Forensics v. Photoshop

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/

or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/


or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't
likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/



or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't
likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise
doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by
that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say
it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original.

Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court,
that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the
camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be
enough for that purpose.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012-09-18 15:17:13 -0700, Martin Brown
said:

On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/


or

http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it
isn't likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

There is other stuff to consider in the world of criminal forensics &
digital forensics, and quite a few specialize in both the software,
hardware and analysis areas of this particular area. I have no doubt
that most insurance companies suspecting fraud would have little
trouble outing any tricksters.

http://www.forensicmag.com/
http://www.crime-photo.com/
http://www.veripic.com/index.php?go=polfiregov
http://www.digitalcop.com/
https://www.swgde.org/links


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/


or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered
with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been
tampered with. What does it claim to do again?

The war seems to have been lost, and I don't think there's any going
back. Even at the pro level, image authentication seems doomed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04...e_faking_hack/

I'm not sure about your reference to the NZ price??? Everything is more
expensive here according to the Big Mac index, except the Big Mac
itself, but it turns out that we were tricked even on that - the Big Mac
is smaller here than in the USA, but proportionately healthier as a
consequence - so all is good.

On 2012-09-18 15:21:29 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/



or

http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't
likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise
doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by
that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say
it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera
original.

Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court,
that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see
the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be
enough for that purpose.

Here is another paper from my past.
http://www.ssddfj.org/papers/SSDDFJ_V1_1_Cohen.pdf

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote:
On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/



or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered
with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been
tampered with. What does it claim to do again?

Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature)
by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an
image in PS would not pass that.

The war seems to have been lost, and I don't think there's any going
back. Even at the pro level, image authentication seems doomed:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04...e_faking_hack/

Surprising.

I'm not sure about your reference to the NZ price???

Another thread.


Everything is more
expensive here according to the Big Mac index

I stopped taking The Economist. Not enough time to read it and
everything else.

--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

On 2012.09.18 18:50 , Savageduck wrote:
On 2012-09-18 15:21:29 -0700, Alan Browne
said:

On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/




or

http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't
likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise
doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by
that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to
say it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera
original.

Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court,
that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see
the camera original then that program can validate it. And that may
be enough for that purpose.

Here is another paper from my past.
http://www.ssddfj.org/papers/SSDDFJ_V1_1_Cohen.pdf

The crude end of the stick. More for digging through broken, deleted,
mangled files than confirming if a photo is a true original


--
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
-John Keating.

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.18 18:17 , Martin Brown wrote:
On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/



or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Any digital faker worth their salt will get all the original camera
image details that the program says it checks exactly right. Unless it
does something else that is undocumented in their press release it isn't
likely to do much more than catch cack handed Photoshop amateurs.

From the video it's clear to me that it's purpose is mostly to raise
doubt (or avoid it). _any_ amount of _any_ change will be detected by
that program because of the way it analyzes. That does not mean to say
it proves that the content of the image is faked. Just not camera original.

Even if one were to resize (in PS) and then bring that file to court,
that program will flag it. That's fine. If the defense want to see the
camera original then that program can validate it. And that may be
enough for that purpose.

It should be possible to build a circuit into the sensor chip that
digitally "signs" each image. If the production facility could be
trusted to randomly generate the private keys and delete them after
burning them into each chip, there should be no way short of chip
surgery to generate correctly signed digital images that do not
derive from something "seen" by that sensor. The sensor could be
considered a sort of "trustworthy witness." Unfortunately,

1) You could always contrive a way to show the sensor a scene generated
by other means

2) A friend who works in the industry assures me that the required level
of chip surgery does exist. Still, it should out of reach for a
typical sleazy divorce case. And when it comes to something like
topless pictures of princess Kate, are people going to insist on
seeing the digitally signed RAW camera files before they get all
excited?

--
"Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS
crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in
TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in
bonuses, and paid no taxes? Yeah, me neither."

On 19/09/2012 10:52 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
On 2012.09.18 18:38 , Me wrote:
On 19/09/2012 9:31 a.m., Alan Browne wrote:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/0...e-marketplace/




or http://tinyurl.com/8g8udyp

and http://vimeo.com/49199110 (arguments aren't that convincing)

(It's only $890. Probably more in NZ... ;-) )

Hmmm - so it can't prove that the image content /has/ been tampered
with, and neither can it prove that the image file /hasn't/ been
tampered with. What does it claim to do again?

Raise doubts. It's claim is to look at how images are made (signature)
by the camera. If there is a doubt it will be raised. A change to an
image in PS would not pass that.

You don't need to manipulate an image to deliberately not show the "truth".
We need (untampered) video, then you're safe to believe what your eyes
show you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0v2xnl6LwJE