Framework for Video Steganography Using Integer Wavelet Transform and JPEG Compression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

My comments:
1. The topic of this paper is interesting and innovate and it will contribute in related research field.

2. The literature review is not new enough, at least 3 more related literature from 2020 to 2022 should be added.

3. I suggest to separate “Result” and “Discussion” into two sections.

4. The “Conclusion and Future Scope” must be reinforced more. For example, the contributions to academic research as well as theoretical implications and research limitations.

Author Response

2.    The literature review is not new enough, at least 3 more related literature from 2020 to 2022 should be added    

3 Latest papers from 2022 have been added to the literature review.

 

 

3.    I suggest to separate “Result” and “Discussion” into two sections.    

One more section named “Experimental Setup” has been added. Then in the next section, Experimental results are discussed to analyze imperceptibility, robustness, embedding capacity, embedding time, extraction time, cost-effectiveness, and comparison has been done.

 

4.    The “Conclusion and Future Scope” must be reinforced more. For example, the contributions to academic research as well as theoretical implications and research limitations.    

The future scope has been modified as per reviewer's comment.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

This manuscript proposes video steganography using Integer Wavelet Transform and JPEG compression. The main idea is to overcome some of the issues associated with steganography techniques by using the Integer Wavelet Transform technique. Moreover, video cover files improve concealing capacity because of their intrinsic properties. Integer Wavelet Transform is used to enhance the imperceptibility and robustness of the proposed technique. However, major revisions are needed before it is finally accepted.

1.    It will be better if the authors can add some more simulation and experimental results. However, the method of this paper has excellent performance of PSNR, MSE, SSIM, and CC. The authors only compare these parameters and do not compare the payload of the embedded data or the algorithm's execution time, which is unfair. Without this fair comparison, the efficiency and authenticity of the developed algorithm cannot be established. It is suggested that the authors can add a comparison table in Section 5.3 (Comparison with Existing Works), explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the experimental results of various methods.

2.    This paper only compares one paper [26], and it is suggested that the authors find more similar methods for comparison to have objective experimental results.

Author Response

1.    It will be better if the authors can add some more simulation and experimental results. However, the method of this paper has excellent performance of PSNR, MSE, SSIM, and CC. The authors only compare these parameters and do not compare the payload of the embedded data or the algorithm's execution time, which is unfair. Without this fair comparison, the efficiency and authenticity of the developed algorithm cannot be established. It is suggested that the authors can add a comparison table in Section 5.3 (Comparison with Existing Works), explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the experimental results of various methods.    

A comparison of concealing and extraction time is also added in the already existing section. A comparison of concealing capacity is also done.

 

2.    This paper only compares one paper [26], and it is suggested that the authors find more similar methods for comparison to have objective experimental results.    

A comparison of concealing and extraction time is also added in the already existing section. A comparison of concealing capacity is also done.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

 

The following should be noted and corrected accordingly:

1. How practicable is your proposed model in real-time? 

2. Is it cost-efficient?

3. Some diagrams and terms are not properly explained.

4. Grammar is not up to standard and requires extensive re-editing

5. Are the formulas and numbers here generic or generated by you?

6. The Introduction section is too brief and needs to explain the relevant terms more comprehensively

 

 

 

 

Study and consider the following related papers to embellish your paper:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050707

• https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142234 

• https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.12222

 

 

 

Major revisions are required.

 

 

Author Response

1.    How practicable is your proposed model in real-time?     
The designed technique is able to hide a secret image in video cover files of any format. It can be applied to the real-time transmission of information on the web.

2.    Some diagrams and terms are not properly explained.    
Some more lines have been added to properly explain the designed technique. 

3.    Is it cost-efficient?    
It is a cost-efficient technique. As Integer wavelet transform technique work on integer numbers resulting in less computation time. Its hardware implementation is also simple which causes low cost.

4.    Grammar is not up to standard and requires extensive re-editing    
Grammarly has been applied to improve the language of the paper.

5.    Are the formulas and numbers here generic or generated by you?    
We have not generated any formulas. All the equations have been cited properly.

6.    The Introduction section is too brief and needs to explain the relevant terms more comprehensively    
A paragraph has been added to properly explain the proposed work and its applications.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

In the revised paper, the authors have added a comparison of the payload of the embedded data and the algorithm's execution time. However, this selective comparison is not correct. This is because of the comparison of the payload and time with the literature [8] and the quality of the Video with the literature [26]. The authors should together compare these two papers' execution time, payload, PSNR, MSE, SSIM, and CC with their study.

Author Response

Required comparison is done with paper 26.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

 

The following should be noted and corrected accordingly:

1. How practicable is your proposed model in real-time? 

2. Is it cost-efficient?

3. Some diagrams and terms are not properly explained.

4. Grammar is not up to standard and requires extensive re-editing

5. Are the formulas and numbers here generic or generated by you?

6. The explanation of the proposed framework should be in the Methodology section, not in the Literature Review section

7. The "Motivation" section is unnecessary and should just be included in the Introduction section

 

 

 

Study and consider the following related papers to embellish your paper:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/w14142234

• https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050707

• https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.12222

 

 

 

Minor revisions are required.

 

 

Author Response

1.    How practicable is your proposed model in real-time?     
The designed technique is able to hide the secret image in video cover files of any format. It can be applied to the real-time transmission of information on the web.
2.    Some diagrams and terms are not properly explained.    
Some more lines have been added to properly explain the designed technique. 
3.    Is it cost-efficient?    
It is a cost-efficient technique. As Integer wavelet transform technique work on integer numbers resulting in less computation time. Its hardware implementation is also simple which causes low cost.
4.    Grammar is not up to standard and requires extensive re-editing    
Grammarly has been applied to improve the language of the paper.
5.    Are the formulas and numbers here generic or generated by you?    
We have not generated any formulas. All the equations have been cited properly.
6.    The explanation of the proposed framework should be in the Methodology section, not in the Literature Review section.    
Modified as per reviewer comment.
7.    The "Motivation" section is unnecessary and should just be included in the Introduction section.    
Modified as per reviewer comment.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is no real work in this paper. Almost 90% of the paper is a (low quality) presentation of several steganography methods. The method proposed is not clear and there is no real data presented, no tables, no images, nothing.

Reviewer 2 Report

My comments:

1. The topic of this paper is interesting and it will contribute in related research field.

2. The Methodology is too brief, there should be more experimental data to support.

3. Separate sections of “Results” and “Discussion” are also necessary for this paper.

4. The section “Conclusion” must be reinforced more. For example, the more contributions to academic research as well as theoretical implications, research limitations, and suggestions for further research.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors propose a video steganography scheme based on the Integer Wavelet Transform technique. However, due to the following reason, we do not suggest publishing this paper.

1.    In this paper, the simulation and experimental results are not presented. The authors should show that the robustness of the proposed scheme is testable, the authors can test the robustness by File the Only Attack, File as Original Copy Attack, Multiple Encoded Files, Compression Attack, Random Tweaking Attacks, Reformat Attacks, and Visual Attacks.

2.    The authors should add a section to discuss performance analysis. The discussion of related works makes performance analysis more comprehensive. The authors need to show more persuasive reasons for readers that their proposal offers a better solution. Therefore, the contribution is limited.

3.    I cannot find any algorithmic comparisons in the article. without this fair comparison, the efficiency and authenticity of the developed algorithm cannot be established. For example, some recent references should be considered to compare with this paper, which can dramatically enhance practicality and security.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The following should be noted and corrected accordingly:

1. How practicable is your proposed model in real-time? 

2. Is it cost-efficient?

3. Some diagrams and terms are not properly explained.

4. Grammar is not up to standard and requires extensive re-editing

5. Are the formulas and numbers here generic or generated by you?

6. The Introduction should contain the organization of the paper

7. Organization of the paper is skewed, making it difficult to understand which paragraph belongs to a particular section

8. No information is given regarding the possible future direction of this paper 

 

 

 

Study and consider the following related papers to embellish your paper:

• https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050707

• https://doi.org/10.1049/ipr2.12222

• https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218126622500608 

 

 

Major revisions are required.