179] Myung-Joon Kwon, Seung-Hun Nam, In-Jae Yu, Heung-Kyu Lee, and Changick Kim. 2022. Learning JPEG compression artifacts for
image manipulation detection and localization. International Journal of Computer Vision 130, 8 (2022), 1875–1895.
[180] Aaron Langille and Minglun Gong. 2006. An eicient match-based duplication detection algorithm. In The 3rd Canadian Conference on
Computer and Robot Vision (CRV’06). IEEE, 64–64.
[181] Wei-Bin Lee and Tung-Her Chen. 2002. A public veriiable copy protection technique for still images. Journal of Systems and Software
62, 3 (2002), 195–204.
[182] Stefan Leutenegger, Margarita Chli, and Roland Y. Siegwart. 2011. BRISK: Binary Robust invariant scalable keypoints. In 2011
International Conference on Computer Vision. 2548–2555. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2011.6126542
[183] Alex Leykin and Florin Cutzu. 2003. Diferences of edge properties in photographs and paintings. In Proceedings 2003 International
Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No. 03CH37429), Vol. 3. IEEE, III–541.
[184] Bin Li, Yun Q. Shi, and Jiwu Huang. 2008. Detecting doubly compressed JPEG images by using Mode Based First Digit Features. In 2008
IEEE 10th Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing. 730–735. https://doi.org/10.1109/MMSP.2008.4665171
[185] Chang-Tsun Li. 2010. Source camera identiication using enhanced sensor pattern noise. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and
Security 5, 2 (2010), 280–287.
[186] Chang-Tsun Li and Yue Li. 2010. Digital camera identiication using Colour-Decoupled photo response non-uniformity noise pattern.
In Proceedings of 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. 3052–3055. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2010.5537994
[187] Guohui Li, Qiong Wu, Dan Tu, and Shaojie Sun. 2007. A sorted neighborhood approach for detecting duplicated regions in image
forgeries based on DWT and SVD. In 2007 IEEE international conference on multimedia and expo. IEEE, 1750–1753.
[188] Leida Li, Shushang Li, Hancheng Zhu, Shu-Chuan Chu, John F Roddick, and Jeng-Shyang Pan. 2013. An Eicient Scheme for Detecting
Copy-move Forged Images by Local Binary Patterns. J. Inf. Hiding Multim. Signal Process. 4, 1 (2013), 46–56.
[189] Weihai Li, Nenghai Yu, and Yuan Yuan. 2008. Doctored JPEG image detection. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and
Expo. 253–256. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICME.2008.4607419
[190] Weihai Li, Yuan Yuan, and Nenghai Yu. 2009. Passive detection of doctored JPEG image via block artifact grid extraction. Signal
Processing 89, 9 (2009), 1821–1829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2009.03.025
[191] Yanshan Li, Weiming Liu, Xiaotang Li, Qinghua Huang, and Xuelong Li. 2014. GA-SIFT: A new scale invariant feature transform
for multispectral image using geometric algebra. Information Sciences 281 (2014), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2013.12.022
Multimedia Modeling.
[192] Yuezun Li, Xin Yang, Pu Sun, Honggang Qi, and Siwei Lyu. 2020. Celeb-df: A large-scale challenging dataset for deepfake forensics. In
Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 3207–3216.
[193] Zewen Li, Fan Liu, Wenjie Yang, Shouheng Peng, and Jun Zhou. 2021. A survey of convolutional neural networks: analysis, applications,
and prospects. IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems (2021).
[194] Ching-Yung Lin and Shih-Fu Chang. 1997. Robust image authentication method surviving JPEG lossy compression. In Storage and
Retrieval for Image and Video Databases VI, Vol. 3312. SPIE, 296–307.
[195] Hwei-Jen Lin, Chun-Wei Wang, and Yang-Ta Kao. 2009. Fast Copy-Move Forgery Detection. WSEAS Trans. Sig. Proc. 5, 5 (may 2009),
188–197.
[196] W Sabrina Lin, Steve Tjoa, H Vicky Zhao, and KJ Ray Liu. 2007. Image source coding forensics via intrinsic ingerprints. In 2007 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, 1127–1130.
[197] Xufeng Lin, Chang-Tsun Li, and Yongjian Hu. 2013. Exposing image forgery through the detection of contrast enhancement. In 2013
IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. 4467–4471. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2013.6738920
[198] Xiang Lin, Jian-Hua Li, Shi-Lin Wang, Alan-Wee-Chung Liew, Feng Cheng, and Xiao-Sa Huang. 2018. Recent Advances in Passive Digital
Image Security Forensics: A Brief Review. Engineering 4, 1 (2018), 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.02.008 Cybersecurity.
[199] Zhouchen Lin, Junfeng He, Xiaoou Tang, and Chi-Keung Tang. 2009. Fast, automatic and ine-grained tampered JPEG image detection
via DCT coeicient analysis. Pattern Recognition 42, 11 (2009), 2492–2501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2009.03.019
[200] Zhouchen Lin, Rongrong Wang, Xiaoou Tang, and Heung-Yeung Shum. 2005. Detecting doctored images using camera response
normality and consistency. In 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR’05), Vol. 1.
1087–1092 vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2005.125

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

26 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[201] Bei-Bei Liu, Yongjian Hu, and Heung-Kyu Lee. 2010. Source camera identiication from signiicant noise residual regions. In 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, 1749–1752.
[202] Qingzhong Liu and Andrew H. Sung. 2009. A new approach for JPEG resize and image splicing detection. In MiFor ’09.
[203] Wei Lu, Wei Sun, Ji-Wu Huang, and Hong-Tao Lu. 2008. Digital image forensics using statistical features and neural network classiier.
In 2008 International Conference on Machine Learning and Cybernetics, Vol. 5. IEEE, 2831–2834.
[204] Jan Lukas, Jessica Fridrich, and Miroslav Goljan. 2006. Digital camera identiication from sensor pattern noise. IEEE Transactions on
Information Forensics and Security 1, 2 (2006), 205–214.
[205] Weiqi Luo, Jiwu Huang, and Guoping Qiu. 2006. Robust detection of region-duplication forgery in digital image. In 18th International
Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR’06), Vol. 4. IEEE, 746–749.
[206] Weiqi Luo, Zhenhua Qu, Feng Pan, and Jiwu Huang. 2007. A survey of passive technology for digital image forensics. Frontiers of
Computer Science in China 1 (2007), 166–179.
[207] Yingda Lv, Xuanjing Shen, and Haipeng Chen. 2011. An improved image blind identiication based on inconsistency in light source
direction. The Journal of Supercomputing 58 (2011), 50–67.
[208] S. Lyu and H. Farid. 2005. How realistic is photorealistic? IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing 53, 2 (2005), 845–850. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/TSP.2004.839896
[209] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2007. Detection of copy–move forgery using a method based on blur moment invariants. Forensic
science international 171, 2-3 (2007), 180–189.
[210] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2008. Blind authentication using periodic properties of interpolation. IEEE Transactions on
Information Forensics and Security 3, 3 (2008), 529–538.
[211] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2009. A cyclostationarity analysis applied to image forensics. In 2009 Workshop on Applications of
Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 1–6.
[212] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2009. Detecting double compressed JPEG images. In International Conferences on Imaging for Crime
Detection and Prevention.
[213] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2010. A bibliography on blind methods for identifying image forgery. Signal Processing: Image
Communication 25, 6 (2010), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.image.2010.05.003
[214] Babak Mahdian and Stanislav Saic. 2010. Blind methods for detecting image fakery. IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine 25,
4 (2010), 18–24.
[215] Toqeer Mahmood, Zahid Mehmood, Mohsin Shah, and Tanzila Saba. 2018. A robust technique for copy-move forgery detection
and localization in digital images via stationary wavelet and discrete cosine transform. Journal of Visual Communication and Image
Representation 53 (2018), 202–214.
[216] Khaled Mahmoud and Arwa Husien. 2016. Copy-move forgery detection using zernike and pseudo zernike moments. Int. Arab J. Inf.
Technol. 13, 6A (2016), 930–937.
[217] Nasrin M. Makbol, Bee Ee Khoo, and Taha H. Rassem. 2016. Block-based discrete wavelet transform-singular value decomposition image
watermarking scheme using human visual system characteristics. IET Image Processing 10, 1 (2016), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
ipr.2014.0965 arXiv:https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1049/iet-ipr.2014.0965
[218] Andrey Makrushin, Tom Neubert, and Jana Dittmann. 2017. Automatic Generation and Detection of Visually Faultless Facial Morphs..
In VISIGRAPP (6: VISAPP). 39–50.
[219] Andrey Makrushin and Andreas Wolf. 2018. An overview of recent advances in assessing and mitigating the face morphing attack. In
2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). IEEE, 1017–1021.
[220] Francesco Marra, Diego Gragnaniello, Luisa Verdoliva, and Giovanni Poggi. 2020. A full-image full-resolution end-to-end-trainable
CNN framework for image forgery detection. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 133488–133502.
[221] Sarah Mercer, Kyle Read Talbot, and Isobel Kai-Hui Wang. 2021. Fake or real engagement–looks can be deceiving. Student engagement
in the language classroom (2021), 143–162.
[222] Hai Min, Wei Jia, Xiao-Feng Wang, Yang Zhao, Rong-Xiang Hu, Yue-Tong Luo, Feng Xue, and Jing-Ting Lu. 2015. An intensity-texture
model based level set method for image segmentation. Pattern Recognition 48, 4 (2015), 1547–1562.
[223] Saraju P Mohanty. 1999. Digital watermarking: A tutorial review. URL: http://www. csee. usf. edu/˜ smo-
hanty/research/Reports/WMSurvey1999Mohanty. pdf (1999).
[224] Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Hussain, and George Bebis. 2012. Passive copy move image forgery detection using undecimated
dyadic wavelet transform. Digital investigation 9, 1 (2012), 49–57.
[225] Saba Mushtaq and Ajaz Hussain Mir. 2014. Digital image forgeries and passive image authentication techniques: a survey. International
Journal of Advanced Science and Technology 73 (2014), 15–32.
[226] Gul Muzafer and Guzin Ulutas. 2019. A new deep learning-based method to detection of copy-move forgery in digital images. In 2019
Scientiic Meeting on Electrical-Electronics & Biomedical Engineering and Computer Science (EBBT). 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/EBBT.
2019.8741657

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 27

[227] AN Myna, MG Venkateshmurthy, and CG Patil. 2007. Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using wavelets and
log-polar mapping. In International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Multimedia Applications (ICCIMA 2007), Vol. 3. IEEE,
371–377.
[228] Syed Tufael Nabi, Munish Kumar, Paramjeet Singh, Naveen Aggarwal, and Krishan Kumar. 2022. A comprehensive survey of image
and video forgery techniques: variants, challenges, and future directions. Multimedia Systems 28, 3 (2022), 939–992.
[229] L. Nataraj, A. Sarkar, and B. S. Manjunath. 2009. Adding Gaussian noise to “denoisež JPEG for detecting image resizing. In 2009 16th
IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). 1493–1496. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIP.2009.5414609
[230] Lakshmanan Nataraj, Anindya Sarkar, and Bangalore S Manjunath. 2010. Improving re-sampling detection by adding noise. In Media
Forensics and Security II, Vol. 7541. SPIE, 177–187.
[231] Ramesh Neelamani, Ricardo De Queiroz, Zhigang Fan, Sanjeeb Dash, and Richard G Baraniuk. 2006. JPEG compression history
estimation for color images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 15, 6 (2006), 1365–1378.
[232] Tom Neubert. 2017. Face morphing detection: An approach based on image degradation analysis. In Digital Forensics and Watermarking:
16th International Workshop, IWDW 2017, Magdeburg, Germany, August 23-25, 2017, Proceedings 16. Springer, 93–106.
[233] Tom Neubert, Christian Kraetzer, and Jana Dittmann. 2019. A Face Morphing Detection Concept with a Frequency and a Spatial
Domain Feature Space for Images on EMRTD. In Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Information Hiding and Multimedia Security (Paris,
France) (IH & MMSec’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–100. https://doi.org/10.1145/3335203.3335721
[234] Tian-Tsong Ng. 2009. Camera response function signature for digital forensics - Part II: Signature extraction. In 2009 First IEEE
International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS). 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIFS.2009.5386461
[235] T-T Ng and S-F Chang. 2004. A model for image splicing. In 2004 International Conference on Image Processing, 2004. ICIP’04., Vol. 2.
IEEE, 1169–1172.
[236] Tian-Tsong Ng and Shih-Fu Chang. 2006. An online system for classifying computer graphics images from natural photographs. In
Security, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents VIII, Vol. 6072. SPIE, 397–405.
[237] Tian-Tsong Ng, Shih-Fu Chang, and Q Sun. [n. d.]. A data set of authentic and spliced image blocks.Tech. Rep. DVMM, Columbia
University (2004). ([n. d.]).
[238] Tian-Tsong Ng, Shih-Fu Chang, and Qibin Sun. 2004. Blind detection of photomontage using higher order statistics. In 2004 IEEE
International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), Vol. 5. V–V. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISCAS.2004.1329901
[239] Tian-Tsong Ng, Shih-Fu Chang, and Mao-Pei Tsui. 2007. Lessons learned from online classiication of photo-realistic computer graphics
and photographs. In 2007 IEEE Workshop on Signal Processing Applications for Public Security and Forensics. IEEE, 1–6.
[240] Tian-Tsong Ng and Mao-Pei Tsui. 2009. Camera response function signature for digital forensics - Part I: Theory and data selection. In
2009 First IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS). 156–160. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIFS.2009.5386464
[241] Hieu Cuong Nguyen and Stefan Katzenbeisser. 2012. Detection of copy-move forgery in digital images using radon transformation and
phase correlation. In 2012 Eighth International Conference on Intelligent Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal Processing. IEEE,
134–137.
[242] Nitish Nirmalkar, Shailesh Kamble, and Sandeep Kakde. 2015. A review of image forgery techniques and their detection. In 2015
international conference on innovations in information, embedded and communication systems (ICIIECS). IEEE, 1–5.
[243] Adam Novozamsky, Babak Mahdian, and Stanislav Saic. 2020. IMD2020: A large-scale annotated dataset tailored for detecting
manipulated images. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision Workshops. 71–80.
[244] Junlin Ouyang, Yizhi Liu, and Miao Liao. 2017. Copy-move forgery detection based on deep learning. In 2017 10th international congress
on image and signal processing, biomedical engineering and informatics (CISP-BMEI). IEEE, 1–5.
[245] Junlin Ouyang, Yizhi Liu, and Miao Liao. 2019. Robust copy-move forgery detection method using pyramid model and Zernike
moments. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78 (2019), 10207–10225.
[246] Guansong Pang, Chunhua Shen, Longbing Cao, and Anton Van Den Hengel. 2021. Deep learning for anomaly detection: A review.
ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 54, 2 (2021), 1–38.
[247] Cecilia Pasquini, Irene Amerini, and Giulia Boato. 2021. Media forensics on social media platforms: a survey. EURASIP Journal on
Information Security 2021, 1 (2021), 1–19.
[248] Anjie Peng, Yadong Wu, and Xiangui Kang. 2017. Revealing traces of image resampling and resampling antiforensics. Advances in
Multimedia 2017 (2017).
[249] Fei Peng, Le-Bing Zhang, and Min Long. 2019. FD-GAN: Face de-morphing generative adversarial network for restoring accomplice’s
facial image. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 75122–75131.
[250] Jin Peng, Yinghao Li, Chengming Liu, and Xiaomeng Gao. 2023. The Circular U-Net with Attention Gate for Image Splicing Forgery
Detection. Electronics 12, 6 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12061451
[251] Lin Peng, Xin Liao, and Mingliang Chen. 2021. Resampling parameter estimation via dual-iltering based convolutional neural network.
Multimedia Systems 27 (2021), 363–370.
[252] Tomas Pevny and Jessica Fridrich. 2008. Detection of Double-Compression in JPEG Images for Applications in Steganography. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 3, 2 (2008), 247–258. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2008.922456

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

28 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[253] Tomáš Pevný and Jessica Fridrich. 2008. Estimation of primary quantization matrix for steganalysis of double-compressed JPEG images.
In Security, Forensics, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents X, Edward J. Delp III, Ping Wah Wong, Jana Dittmann,
and Nasir D. Memon (Eds.), Vol. 6819. International Society for Optics and Photonics, SPIE, 681911. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.759155
[254] Alessandro Piva. 2013. An overview on image forensics. International Scholarly Research Notices 2013 (2013).
[255] Mark Pollitt. 2010. A history of digital forensics. In Advances in Digital Forensics VI: Sixth IFIP WG 11.9 International Conference on
Digital Forensics, Hong Kong, China, January 4-6, 2010, Revised Selected Papers 6. Springer, 3–15.
[256] Alin C Popescu and Hany Farid. 2004. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting duplicated image regions.Computer Science Technical
Report TR2004-515. (2004).
[257] Alin C. Popescu and Hany Farid. 2004. Statistical Tools for Digital Forensics. In Information Hiding.
[258] Alin C Popescu and Hany Farid. 2005. Exposing digital forgeries by detecting traces of resampling. IEEE Transactions on signal
processing 53, 2 (2005), 758–767.
[259] Sabyasachi Pramanik, Samir Kumar Bandyopadhyay, and Ramkrishna Ghosh. 2020. Signature image hiding in color image using
steganography and cryptography based on digital signature concepts. In 2020 2nd International Conference on Innovative Mechanisms
for Industry Applications (ICIMIA). IEEE, 665–669.
[260] Santasriya Prasad and KR Ramakrishnan. 2006. On resampling detection and its application to detect image tampering. In 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. IEEE, 1325–1328.
[261] OM Prathibha, NS Swathikumari, and P Sushma. 2012. Image forgery detection using dyadic Wavelet transform. Int. J. Electron. Sig.
Syst 2 (2012), 41–43.
[262] Zhenhua Qu, Weiqi Luo, and Jiwu Huang. 2008. A convolutive mixing model for shifted double JPEG compression with application
to passive image authentication. In 2008 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. 1661–1664. https:
//doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2008.4517946
[263] Weize Quan, Kai Wang, Dong-Ming Yan, and Xiaopeng Zhang. 2018. Distinguishing Between Natural and Computer-Generated
Images Using Convolutional Neural Networks. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 13, 11 (2018), 2772–2787.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2018.2834147
[264] Muhammad Ali Qureshi and Mohamed Deriche. 2015. A bibliography of pixel-based blind image forgery detection techniques. Signal
Processing: Image Communication 39 (2015), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.image.2015.08.008
[265] R. Raghavendra, Kiran B. Raja, and Christoph Busch. 2016. Detecting morphed face images. In 2016 IEEE 8th International Conference
on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS). 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/BTAS.2016.7791169
[266] R. Raghavendra, Kiran B. Raja, Sushma Venkatesh, and Christoph Busch. 2017. Transferable Deep-CNN Features for Detecting Digital
and Print-Scanned Morphed Face Images. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW).
1822–1830. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPRW.2017.228
[267] Md Shohel Rana, Mohammad Nur Nobi, Beddhu Murali, and Andrew H Sung. 2022. Deepfake detection: A systematic literature review.
IEEE access 10 (2022), 25494–25513.
[268] Yuan Rao and Jiangqun Ni. 2016. A deep learning approach to detection of splicing and copy-move forgeries in images. In 2016 IEEE
international workshop on information forensics and security (WIFS). IEEE, 1–6.
[269] Karen Reid. 2011. A practitioner’s guide to the European Convention on Human Rights. Sweet & Maxwell.
[270] K Remya Revi, KR Vidya, and M Wilscy. 2021. Detection of Deepfake Images Created Using Generative Adversarial Networks: A
Review. In Second International Conference on Networks and Advances in Computational Technologies: NetACT 19. Springer, 25–35.
[271] Christian Rey and Jean-Luc Dugelay. 2002. A survey of watermarking algorithms for image authentication. EURASIP Journal on
Advances in Signal Processing 2002, 6 (2002), 1–9.
[272] Seung-Jin Ryu, Min-Jeong Lee, and Heung-Kyu Lee. 2010. Detection of copy-rotate-move forgery using Zernike moments. In Information
Hiding: 12th International Conference, IH 2010, Calgary, AB, Canada, June 28-30, 2010, Revised Selected Papers 12. Springer, 51–65.
[273] Akram Hatem Saber, Mohd Ayyub Khan, and Basim Galeb Mejbel. 2020. A Survey on Image Forgery Detection Using Diferent Forensic
Approaches. Advances in Science, Technology and Engineering Systems Journal 5, 3 (2020), 361–370. https://doi.org/10.25046/aj050347
[274] Somayeh Sadeghi, Sajjad Dadkhah, Hamid A Jalab, Giuseppe Mazzola, and Diaa Uliyan. 2018. State of the art in passive digital image
forgery detection: copy-move image forgery. Pattern Analysis and Applications 21, 2 (2018), 291–306.
[275] Ronald Salloum, Yuzhuo Ren, and C-C Jay Kuo. 2018. Image splicing localization using a multi-task fully convolutional network
(MFCN). Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 51 (2018), 201–209.
[276] Gopinath Sankar, Vicky Zhao, and Yee-Hong Yang. 2009. Feature based classiication of computer graphics and real images. In 2009
IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE, 1513–1516.
[277] Anindya Sarkar, Lakshmanan Nataraj, and Bangalore S Manjunath. 2009. Detection of seam carving and localization of seam insertions
in digital images. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM workshop on Multimedia and security. 107–116.
[278] Gerald Schaefer and Michal Stich. 2003. UCID: An uncompressed color image database. In Storage and Retrieval Methods and Applications
for Multimedia 2004, Vol. 5307. SPIE, 472–480.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 29

[279] Ulrich Scherhag, Christian Rathgeb, and Christoph Busch. 2018. Towards Detection of Morphed Face Images in Electronic Travel
Documents. In 2018 13th IAPR International Workshop on Document Analysis Systems (DAS). 187–192. https://doi.org/10.1109/DAS.2018.11
[280] Clemens Seibold, Wojciech Samek, Anna Hilsmann, and Peter Eisert. 2017. Detection of Face Morphing Attacks by Deep Learning.
In Digital Forensics and Watermarking, Christian Kraetzer, Yun-Qing Shi, Jana Dittmann, and Hyoung Joong Kim (Eds.). Springer
International Publishing, Cham, 107–120.
[281] Clemens Seibold, Wojciech Samek, Anna Hilsmann, and Peter Eisert. 2020. Accurate and robust neural networks for face morphing
attack detection. Journal of Information Security and Applications 53 (2020), 102526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jisa.2020.102526
[282] Hanieh Shabanian and Farshad Mashhadi. 2017. A new approach for detecting copy-move forgery in digital images. In 2017 IEEE
Western New York Image and Signal Processing Workshop (WNYISPW). 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WNYIPW.2017.8356252
[283] Wuyang Shan, Yaohua Yi, Ronggang Huang, and Yong Xie. 2019. Robust contrast enhancement forensics based on convolutional
neural networks. Signal Processing: Image Communication 71 (2019), 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.image.2018.11.011
[284] Puneet Kr Sharma. 2012. Rajni: Analysis of image watermarking using least signiicant bit algorithm. International Journal of Information
Sciences and Techniques (IJIST) Vol 2 (2012), 95–101.
[285] Yun Q. Shi, Chunhua Chen, and Wen Chen. 2007. A Natural Image Model Approach to Splicing Detection. In Proceedings of the 9th
Workshop on Multimedia & Security (Dallas, Texas, USA) (MM & Sec ’07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA,
51–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/1288869.1288878
[286] BL Shivakumar and S Santhosh Baboo. 2011. Detection of region duplication forgery in digital images using SURF. International
Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI) 8, 4 (2011), 199.
[287] Dasara Shullani, Marco Fontani, Massimo Iuliani, Omar Al Shaya, and Alessandro Piva. 2017. Vision: a video and image dataset for
source identiication. EURASIP Journal on Information Security 2017, 1 (2017), 1–16.
[288] Ewerton Silva, Tiago Carvalho, Anselmo Ferreira, and Anderson Rocha. 2015. Going deeper into copy-move forgery detection:
Exploring image telltales via multi-scale analysis and voting processes. Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation 29
(2015), 16–32.
[289] Badal Soni, Pradip K. Das, and Dalton Meitei Thounaojam. 2017. Blur Invariant Block Based Copy-Move Forgery Detection Technique
Using FWHT Features. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Watermarking and Image Processing (Paris, France) (ICWIP
2017). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3150978.3150987
[290] Matthew James Sorell. 2009. Conditions for efective detection and identiication of primary quantisation of re-quantized JPEG images.
International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics (IJDCF) 1, 2 (2009), 13–27.
[291] Springer 2011. Tampered region localization of digital color images based on jpeg compression noise. Springer.
[292] Matthew C. Stamm and K.J. Ray Liu. 2010. Forensic detection of image manipulation using statistical intrinsic ingerprints. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 5, 3 (2010), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2010.2053202
[293] Matthew C Stamm and KJ Ray Liu. 2010. Forensic estimation and reconstruction of a contrast enhancement mapping. In 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing. IEEE, 1698–1701.
[294] Dan-Cristian Stanciu and Bogdan Ionescu. 2023. Autoencoder-based Data Augmentation for Deepfake Detection. In Proceedings of the
2nd ACM International Workshop on Multimedia AI against Disinformation. 19–27.
[295] Baina Su and Zhu Kaizhen. 2012. Detection of Copy Forgery in Digital Images Based on LPP-SIFT. In 2012 International Conference on
Industrial Control and Electronics Engineering. 1773–1776. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICICEE.2012.469
[296] Patchara Sutthiwan, Jingyu Ye, and Yun Q Shi. 2009. An enhanced statistical approach to identifying photorealistic images. In Digital
Watermarking: 8th International Workshop, IWDW 2009, Guildford, UK, August 24-26, 2009. Proceedings 8. Springer, 323–335.
[297] Ashwin Swaminathan, Min Wu, and KJ Ray Liu. 2006. Image tampering identiication using blind deconvolution. In 2006 International
Conference on Image Processing. IEEE, 2309–2312.
[298] Ashwin Swaminathan, Min Wu, and KJ Ray Liu. 2007. Nonintrusive component forensics of visual sensors using output images. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 2, 1 (2007), 91–106.
[299] Jun Takamatsu, Yasuyuki Matsushita, Tsukasa Ogasawara, and Katsushi Ikeuchi. 2010. Estimating demosaicing algorithms using image
noise variance. In 2010 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, 279–286.
[300] Hideyuki Tamura, Shunji Mori, and Takashi Yamawaki. 1978. Textural Features Corresponding to Visual Perception. IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 8, 6 (1978), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMC.1978.4309999
[301] Omar Tayan, Muhammad N Kabir, and Yasser M Alginahi. 2014. A hybrid digital-signature and zero-watermarking approach for
authentication and protection of sensitive electronic documents. The scientiic world journal 2014 (2014).
[302] Huawei Tian, Yanhui Xiao, Gang Cao, Yongsheng Zhang, Zhiyin Xu, and Yao Zhao. 2019. Daxing smartphone identiication dataset.
IEEE Access 7 (2019), 101046–101053.
[303] Steven Tjoa, W Sabrina Lin, H Vicky Zhao, and KJ Ray Liu. 2007. Block size forensic analysis in digital images. In 2007 IEEE International
Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing-ICASSP’07, Vol. 1. IEEE, I–633.
[304] Radhika v Totla and KS Bapat. 2013. Comparative analysis of watermarking in digital images using DCT & DWT. International Journal
of Scientiic and Research Publications 3, 2 (2013), 1–4.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

30 • P. Capasso, G. Cataneo , M. De Marsico

[305] Dijana Tralic, Ivan Zupancic, Sonja Grgic, and Mislav Grgic. 2013. CoMoFoDÐNew database for copy-move forgery detection. In
Proceedings ELMAR-2013. IEEE, 49–54.
[306] Matthieu Urvoy, Dalila Goudia, and Florent Autrusseau. 2014. Perceptual DFT Watermarking With Improved Detection and Robustness
to Geometrical Distortions. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 9, 7 (2014), 1108–1119. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.
2014.2322497
[307] Sushma Venkatesh, Raghavendra Ramachandra, Kiran Raja, and Christoph Busch. 2021. Face morphing attack generation and detection:
A comprehensive survey. IEEE transactions on technology and society 2, 3 (2021), 128–145.
[308] Sushma Venkatesh, Raghavendra Ramachandra, Kiran Raja, Luuk Spreeuwers, Raymond Veldhuis, and Christoph Busch. 2020. Detecting
Morphed Face Attacks Using Residual Noise from Deep Multi-scale Context Aggregation Network. In 2020 IEEE Winter Conference on
Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1109/WACV45572.2020.9093488
[309] Sebastiano Verde, Cecilia Pasquini, Federica Lago, Alessandro Goller, Francesco De Natale, Alessandro Piva, and Giulia Boato. 2023.
Multi-clue reconstruction of sharing chains for social media images. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia (2023), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.
1109/TMM.2023.3253389
[310] Luisa Verdoliva. 2020. Media forensics and deepfakes: an overview. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing 14, 5 (2020),
910–932.
[311] David Vázquez-Padín and Fernando Pérez-González. 2011. Preilter design for forensic resampling estimation. In 2011 IEEE International
Workshop on Information Forensics and Security. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/WIFS.2011.6123133
[312] Savita Walia and Krishan Kumar. 2019. Digital image forgery detection: a systematic scrutiny. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
51, 5 (2019), 488–526. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1424241 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2018.1424241
[313] Lukasz Wandzik, Gerald Kaeding, and Raul Vicente Garcia. 2018. Morphing Detection Using a General- Purpose Face Recognition
System. In 2018 26th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO). 1012–1016. https://doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO.2018.8553375
[314] Junwen Wang, Guangjie Liu, Hongyuan Li, Yuewei Dai, and Zhiquan Wang. 2009. Detection of Image Region Duplication Forgery
Using Model with Circle Block. In 2009 International Conference on Multimedia Information Networking and Security, Vol. 1. 25–29.
https://doi.org/10.1109/MINES.2009.142
[315] Wei Wang, Jing Dong, and Tieniu Tan. 2009. Efective image splicing detection based on image chroma. In 2009 16th IEEE international
conference on image processing (ICIP). IEEE, 1257–1260.
[316] Xinyi Wang, He Wang, Shaozhang Niu, and Jiwei Zhang. 2019. Detection and localization of image forgeries using improved mask
regional convolutional neural network. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering 16, 5 (2019), 4581–4593.
[317] Yuan Wang, Lihua Tian, and Chen Li. 2017. LBP-SVD based copy move forgery detection algorithm. In 2017 IEEE international
symposium on multimedia (ISM). IEEE, 553–556.
[318] Kanoksak Wattanachote, Timothy K Shih, Wen-Lung Chang, and Hon-Hang Chang. 2015. Tamper detection of JPEG image due to
seam modiications. IEEE transactions on information forensics and security 10, 12 (2015), 2477–2491.
[319] Weimin Wei, Shuozhong Wang, and Zhenjun Tang. 2008. Estimation of rescaling factor and detection of image splicing. In 2008 11th
IEEE International Conference on Communication Technology. IEEE, 676–679.
[320] Bihan Wen, Ye Zhu, Ramanathan Subramanian, Tian-Tsong Ng, Xuanjing Shen, and Stefan Winkler. 2016. COVERAGEÐA novel
database for copy-move forgery detection. In 2016 IEEE international conference on image processing (ICIP). IEEE, 161–165.
[321] PAWAN WHIG et al. 2022. More on Convolution Neural Network CNN. International Journal of Sustainable Development in Computing
Science 4, 1 (2022).
[322] David Wicki-Birchler. 2020. The Budapest Convention and the General Data Protection Regulation: acting in concert to curb cybercrime?
International Cybersecurity Law Review 1 (2020), 63–72.
[323] Raymond B Wolfgang and Edward J Delp III. 1999. Fragile watermarking using the VW2D watermark. In Security and Watermarking of
Multimedia Contents, Vol. 3657. SPIE, 204–213.
[324] Qiong Wu, Shao-Jie Sun, Wei Zhu, Guo-Hui Li, and Dan Tu. 2008. Detection of digital doctoring in exemplar-based inpainted images.
In 2008 international conference on machine learning and cybernetics, Vol. 3. IEEE, 1222–1226.
[325] Qiumin Wu, Shuozhong Wang, and Xinpeng Zhang. 2011. Log-polar based scheme for revealing duplicated regions in digital images.
IEEE Signal Processing Letters 18, 10 (2011), 559–562.
[326] Yue Wu, Wael Abd-Almageed, and Prem Natarajan. 2018. Busternet: Detecting copy-move image forgery with source/target localization.
In Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). 168–184.
[327] Duorui Xie, Lingyu Liang, Lianwen Jin, Jie Xu, and Mengru Li. 2015. Scut-fbp: A benchmark dataset for facial beauty perception. In
2015 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. IEEE, 1821–1826.
[328] Liehua Xie and Gonzalo R Arce. 1998. A blind wavelet based digital signature for image authentication. In 9th European Signal Processing
Conference (EUSIPCO 1998). IEEE, 1–4.
[329] Liehua Xie, Gonzalo R Arce, Arianne Lewis, and EB Basch. 2000. Image enhancement towards soft image authentication. In 2000 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. ICME2000. Proceedings. Latest Advances in the Fast Changing World of Multimedia
(Cat. No. 00TH8532), Vol. 1. IEEE, 497–500.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.

 A Comprehensive Survey on Methods for Image Integrity • 31

[330] Preeti Yadav and Yogesh Rathore. 2012. Detection of copy-move forgery of images using discrete wavelet transform. International
Journal on Computer Science and Engineering 4, 4 (2012), 565.
[331] Fan Yang, Jingwei Li, Wei Lu, and Jian Weng. 2017. Copy-move forgery detection based on hybrid features. Engineering Applications of
Artiicial Intelligence 59 (2017), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2016.12.022
[332] Pengpeng Yang, Daniele Baracchi, Rongrong Ni, Yao Zhao, Fabrizio Argenti, and Alessandro Piva. 2020. A survey of deep learning-based
source image forensics. Journal of Imaging 6, 3 (2020), 9.
[333] Ziming Yang, Jian Liang, Yuting Xu, Xiao-Yu Zhang, and Ran He. 2023. Masked relation learning for deepfake detection. IEEE
Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 18 (2023), 1696–1708.
[334] Hongwei Yao, Tong Qiao, Ming Xu, and Ning Zheng. 2018. Robust Multi-Classiier for Camera Model Identiication Based on
Convolution Neural Network. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 24973–24982. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2832066
[335] Shuiming Ye, Qibin Sun, and Ee-Chien Chang. 2007. Detecting digital image forgeries by measuring inconsistencies of blocking artifact.
In 2007 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo. Ieee, 12–15.
[336] Minerva M Yeung and Fred Mintzer. 1997. An invisible watermarking technique for image veriication. In Proceedings of international
conference on image processing, Vol. 2. IEEE, 680–683.
[337] Jun Yu, Scott Craver, and Enping Li. 2011. Toward the identiication of DSLR lenses by chromatic aberration. In Media Watermarking,
Security, and Forensics III, Vol. 7880. SPIE, 373–381.
[338] Markos Zampoglou, Symeon Papadopoulos, and Yiannis Kompatsiaris. 2015. Detecting image splicing in the wild (web). In 2015 IEEE
International Conference on Multimedia & Expo Workshops (ICMEW). IEEE, 1–6.
[339] Marcello Zanardelli, Fabrizio Guerrini, Riccardo Leonardi, and Nicola Adami. 2022. Image forgery detection: a survey of recent
deep-learning approaches. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2022), 1–46.
[340] Jishen Zeng, Shunquan Tan, Bin Li, and Jiwu Huang. 2018. Large-Scale JPEG Image Steganalysis Using Hybrid Deep-Learning
Framework. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 13, 5 (2018), 1200–1214. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2017.2779446
[341] Chenshuang Zhang, Chaoning Zhang, Sheng Zheng, Mengchun Zhang, Maryam Qamar, Sung-Ho Bae, and In So Kweon. 2023. A
survey on audio difusion models: Text to speech synthesis and enhancement in generative ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13336 2 (2023).
[342] Jing Zhang, Zhanlei Feng, and Yuting Su. 2008. A new approach for detecting Copy-Move forgery in digital images. In 2008 11th IEEE
Singapore International Conference on Communication Systems. 362–366. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCS.2008.4737205
[343] Jing Zhang, Haiying Wang, and Yuting Su. 2008. Detection of Double-Compression in JPEG2000 Images. In 2008 Second International
Symposium on Intelligent Information Technology Application, Vol. 1. 418–421. https://doi.org/10.1109/IITA.2008.83
[344] Le-Bing Zhang, Fei Peng, and Min Long. 2018. Face morphing detection using Fourier spectrum of sensor pattern noise. In 2018 IEEE
international conference on multimedia and expo (ICME). IEEE, 1–6.
[345] Wei Zhang, Xiaochun Cao, Yanling Qu, Yuexian Hou, Handong Zhao, and Chenyang Zhang. 2010. Detecting and Extracting the Photo
Composites Using Planar Homography and Graph Cut. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 5, 3 (2010), 544–555.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2010.2051666
[346] Ying Zhang, Jonathan Goh, Lei Lei Win, and Vrizlynn LL Thing. 2016. Image region forgery detection: A deep learning approach.
SG-CRC 2016 (2016), 1–11.
[347] Zhen Zhang, Jiquan Kang, and Yuan Ren. 2008. An efective algorithm of image splicing detection. In 2008 international conference on
computer science and software engineering, Vol. 1. IEEE, 1035–1039.
[348] Zhen Zhang, GuangHua Wang, Yukun Bian, and Zhou Yu. 2010. A novel model for splicing detection. In 2010 IEEE Fifth International
Conference on Bio-Inspired Computing: Theories and Applications (BIC-TA). IEEE, 962–965.
[349] Xudong Zhao, Jianhua Li, Shenghong Li, and Shilin Wang. 2011. Detecting Digital Image Splicing in Chroma Spaces. In Digital
Watermarking, Hyoung-Joong Kim, Yun Qing Shi, and Mauro Barni (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 12–22.
[350] Lilei Zheng, Ying Zhang, and Vrizlynn L.L. Thing. 2019. A survey on image tampering and its detection in real-world photos. Journal
of Visual Communication and Image Representation 58 (2019), 380–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvcir.2018.12.022
[351] Nan Zhu, Cheng Deng, and Xinbo Gao. 2017. Image sharpening detection based on multiresolution overshoot artifact analysis.
Multimedia Tools and Applications 76 (2017), 16563–16580.

ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.