| Literature DB >> 27747825 |
Mamta Jain1, Anil Kumar2, Rishabh Charan Choudhary3.
Abstract
In this article, we have proposed an improved diagonal queue medical image steganography for patient secret medical data transmission using chaotic standard map, linear feedback shift register, and Rabin cryptosystem, for improvement of previous technique (Jain and Lenka in Springer Brain Inform 3:39-51, 2016). The proposed algorithm comprises four stages, generation of pseudo-random sequences (pseudo-random sequences are generated by linear feedback shift register and standard chaotic map), permutation and XORing using pseudo-random sequences, encryption using Rabin cryptosystem, and steganography using the improved diagonal queues. Security analysis has been carried out. Performance analysis is observed using MSE, PSNR, maximum embedding capacity, as well as by histogram analysis between various Brain disease stego and cover images.Entities:
Keywords: Brain disease cover image; Chaos theory; Improved diagonal queue; LFSR; LSB; Rabin cryptography; Steganography
Year: 2016 PMID: 27747825 PMCID: PMC5413591 DOI: 10.1007/s40708-016-0057-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Brain Inform ISSN: 2198-4026
Fig. 1A general model of n-bit linear feedback shift register
Fig. 2Architecture of the proposed algorithm
Fig. 3Workflow of the algorithm
(a–f) are cipher text blocks, cipher text sub-blocks, Brain disease cover image blocks, assignment of random number to cover image blocks, cover image block into bits and diagonal queues, respectively
| Suppose we have the following data |
Fig. 4a, e, i, m are Brain disease medical cover images and c, g, k, o are their stego images, respectively, b, f, j, n are histograms of Brain disease medical cover images and d, h, l, p are their stego images histograms, respectively
Patient secret medical data
| Input data to the Brain disease medical scan cover image | Output using proposed methodology |
|---|---|
| Patient Name: XXX | Patient Name: XXX |
| Patient ID/UID: XX | Patient ID/UID: XX |
| Doctors remarks: X | Doctors remarks: X |
Observed Capacity, MSE, and PSNR value (different Brain disease cover images of same/different sizes with various secret cipher medical data of same/different sizes)
| Brain disease cover image (*.bmp) | Brain disease cover image size (Kilo bytes) | Quantity of cipher embedded (Bytes) | Maximum embedding volume | Percentage of embedding volume in % w.r.t (Image size) | MSE | PSNR (dB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vascular (Multi-Infarct) dementia | 262 | 256 | 97.54 | 37 | 0.0031 | 76.57 |
| Vascular (Multi-Infarct) dementia | 262 | 1024 | 97.54 | 37 | 0.0062 | 72.17 |
| HIV-associated dementia | 262 | 256 | 93.57 | 36 | 0.0038 | 75.36 |
| HIV-associated dementia | 262 | 1024 | 93.57 | 36 | 0.0067 | 72.58 |
| Brain Huntington’s disease | 262 | 256 | 90.43 | 35 | 0.0052 | 75.02 |
| Brain Huntington’s Disease | 262 | 1024 | 90.43 | 35 | 0.0043 | 73.48 |
| Corticobasal degeneration | 262 | 256 | 88.31 | 34 | 0.0037 | 77.16 |
| Corticobasal degeneration | 262 | 1024 | 88.31 | 34 | 0.0057 | 73.27 |
| Vascular (Multi-infarct) dementia | 1048 | 256 | 408.20 | 39 | 0.0004 | 85.26 |
| Vascular (Multi-Infarct) dementia | 1048 | 1024 | 408.20 | 39 | 0.0025 | 80.39 |
| HIV-associated dementia | 1048 | 256 | 402.29 | 38 | 0.0005 | 84.28 |
| HIV-associated dementia | 1048 | 1024 | 402.29 | 38 | 0.0024 | 79.39 |
| Brain Huntington’s disease | 1048 | 256 | 397.44 | 37 | 0.0005 | 84.39 |
| Brain Huntington’s disease | 1048 | 1024 | 397.44 | 37 | 0.0027 | 79.49 |
| Corticobasal degeneration | 1048 | 256 | 385.49 | 36 | 0.0004 | 85.19 |
| Corticobasal degeneration | 1048 | 1024 | 385.49 | 36 | 0.0021 | 79.36 |
Fig. 5Result analysis of proposed algorithm using various performance parameters
Comparison with Jain et al.'s [19] work
| Research article | Brain disease cover image size (Kilo Bytes) | Quantity of cipher embedded (Bytes) | Maximum embedding volume (Kilo Bytes) | Percentage of embedding volume w.r.t (Image Size) | MSE | Minimum calculated PSNR (dB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jain et al. [ | 262 | 256 | 84.49 | 32 % | 0.0049 | 73.02 |
| Proposed Algorithm | 262 | 256 | 90.43 | 35 % | 0.0052 | 75.02 |
| Jain et al. [ | 262 | 1024 | 89.32 | 34 % | 0.0054 | 70.37 |
| Proposed algorithm | 262 | 1024 | 97.54 | 37 % | 0.0062 | 72.17 |
| Jain et al. [ | 1048 | 256 | 383.49 | 37 % | 0.0004 | 82.18 |
| Proposed algorithm | 1048 | 256 | 402.29 | 38 % | 0.0005 | 84.28 |
| Jain et al. [ | 1048 | 1024 | 383.49 | 37 % | 0.0011 | 77.29 |
| Proposed algorithm | 1048 | 1024 | 385.49 | 36 % | 0.0021 | 79.36 |
Comparison with other researchers
| Research article | Minimum calculated PSNR(dB) | Capacity | Visual imperceptibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thiyagarajan and Aghila [ | 65.53 | Good | Better |
| Wang et al. [ | 44.20 | Medium | Good |
| Kumar et al. [ | 44.15 | Medium | Good |
| Wu et al. [ | 37.90 | Very Low | Average |
| Zhang et al. [ | 36.00 | Very low | Average |
| Chang et al. [ | 33.53 | Very low | Average |
| Nag et al. [ | 30.48 | Very low | Not good |
| Proposed algorithm | 72.17 | Very good | Best |