2014
DOI: 10.7763/jacn.2014.v2.127
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detecting Image Spam Based on File Properties, Histogram and Hough Transform

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the resulting performance and the detection accuracy depends on the type and number of image features used. Different author manually generate the image features based on properties and meta data of the image file [17], global features including color and gradient histogram of the image file [18][19][20][21][22][23][24], some form of low level image features [25][26][27][28][29], Image texture based features related to run-length matrix, auto-regressive model, co-occurrence matrix, wavelet transform, histogram and gradient [30][31][32]. Other work uses image features based on Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) [33] and n-gram feature from the Base64 format of the image file [34].…”
Section: Image Spam Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the resulting performance and the detection accuracy depends on the type and number of image features used. Different author manually generate the image features based on properties and meta data of the image file [17], global features including color and gradient histogram of the image file [18][19][20][21][22][23][24], some form of low level image features [25][26][27][28][29], Image texture based features related to run-length matrix, auto-regressive model, co-occurrence matrix, wavelet transform, histogram and gradient [30][31][32]. Other work uses image features based on Speeded Up Robust Features (SURF) [33] and n-gram feature from the Base64 format of the image file [34].…”
Section: Image Spam Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…e second type of image spam classification approach uses various image features and uses various machine learning techniques in the classification process. Some of the works use image features that are based on file properties and metadata [10], global image features including color and gradient histograms [11][12][13][14][15][16][17], low-level image features [18][19][20][21][22], image texture-based features related to a histogram, gradient, run-length matrix, co-occurrence matrix, autoregressive model, and wavelet transform [23][24][25]. Other works use image features such as Speeded Up Robust Feature (SURF) [26] and n-gram after converting the image to a string of its Base64 format [27].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Metadata Domain: Compression ratio and Aspect ratio of the images are calculated as the two metadata features [39]. Compression ratio captures the amount of compression achieved by calculating the ratio of pixels in an image to an actual image size.…”
Section: Feature Extractionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous approaches to detecting image spam consist of extracting various image properties and classifying the images as either spam or ham (i.e., non-spam), using machine learning techniques. This previous work either obtains low accuracy [9,12,39] or has an unrealistically high computational complexity [7,19].…”
Section: Table Of Contents Chapter Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%