I am working on a project where I am have image files that have been malformed (fuzzed i.e their image data have been altered). These files when rendered on various platforms lead to warning/crash/pass report from the platform.
I am trying to build a shield using unsupervised machine learning that will help me identify/classify these images as malicious or not. I have the binary data of these files, but I have no clue of what featureSet/patterns I can identify from this, because visually these images could be anything. (I need to be able to find feature set from the binary data)
I need some advise on the tools/methods I could use for automatic feature extraction from this binary data; feature sets which I can use with unsupervised learning algorithms such as Kohenen's SOM etc.
I am new to this, any help would be great!
I do not think this is feasible.
The problem is that these are old exploits, and training on them will not tell you much about future exploits. Because this is an extremely unbalanced problem: no exploit uses the same thing as another. So even if you generate multiple files of the same type, you will in the end have likely a relevant single training case for example for each exploit.
Nevertheless, what you need to do is to extract features from the file meta data. This is where the exploits are, not in the actual image. As such, parsing the files is already much the area where the problem is, and your detection tool may become vulnerable to exactly such an exploit.
As the data may be compressed, a naive binary feature thing will not work, either.
You probably don't want to look at the actual pixel data at all since the corruption most (almost certain) lay in the file header with it's different "chunks" (example for png, works differently but in the same way for other formats):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#File_header
It should be straight forward to choose features, make a program that reads all the header information from the file and if the information is missing and use this information as features. Still will be much smaller then the unnecessary raw image data.
Oh, and always start out with simpler algorithms like pca together with kmeans or something, and if they fail you should bring out the big guns.
Related
I have question which i wanna discuss with u. i am a fresh gradutate and just got a job as IT programmer. my company is making a game, the images or graphics use inside the game have one folder but different files of images. They give me task that how we can convert different files of images into one file and the program still access that file. If u have any kind of idea share with me ..Thanks
I'm not really sure what the advantage of this approach is for a game that runs on the desktop, but if you've already carefully considered that and decided that having a single file is important, then it's certainly possible to do so.
Since the question, as Oded points out, shows very little research or otherwise effort on your part, I won't provide a complete solution. And even if I wanted to do so, I'm not sure I could because you don't give us any information on what programming language and UI framework you're using. Visual Studio 2010 supports a lot of different ones.
Anyway, the trick involves creating a sprite. This is a fairly common technique for web design, where it actually is helpful to reduce load times by using only a single image, and you can find plenty of explanation and examples by searching the web. For example, here.
Basically, what you do is make one large image that contains all of your smaller images, offset from each other by a certain number of pixels. Then, you load that single large image and access the individual images by specifying the offset coordinates of each image.
I do not, however, recommend doing as Jan recommends and compressing the image directory (into a ZIP file or any other format), because then you'll just have to pay the cost of uncompressing it each time you want to use one of the images. That also buys you extremely little; disk storage is cheap nowadays.
Would OCR Software be able to reliably translate an image such as the following into a list of values?
UPDATE:
In more detail the task is as follows:
We have a client application, where the user can open a report. This report contains a table of values.
But not every report looks the same - different fonts, different spacing, different colors, maybe the report contains many tables with different number of rows/columns...
The user selects an area of the report which contains a table. Using the mouse.
Now we want to convert the selected table into values - using our OCR tool.
At the time when the user selects the rectangular area I can ask for extra information
to help with the OCR process, and ask for confirmation that the values have been correct recognised.
It will initially be an experimental project, and therefore most likely with an OpenSource OCR tool - or at least one that does not cost any money for experimental purposes.
Simple answer is YES, you should just choose right tools.
I don't know if open source can ever get close to 100% accuracy on those images, but based on the answers here probably yes, if you spend some time on training and solve table analisys problem and stuff like that.
When we talk about commertial OCR like ABBYY or other, it will provide you 99%+ accuracy out of the box and it will detect tables automatically. No training, no anything, just works. Drawback is that you have to pay for it $$. Some would object that for open source you pay your time to set it up and mantain - but everyone decides for himself here.
However if we talk about commertial tools, there is more choice actually. And it depends on what you want. Boxed products like FineReader are actually targeting on converting input documents into editable documents like Word or Excell. Since you want actually to get data, not the Word document, you may need to look into different product category - Data Capture, which is essentially OCR plus some additional logic to find necessary data on the page. In case of invoice it could be Company name, Total amount, Due Date, Line items in the table, etc.
Data Capture is complicated subject and requires some learning, but being properly used can give quaranteed accuracy when capturing data from the documents. It is using different rules for data cross-check, database lookups, etc. When necessary it may send datafor manual verification. Enterprises are widely usind Data Capture applicaitons to enter millions of documents every month and heavily rely on data extracted in their every day workflow.
And there are also OCR SDK ofcourse, that will give you API access to recognition results and you will be able to program what to do with the data.
If you describe your task in more detail I can provide you with advice what direction is easier to go.
UPDATE
So what you do is basically Data Capture application, but not fully automated, using so-called "click to index" approach. There is number of applications like that on the market: you scan images and operator clicks on the text on the image (or draws rectangle around it) and then populates fields to database. It is good approach when number of images to process is relatively small, and manual workload is not big enough to justify cost of fully automated application (yes, there are fully automated systems that can do images with different font, spacing, layout, number of rows in the tables and so on).
If you decided to develop stuff and instead of buying, then all you need here is to chose OCR SDK. All UI you are going to write yoursself, right? The big choice is to decide: open source or commercial.
Best Open source is tesseract OCR, as far as I know. It is free, but may have real problems with table analysis, but with manual zoning approach this should not be the problem. As to OCR accuracty - people are often train OCR for font to increase accuracy, but this should not be the case for you, since fonts could be different. So you can just try tesseract out and see what accuracy you will get - this will influence amount of manual work to correct it.
Commertial OCR will give higher accuracy but will cost you money. I think you should anyway take a look to see if it worth it, or tesserack is good enough for you. I think the simplest way would be to download trial version of some box OCR prouct like FineReader. You will get good idea what accuracy would be in OCR SDK then.
If you always have solid borders in your table, you can try this solution:
Locate the horizontal and vertical lines on each page (long runs of
black pixels)
Segment the image into cells using the line coordinates
Clean up each cell (remove borders, threshold to black and white)
Perform OCR on each cell
Assemble results into a 2D array
Else your document have a borderless table, you can try to follow this line:
Optical Character Recognition is pretty amazing stuff, but it isn’t
always perfect. To get the best possible results, it helps to use the
cleanest input you can. In my initial experiments, I found that
performing OCR on the entire document actually worked pretty well as
long as I removed the cell borders (long horizontal and vertical
lines). However, the software compressed all whitespace into a single
empty space. Since my input documents had multiple columns with
several words in each column, the cell boundaries were getting lost.
Retaining the relationship between cells was very important, so one
possible solution was to draw a unique character, like “^” on each
cell boundary – something the OCR would still recognize and that I
could use later to split the resulting strings.
I found all this information in this link, asking Google "OCR to table". The author published a full algorithm using Python and Tesseract, both opensource solutions!
If you want to try the Tesseract power, maybe you should try this site:
http://www.free-ocr.com/
Which OCR you are talking about?
Will you be developing codes based on that OCR or you will be using something off the shelves?
FYI:
Tesseract OCR
it has implemented the document reading executable, so you can feed the whole page in, and it will extract characters for you. It recognizes blank spaces pretty well, it might be able to help with tab-spacing.
I've been OCR'ing scanned documents since '98. This is a recurring problem for scanned docs, specially for those that include rotated and/or skewed pages.
Yes, there are several good commercial systems and some could provide, once well configured, terrific automatic data-mining rate, asking for the operator's help only for those very degraded fields. If I were you, I'd rely on some of them.
If commercial choices threat your budget, OSS can lend a hand. But, "there's no free lunch". So, you'll have to rely on a bunch of tailor-made scripts to scaffold an affordable solution to process your bunch of docs. Fortunately, you are not alone. In fact, past last decades, many people have been dealing with this. So, IMHO, the best and concise answer for this question is provided by this article:
https://datascience.blog.wzb.eu/2017/02/16/data-mining-ocr-pdfs-using-pdftabextract-to-liberate-tabular-data-from-scanned-documents/
Its reading is worth! The author offers useful tools of his own, but the article's conclusion is very important to give you a good mindset about how to solve this kind of problem.
"There is no silver bullet."
(Fred Brooks, The Mitical Man-Month)
It really depends on implementation.
There are a few parameters that affect the OCR's ability to recognize:
1. How well the OCR is trained - the size and quality of the examples database
2. How well it is trained to detect "garbage" (besides knowing what's a letter, you need to know what is NOT a letter).
3. The OCR's design and type
4. If it's a Nerural Network, the Nerural Network structure affects its ability to learn and "decide".
So, if you're not making one of your own, it's just a matter of testing different kinds until you find one that fits.
You could try other approach. With tesseract (or other OCRS) you can get coordinates for each word. Then you can try to group those words by vercital and horizontal coordinates to get rows/columns. For example to tell a difference between a white space and tab space. It takes some practice to get good results but it is possible. With this method you can detect tables even if the tables use invisible separators - no lines. The word coordinates are solid base for table recog
We also have struggled with the issue of recognizing text within tables. There are two solutions which do it out of the box, ABBYY Recognition Server and ABBYY FlexiCapture. Rec Server is a server-based, high volume OCR tool designed for conversion of large volumes of documents to a searchable format. Although it is available with an API for those types of uses we recommend FlexiCapture. FlexiCapture gives low level control over extraction of data from within table formats including automatic detection of table items on a page. It is available in a full API version without a front end, or the off the shelf version that we market. Reach out to me if you want to know more.
Here are the basic steps that have worked for me. Tools needed include Tesseract, Python, OpenCV, and ImageMagick if you need to do any rotation of images to correct skew.
Use Tesseract to detect rotation and ImageMagick mogrify to fix it.
Use OpenCV to find and extract tables.
Use OpenCV to find and extract each cell from the table.
Use OpenCV to crop and clean up each cell so that there is no noise that will confuse OCR software.
Use Tesseract to OCR each cell.
Combine the extracted text of each cell into the format you need.
The code for each of these steps is extensive, but if you want to use a python package, it's as simple as the following.
pip3 install table_ocr
python3 -m table_ocr.demo https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eihli/image-table-ocr/master/resources/test_data/simple.png
That package and demo module will turn the following table into CSV output.
Cell,Format,Formula
B4,Percentage,None
C4,General,None
D4,Accounting,None
E4,Currency,"=PMT(B4/12,C4,D4)"
F4,Currency,=E4*C4
If you need to make any changes to get the code to work for table borders with different widths, there are extensive notes at https://eihli.github.io/image-table-ocr/pdf_table_extraction_and_ocr.html
Most data structures are designed to hold data.
Data is something that means something to a computer.
Information is something that means something to a human.
What data structures are designed more for information rather than data?
Examples might include things like xml, .jpg, and Gray codes which all have an information feel to me.
This looks like a too broad question. Information is stored as data in many different ways but ultimately the way you interpret it will give it some meaning. For instance a word document written in Chinese will be stored as data and interpreted by someone who knows how to read mandarin.
If you are talking about information retrieval using AI techniques, that's another story, also very broad. So be more specific to help yourself.
Finally, the way you store data some times is related to the way they are represented in real life. An image, a matrix, note a tree for example. Some more complex information, like a huge DNA sequence, are stored in a way that is more suitable for computers (to speed up pattern analysis for instance). So there is also a translation from information (suitable for humans) to data (suitable to computers) back and forth.
That's why there's job for us!
Books, newspapers, videos.
Media.
Information is data with a context. The context has to be a part of the data structure to be considered information.
XML is a good example. Pretty much any office document format, many of which have at least an XML representation. Charts and graphs. Plain text files.
I'm not sure I would include .jpg, since it's not really a human-readable format. You need a computer to display a .jpg for you or it's just data.
It's worth mentioning that just about any information is just the same... data arranged in a way that a person or machine can understand.
Update
I asked this question quite a while ago now, and I was curious if anything like this has been developed since I asked the question?
I don't even know if there is a term for this kind of algorithm, and I guess there won't be if nobody has invented it yet. However it also makes googling for this a bit hard. Does anybody know if there is a term for this algorithm/principle yet?
This is an idea I have been thinking about, but I do not quite know how to solve it. I would like to know if any solutions like this exists out there, or if you guys have any idea how this could be implemented.
Steganography
Steganography is basically the art of hiding messages. In modern days we do this digitally by e.g. modifying the least significant bits in a image as the one below. Thus for every pixel and for every colour component of that pixel we might be able to hide a byte or two.
This alternation is not visibly by the naked eye, but analysing the least significant bits might reveal patterns that exposes the existence and possibly content of a hidden message. To counter this we simply encrypt the message before embedding it in the image, which keeps the message safe and also helps preventing discovery of the existence of a hidden message.
Thus, in principle, steganography provides the following:
Hiding encrypted message in any kind of media data. (Images, music, video, etc.)
Complete deniability of the existence of a hidden message without the correct key.
Extraction of the hidden message with the correct key.
(source: cs.vu.nl)
Semacodes
Semacodes are a way of encoding data in a visually representation, that may be printed, copied, and scanned easily. The Data Matrix shown below is a example of a semacode containing the famous Lorem Ipsum text. This is essentially a 2D barcode with a higher capacity that usually barcodes. Programs for generating semacodes are readily available, and ditto for software for reading them, especially for cell phones. Semacodes usually contains error correcting codes, are generally very robust, and can be read in very damaged conditions.
Thus semacodes has the following properties:
Data encoding that may be printed and copied.
May be scanned and interpreted even in damaged (dirty) conditions, and generally a very robust encoding.
Combining it
So my idea is to create something that combines these two, with all of the combined properties. This means it would have to:
Embed a encrypted message in any media, probably a scanned image.
The message should be extractable even if the image is printed and scanned, and even partly damaged.
The existence of a embedded message should be undetectable without the key used for encryption.
So, first of all I would like to know if any solutions, algorithms or research is available on this? Secondly I would like to hear any ideas/thoughts on how this might be done?
I really hope to get a good discussion going on the possibilities and feasibility of implementing something like this, and I am looking forward to reading your answers.
Update
Thanks for all the good input on this. I will probably work a bit more on this idea when I have more time. I am convinced it must be possible. Think about research in embedding watermarks in music and movies.
I imagine part of the robustness of a semacode to damage/dirt/obscuration is the high contrast between the two states of any "cell". The reader can still make a good guess as to the actual state, even with some distortion.
That sort of contrast is not available in a photographic image, and is the very reason why steganography works - the lsb bit-flipping has almost no visual effect on the image itself, while digital fidelity ensures that a non-visual system can still very accurately read the embedded data.
As the two applications are sort of at opposite ends of the analog/digital spectrum (semacodes are all about being decipherable by analog (visual) processing but are on paper, not digital; steganography is all about the bits in the file and cares nothing for the analog representation, whether light or sound or something else), I imagine a combination of the two will extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Essentially what you're thinking of is being able to steganographically embed something in an image, print the image, make a colour photocopy of it, scan it in, and still be able to extract the embedded data.
I'm afraid I can't help, but if anyone achieves this, I'll be DAMN impressed! :)
It's not a complete answer, but you should look at watermarking. This technique solves your first two goals (embedable in a printed image and readable even from partly damaged scan).
Part of watermarking's reliability to distortion and transcription errors (from going from digital to analog and back) come from redundancy (e.g. repeating the data several times). Those would make the watermark detectable even without a key. However, you might be able to use redundancy techniques that are more subtle, maybe something related to erasure coding or secret sharing.
I know that's not a complete answer, but hopefully those leads will point you in the right direction!
What language/environment are you using? It shouldn't be that hard to write code that opens both the image and semacode as a bitmap (the latter as a monochrome), sets the lowest bit(s) of each byte of each pixel in the color image to the value of the corresponding pixel of the monochrome bitmap.
(optionally expand the semacode bitmap first to the same pixel-dimensions extending with white)
This is a fairly broad question; what tools/libraries exist to take two photographs that are not identical, but extremely similar, and identify the specific differences between them?
An example would be to take a picture of my couch on Friday after my girlfriend is done cleaning and before a long weekend of having friends over, drinking, and playing rock band. Two days later I take a second photo of the couch; lighting is identical, the couch hasn't moved a milimeter, and I use a tripod in a fixed location.
What tools could I use to generate a diff of the images, or a third heatmap image of the differences? Are there any tools for .NET?
This depends largely on the image format and compression. But, at the end of the day, you are probably taking two rasters and comparing them pixel by pixel.
Take a look at the Perceptual Image Difference Utility.
The most obvious way to see every tiny, normally nigh-imperceptible difference, would be to XOR the pixel data. If the lighting is even slightly different, though, it might be too much. Differencing (subtracting) the pixel data might be more what you're looking for, depending on how subtle the differences are.
One place to start is with a rich image processing library such as IM. You can dabble with its operators interactively with the IMlab tool, call it directly from C or C++, or use its really decent Lua binding to drive it from Lua. It supports a wide array of operations on bitmaps, as well as an extensible library of file formats.
Even if you haven't deliberately moved anything, you might want to use an algorithm such as SIFT to get good sub-pixel quality alignment between the frames. Unless you want to treat the camera as fixed and detect motion of the couch as well.
I wrote this free .NET application using the toolkit my company makes (DotImage). It has a very simple algorithm, but the code is open source if you want to play with it -- you could adapt the algorithm to .NET Image classes if you don't want to buy a copy of DotImage.
http://www.atalasoft.com/cs/blogs/31appsin31days/archive/2008/05/13/image-difference-utility.aspx
Check out Andrew Kirillov's article on CodeProject. He wrote a C# application using the AForge.NET computer vision library to detect motion. On the AForge.NET website, there's a discussion of two frame differences for motion detection.
It's an interesting question. I can't refer you to any specific libraries, but the process you're asking about is basically a minimal case of motion compensation. This is the way that MPEG (MP4, DIVX, whatever) video manages to compress video so extremely well; you might look into MPEG for some information about the way those motion compensation algorithms are implemented.
One other thing to keep in mind; JPEG compression is a block-based compression; much of the benefit that MPEG brings from things is to actually do a block comparison. If most of your image (say the background) is the same from one image to the next, those blocks will be unchanged. It's a quick way to reduce the amount of data needed to be compared.
just use the .net imaging classes, create a new bitmap() x 2 and look at the R & G & B values of each pixel, you can also look at the A (Alpha/transparency) values if you want to when determining difference.
also a note, using the getPixel(y, x) method can be vastly slow, there is another way to get the entire image (less elegant) and for each ing through it yourself if i remember it was called the getBitmap or something similar, look in the imaging/bitmap classes & read some tutes they really are all you need & aren't that difficult to use, dont go third party unless you have to.