| Literature DB >> 25254247 |
Omar Tayan1, Muhammad N Kabir2, Yasser M Alginahi3.
Abstract
This paper addresses the problems and threats associated with verification of integrity, proof of authenticity, tamper detection, and copyright protection for digital-text content. Such issues were largely addressed in the literature for images, audio, and video, with only a few papers addressing the challenge of sensitive plain-text media under known constraints. Specifically, with text as the predominant online communication medium, it becomes crucial that techniques are deployed to protect such information. A number of digital-signature, hashing, and watermarking schemes have been proposed that essentially bind source data or embed invisible data in a cover media to achieve its goal. While many such complex schemes with resource redundancies are sufficient in offline and less-sensitive texts, this paper proposes a hybrid approach based on zero-watermarking and digital-signature-like manipulations for sensitive text documents in order to achieve content originality and integrity verification without physically modifying the cover text in anyway. The proposed algorithm was implemented and shown to be robust against undetected content modifications and is capable of confirming proof of originality whilst detecting and locating deliberate/nondeliberate tampering. Additionally, enhancements in resource utilisation and reduced redundancies were achieved in comparison to traditional encryption-based approaches. Finally, analysis and remarks are made about the current state of the art, and future research issues are discussed under the given constraints.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25254247 PMCID: PMC4164809 DOI: 10.1155/2014/514652
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1Classification of traditional digital-signature schemes.
Figure 2Phases in the watermarking life-cycle.
Figure 3Digital-watermarking classification.
Figure 4Watermark encoding process.
Figure 5Partial function code generated in the encoder.
Figure 6Watermark decoding process.
Algorithm 1Encoding algorithm.
Algorithm 2Decoding algorithm.
Computational-cost comparison between relevant approaches.
| File name | No. of Chars | Computational time [encoder (ms)] | Computational time [decoder (ms)] | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Tayan et al., [ | (Jalil et al., [ |
(Meng et al., [ | Method A from [ | Method B from [ | Proposed approach | (Tayan et al., [ | (Jalil et al., [ | (Meng et al., [ | Method A from [ | Method B from [ | Proposed approach | ||
| Text 1 | 28915 | 30 | 180 | 210 | 20 | 40 |
| 20 | 170 | 224 | 10 | 20 |
|
| Text 2 | 47974 | 40 | 160 | 350 | 30 | 60 |
| 30 | 240 | 371 | 20 | 40 |
|
| Text 3 | 54839 | 60 | 195 | 410 | 50 | 100 |
| 40 | 278 | 460 | 40 | 40 |
|
| Text 4 | 116794 | 80 | 1714 | 1850 | 70 | 190 |
| 70 | 1684 | 1891 | 60 | 80 |
|
| Text 5 | 166166 | 130 | 590 | 620 | 120 | 300 |
| 100 | 520 | 640 | 100 | 130 |
|
| Ave./char | 0.00089 | 0.0063 | 0.0083 | 0.00071 | 0.0016 |
| 0.00065 | 0.0067 | 0.0088 | 0.00052 | 0.00074 |
| |
Comparison of features and benefits between watermarking methods.
| Concept/metric | Traditional watermark approaches | Zero-watermarking approach [ | Zero-watermarking approach [ | Zero-watermarking approach [ | Zero-watermarking approach [ | Proposed watermarking method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overhead (additional) | Proportional to embedded key size | None | None | None | None | None |
|
| ||||||
| Embedding mode | Format-encoding | Logical: zero-watermark encoding | Logical: zero-watermark encoding | Logical: zero-watermark encoding | Logical: zero-watermark encoding | Logical: zero-watermark encoding |
|
| ||||||
| Location of watermark message ( | Embedded in | Embedded in | Embedded in | Embedded in | Embedded in | Embedded in |
|
| ||||||
| Processing and embedding decision | Based on searching through text for candidate words, lines, and spaces | Based on double-letter words in English language | Based on sentence entropy | Based on the first letter with specific word lengths | Based on comparing Unicode summations | Based on comparing Unicode summations and logical operations |
|
| ||||||
| Compatible with various formats? | Limited | Yes, only English character support needed | Supports Chinese language only | Supports English language only | Yes, host-document language character support/Unicode needed |
|
|
| ||||||
| Language-dependent | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
|
|
| ||||||
| Document- authenticity verification | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
| ||||||
| Tamper-detection and identification capabilities | No | No | No | Yes | No |
|
|
| ||||||
| Integrity robustness | Weak | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong | Strong |
|
| ||||||
| Perceptibility performance | Low-medium | High | High | High | High | High |
|
| ||||||
| Capacity ratio performance | Inversely proportional to perceptual similarity | High | High | High | High | High |
|
| ||||||
| Capability to extract publishers watermark logo | No | Yes | No | No | No |
|