Computer Science and Engineering
p-ISSN: 2163-1484 e-ISSN: 2163-1492
2015; 5(1A): 1-7
doi:10.5923/s.computer.201501.01
Abdelnaser Rashwan , Honggang Wang
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA
Correspondence to: Honggang Wang , Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.
| Email: | ![]() |
Copyright © 2015 Scientific & Academic Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
It is challenging to apply secret image sharing schemes for image transmission over wireless networks. Many of the existing secret images sharing schemes do not pay much attention to the relationship between the share size and share transmission. To reduce a share size and protect the image transmission, we propose a secret sharing scheme that uses a Discrete Wavelet transform (DWT) decomposing an image into low frequency and high frequency bands. Our proposed scheme can be applied in each frequency band individually to produce shares. Since the low frequency band has the significant coefficients of the image, in case of a share transmission over a lossy wireless channel, redundant shares are only taken from the low frequency bands to mitigate the loss in the reconstructed image. Since the I-frame in MPEG codec is the most significant frame and all other frames in the video sequence are referenced to it, we apply our secret scheme in this frame to secure video sequence. We use our simulation to prove the efficiency of the proposed schemes.
Keywords: Secret images sharing, Discrete Wavelet transforms
Cite this paper: Abdelnaser Rashwan , Honggang Wang , Partial Image Secret Sharing Using Discrete Wavelet Transform, Computer Science and Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 1A, 2015, pp. 1-7. doi: 10.5923/s.computer.201501.01.
non overlapping T blocks, each block is represented in the corresponding shares representation as shown below:![]() | (1) |
indicates the share pixel connected with
block in the share image, for
and
. The value of
is obtained using the original pixel values that are contained in the
block. Truncating the values of the share pixels by dividing every pixel by 251(251 is the largest prime number in the uint8 gray image). Because the degree of the polynomial is chosen to be T-1, the size of share is 1/T of the secret image. To reconstruct the secret image, The polynomial in Eq.(1) can be retrieved by Lagrange interpolation. Repeating these procedures for all shares pixels reconstruct the secret image.![]() | Figure 1. An example of distorted shares |
![]() | Figure 2. The proposed secret image sharing scheme |
threshold and the
degree of sharing functions are firstly decided. The
degree polynomial sharing function can be constructed by Eq. (1).• Assume that
and
are determined so that a secret image
is shared by
shares
. A number of
or higher is required to reveal secret image
by using Lagrange’s interpolation formula. The pixel values
for each share are obtained from Eq.(2).![]() | (2) |
are separately assigned to
shares
shadows
are collected and pixels values
are derived from the collected shadows so that sharing functions
can be reconstructed by Lagrange’s interpolation formula.• We keep repeating step (1) until we process all the pixels in the share images.• By completion step (2), we obtain the permuted image. Therefore, the inverse permutation has to be applied to obtain the compressed secret image.• The inverse-discrete wavelet (IDWT) is applied on the resulted image to get the secret image.For video encryption, our partial image secret sharing scheme is only applied on the I-frame because I-frame is the most significant frame in a Group Of Picture (GOP). Encrypting the I-frame is equivalent to encrypting the rest of the frames (i.e., P-frames) in the GOP. As a result, it would be impossible for an eavesdropper to obtain any information about the video sequence even if all the P-frames and B-frame are compromised. Here, we develop a video model to estimate the video quality of our proposed scheme. It is known that the video quality can be estimated with different metrics such as Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio (PSNR), the Structural Similarity index (SSIM), Moving Pictures Quality Metric (MPQM) and decodable frame rate (Q). In this paper, we use the decodable frame rate (Q) which is defined as the ratio between the numbers of successfully decoded frames to the total number of the frames sent.![]() | (3) |
, where
defines the GOP length (i.e. the total number of frames within each GOP) and
is the number of B frames between I-P or P-P frames. For example as illustrated in Fig.3, (7,2) means that the GOP consists of one I-frame, two P-frames, and four B-frames. The second I-frame marks the beginning of the next GOP. The arrows indicate that the successful decoding of B and P-frames depends on the neighboring I or P-frames. The received packets usually suffer partial loss or total loss. Lost packets not only affect the frame to which they belong, but also they affect all the frames that have dependency on that frame. In other words, the error propagating from one frame to another, significantly degrade the quality of the whole video sequences.Generally speaking, once the transmitter has a video sequence to be sent, every frame of the video sequence is split into a number of packets with size less or equal to the allowed maximum packet of the underlying network. The frames are reconstructed at the receiver if the number of decoded packet exceeds a threshold called the decodable threshold (DT). Table(1) shows the notation in this paper.
|
![]() | (4) |
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
![]() | (7) |
represents the number of P-frames which in the case of GOP (N=7, M=2) is equal to 3. The expected number of successfully decoded P-frames for the whole video is calculated by:![]() | (8) |
![]() | (9) |
![]() | (10) |
![]() | (11) |
![]() | (12) |
![]() | (13) |
. After applying
secret sharing scheme, the number of I-frames is increased to: ![]() | (14) |
.Then, the probability of receiving at least
packets from
is![]() | (15) |
. It represents the probability of receiving
bits unharmed. Then the expected number of correctly decoded I-frames for the entire video is: ![]() | (16) |
![]() | (17) |
![]() | (18) |
![]() | Figure 3. (a)Thein and method’s scheme. (b) proposed scheme |
.In the third experiment, redundant shares have been transmitted to enhance reconstructed image quality. The schemes after adding redundant shares would be (T=2, N=4) and (T=4, N=8), respectively. The image quality has been improved as it is illustrate in Fig. 4(a). However, the redundant factor (r) for each one of these scheme is 2. This means that the number of shares has been increased to twice its original number, which is quite high and not efficient if these schemes are employed in limited resource networks. In the last experiment, DWT divides the image into four bands, and each band with size
. Redundant shares are only taken from the low frequency band.![]() | Figure 4. Testing the proposed video metric |
. Thus, the redundancy factor has been reduced with 0.75 compared to Thein and Lin’s scheme. Moreover, the proposed scheme gives PSNR close to Thein and Lin’s scheme as illustrated in Fig.3 (b). The small difference in the reconstructed image between the two schemes happens due to DWT compression loss. A polynomial function with degree
requires at least
values to be reconstructed. In other words, at least any
shares are needed to reveal all sharing functions with the Lagrange interpolation formula. If an unauthorized user has
shares and desires to construct all sharing functions, there will be
,
stands for the number of sharing functions in all shares and
is the pixel value. To reconstruct a sharing function, an attacker must correctly estimate all coefficients for a sharing function. In our scheme, the probability of obtaining the correct coefficient in the sharing function is
and that is only for one polynomial, but there are
polynomials need to be solved for the coefficients. We have tested our analytical video quality metric for GOP (12, 3). It is observed from Fig.4 that analytical model performance is consistent with the simulation when the packet loss rate is slight. Then it diverges as the packet loss rate increases. The reason is that the analytical model does not consider error concealment at the decoder side while the simulation model includes error concealment technique. For small rate packet loss, there is no significant packet loss to be concealed so that both models provide close performance.