Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Martin Brown, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. Martin Brown

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 18/09/2012 22:31, Alan Browne wrote:
    > http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/...sics-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-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
     
    Martin Brown, Sep 18, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Martin Brown

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    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/...sics-out-of-the-lab-and-into-the-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."
     
    Paul Ciszek, Sep 19, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Martin Brown

    nospam Guest

    In article <k3avme$fo8$>, Paul Ciszek
    <> wrote:

    > It should be possible to build a circuit into the sensor chip that
    > digitally "signs" each image.


    it's been done:
    <http://www.canon.co.jp/imaging/osk/osk-e3/index.html>

    and it's been hacked:
    <http://www.elcomsoft.com/canon.html>

    other versions:
    <http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_verificati
    on/canon_data_verification_system.do>

    <http://www.dpreview.com/news/2004/1/29/canondvke2>
     
    nospam, Sep 19, 2012
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. BleepingComputer.com

    Article: Windows Forensics: Have I been Hacked?

    BleepingComputer.com, Feb 22, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    489
    Paul - xxx
    Feb 22, 2004
  2. Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor

    REVIEW: "Computer and Intrusion Forensics", George Mohay et al

    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor, Jul 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,091
    Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor
    Jul 15, 2003
  3. Lord Shaolin
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    406
    Bill Sanderson
    Oct 27, 2003
  4. Me

    Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

    Me, Sep 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    306
    Peter Jason
    Sep 19, 2012
  5. Martin Brown

    Re: Forensics v. Photoshop

    Martin Brown, Sep 19, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    307
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Sep 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page