| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/03/2004 10:04:42 AM · #1 |
| what stops people from using a EXIF editor and changing the date of when the picture was taken on an old photo that fits the challenge? |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:07:38 AM · #2 |
Nothing, but we can tell when they do it, then we ban them :)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:10:47 AM · #3 |
| Don't you steal their children and drown their pets as well? |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:24:42 AM · #4 |
No, I think the current punishment is to look at pet and flower photos for 4 straight days. LOL
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:45:55 AM · #5 |
how can you tell??
Originally posted by Konador:
Nothing, but we can tell when they do it, then we ban them :) |
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 10:59:02 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by zerocusa:
how can you tell?? |
We are good like that. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:20:52 AM · #7 |
| ok good, as long as someone is able to see that they altered it im happy. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:29:43 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Nothing, but we can tell when they do it, then we ban them :) |
Actually, I bet I could submit a photo of me singing with Elvis Presley and have all the data as if the photo was straight from my camera, shot yesterday.
No that I'm going to do it =), but easier then you think...
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:31:03 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by steinar:
Originally posted by Konador:
Nothing, but we can tell when they do it, then we ban them :) |
Actually, I bet I could submit a photo of me singing with Elvis Presley and have all the data as if the photo was straight from my camera, shot yesterday.
No that I'm going to do it =), but easier then you think... |
Thats what some other people said, so they submitted the falsified data, then one day they came back here and found themselves banned. Shame.
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 11:38:27.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 11:48:55 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Konador:
Thats what some other people said, so they submitted the falsified data, then one day they came back here and found themselves banned. Shame. |
Well, after going a bit further beeing a computer geek then most do, working as programmer for a while and being the type of person who just hates to loose, I'm pretty sure I can do it. When do you wan't my photograph taken? (Before I was born, or in the future maybe?)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:04:20 PM · #11 |
| I don't think anyone is denying that you can fudge your EXIF. Just don't wait for a platter of cookies to be delivered if you do. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 12:12:25 PM · #12 |
| Nor should you expect special treatment if you try it and get caught. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:32:44 PM · #13 |
I would also say as a member of the site that I personally would want the admins to throw the book and then some at an individual who purposefully cheated in that manner. It's one thing for folks to make honest mistakes. Just own up to it. But that kind of willful manipulation is just wrong and insulting to the folks who try hard to follow the rules.
Clara
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 01:57:40 PM · #14 |
I investigated in depth about the underground world of "EXIF data changers" and found out that they are all pedophiles. Weird huh?
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 02:53:53 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by JoelHSmith:
I investigated in depth about the underground world of "EXIF data changers" and found out that they are all pedophiles. Weird huh? |
doesn't surprise me. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 02:55:32 PM · #16 |
| Exif data can be falsified where it is undetectable. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 03:18:33 PM · #17 |
I think we should require all DPC submissions to be taken with cameras compatible with the Canon Data Verification Kit.
When the appropriate function (Personal Function 31) on the EOS-1D Mark II or EOS-1Ds is activated, a code based on the image contents is generated and appended to the image. When the image is viewed, the data verification software determines the code for the image and compares it with the attached code. If the image contents have been manipulated in any way, the codes will not match and the image cannot be verified as the original.
Being able to prove a photo was altered (or not) is important for law enforcement, insurance companies, etc. Congrats to Canon for leading the way in providing a way to verify image authenticity!
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 15:19:52. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 03:33:56 PM · #18 |
I just hope the legal system doesn't believe Canon's marketing department too much.
While signature schemes like this can make it harder to tamper with an image, information theory makes it impossible to to come up with a shortened code for an image which can verify integrity completely. There are always ways to fake the data in an undetectable way but most people that are going to cheat the system don't do it sensibly - which is also why EXIF tamperers usually get caught. You can modify EXIF undetectably, but usually the image content gives it away. For example changing the EXIF to be a date in the future is a trivial example of how you can change the data but still make it obvious that it's been changed. It might look like a straight from the camera EXIF but other metadata makes it obviously faked.
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 15:34:33. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 03:36:58 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by steinar:
Originally posted by Konador:
Thats what some other people said, so they submitted the falsified data, then one day they came back here and found themselves banned. Shame. |
Well, after going a bit further beeing a computer geek then most do, working as programmer for a while and being the type of person who just hates to loose, I'm pretty sure I can do it. When do you wan't my photograph taken? (Before I was born, or in the future maybe?) |
You are missing the point, even though you make a fine example of what people do wrong when they tamper with the EXIF. The changes to the EXIF might not be detectable but the fact that the image is taken at the wrong time period often is obvious beyond just the integrity of the EXIF data. (your example in brackets is a good example - you could fake it to look like it was taken before you were born, but then it would still be obviously faked...) |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 03:44:19 PM · #20 |
| I think anyone that would cheat just to have a little ribbon next to there name on a web page needs to get a life. |
|
|
|
06/03/2004 08:10:04 PM · #21 |
There's more than the EXIF data. You'll have to modify the the file attributes as well. That's probably how most of the cheaters are exposed. I'm not really sure how it's done, but it's possible... most likely very simple.
Just to make it clear, I totally agree on that submitting a falsified photo, no to mention getting a ribbon by cheating, is as low you can get. I'm just a computer geek who likes to do things others have said to be impossible (then I mean showing you it's possible, not submitting an old or illegally edited photo)
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 08:27:38 PM · #22 |
I know enough about technology to know that nothing is impossible... heck, even 3DES encryption can be broken if enough resources and time are thrown at the problem. I can tell you that past participants have thought they falsified their EXIF convincingly and been wrong.
We consider the time of our members and registered users valuable. Anyone who wastes their time by submitting illegitimate entries, and then wastes our time by submitting falsified proof to try to cover it up, can expect that they will not be participating on DPChallenge for a very long time.
-Terry
Message edited by author 2004-06-03 20:30:06.
|
|
|
|
06/03/2004 09:25:05 PM · #23 |
| i would feel bad for the people that go out, shoot a picture during the correct time period, come home and realize that the camera's clock got reset. then they try to edit the EXIF data so they can still qualify for the challenge and then get banned. but i guess i shouldnt feel that bad for them, they just gotta remember to make sure the time is set correctly before making a challenge worthy shot. |
|
|
|
08/03/2004 10:16:57 AM · #24 |
Fortunatery (most) people tend to realise that it's not the prize but the competition which makes your inner flame burn ;D.
|
|
|
|
08/03/2004 10:30:12 AM · #25 |
Not to be a poopy, but if admin wants to make sure that exif data can't be fooled with, why don't they get some of our better exif data-hackers to give it a legitimate shot?
I don't mean that they submit cheat-dated pictures in a challenge, but that they send through several versions of the exact same picture (with different dates attached to them) to admin in order to help them improve the methods used to detect falsified exif data.
Everyone wins (except the cheaters).
Does this make sense? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 06:28:47 PM EDT.
