RealSeal: Revolutionizing Media Authentication with Real-Time Realism Scoring

Bhaktipriya Radharapu; Harish Krishna

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 62 references

RealSeal: Revolutionizing Media Authentication with Real-Time Realism Scoring

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read RealSeal proposes certifying real images at capture with a signed realism score, shifting trust from detecting fakes to verifying real scenes at the source.

desk verdict A blue-sky position paper that proposes an interesting combination but provides no evidence for its load-bearing realism score. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17684 v1 pith:AIBHOJAW submitted 2024-11-26 cs.CR cs.AI

Bhaktipriya Radharapu , Harish Krishna This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CRcs.AI

keywords mediaauthenticationdeepfakesrealismscoringsourcewatermarkingmultisensorysensingcryptographicsigningcontentprovenance

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the way to restore trust in images is not to detect manipulated or AI-generated content after the fact, but to certify genuine content at the moment of capture. It proposes a pipeline that captures a scene with multiple sensors, uses machine learning to compute a realism score per dimension and an overall credibility score, and cryptographically signs the image together with those scores. The paper's claim is that this source-based watermarking raises the bar for faking media, because an attacker would have to counterfeit a physically consistent multisensory scene rather than just pixels. This is a position paper: the argument depends on the realism scorer being able to tell genuine scenes from staged or manipulated ones.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the signed realism score: a bundle containing per-modality credibility scores (3D spatial, thermal, motion, auditory), an overall credibility score, and capture metadata, hashed together with the image and signed by the device's private key. The mechanism it relies on is the sensing-scoring-signing pipeline, in which a machine-learning model aggregates depth, thermal, audio, and temporal-motion data into a single number, and a secure execution environment (secure boot, trusted execution environment, hardware security module) prevents tampering with sensors, model weights, or keys. The score is what carries the argument: if it is reliable and hard to spoof, then a signed high score certifies the scene as real.

What would settle it

Record a real scene with a RealSeal prototype, then play that recording back on a high-resolution screen in a room whose depth, thermal, and audio profiles match the original, and film the screen with the same camera; if the resulting realism score stays high, the multisensory criterion has been bypassed and the central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that authenticity can be attached to real content at its origin instead of being inferred later. RealSeal proposes that a camera with depth, thermal, audio, and motion sensors, running a machine-learning scorer inside a secure hardware enclave, can produce a credibility score that summarizes how real the captured scene is. That score, bundled with the image and signed with a device private key, becomes a tamper-evident certificate of realism. The paper argues that faking such a certificate is qualitatively more difficult than evading today's deepfake detectors or stripping watermarks, and that this shifts the operative question from 'is this image fake?' to 'was this image certified real?'

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumption that a machine-learning model can reliably tell a genuinely captured scene from a staged or manipulated one across all lighting conditions, locations, and attack strategies, using only the sensor streams.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Unmarked or low-score images would be presumed unverified rather than presumed authentic, reversing today's default.
Platforms and newsrooms could check a signed realism score with the device's public key, without relying on a central authority.
An attacker would need to reproduce consistent depth, thermal, audio, and motion cues simultaneously, making physical staging far costlier than digital manipulation.
Benign edits such as cropping or compression would void the signature, so only untouched capture would carry certification; the paper accepts this and urges skeptical treatment of unmarked content.
The scheme could plug into existing provenance systems like C2PA, adding a credibility layer on top of origin metadata.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the realism scorer works, the same model could be used off-device as a forensic tool, meaning the machine-learning component may be reusable independently of the secure-hardware pipeline.
The proposal implicitly creates a two-tier trust system, and the paper does not address how older photos, screenshots, or content from devices without the required sensors would ever earn certification.
A practical test of the core bet would be to measure calibration: how often a staged scene with plausible physical cues receives a high signed score, rather than only whether the signature survives tampering.
The score's context-independence is likely to be the battleground: if the scorer must be continually retrained as new scene types and attacks appear, the seal is a moving target, not a fixed standard.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

RealSeal is a position paper, not a research result. The idea is simple and worth stating: instead of trying to detect fakes after the fact, certify real content at capture by computing a multisensory “realism score” and signing it into the image metadata. There is no implementation, no data, no math, and no evaluation. The realism scorer is described only as “a machine learning model,” with no architecture, training set, or performance figures.

What the paper does well: it is honest. Section 3 concedes that staged scenes with body doubles, masks, or avoiding faces can receive high realism scores, and that benign crops and compression invalidate the signature. It also does a fair job of summarizing C2PA’s weaknesses and pointing to FaceID-style depth sensing as an existence proof for at least one modality. The citation list includes independent security analyses, which is a good sign. As a research agenda, it is a reasonable strawman for the community to react to.

The soft spot is not the cryptography; the signing part is standard. It is the claim that a context-independent realism function can be built that distinguishes genuine events from staged ones with enough adversarial robustness. The stress-test note is correct: the signature vouches only for the integrity of the bundle, not for the reality of the event. If the scorer is fooled by a screen showing a politician, a signed high score certifies a physically plausible scene, not an actual event. The paper’s own limitations admit this is out of scope, but those are precisely the cases the introduction says provenance systems fail to catch. So the central claim—that RealSeal certifies authenticity—is unsupported and, by the paper’s own admission, does not hold for a core attack class.

That said, this is a 6-page workshop-style paper, not a full research submission. If it is positioned as a blue-sky proposal, the lack of evidence is less damning. The abstract’s “revolutionizing” language oversells it; the conclusion’s “blue sky” caveat is more accurate.

Who is this for? Researchers working on media provenance and deepfake defenses who want a concrete proposal to argue against. It is worth a reading group slot, but I would not cite it as a result.

For peer review: I would send it to a workshop or a blue-sky track, not to a main conference as a technical paper. It deserves referee time only if the venue expects position papers; otherwise desk reject is defensible.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RealSeal, an authentication scheme in which a trusted device captures multisensory data (RGB, depth, audio, motion, thermal), computes a 'realism score' with a machine learning model, and cryptographically signs the image together with the score and metadata. The authors argue that this source-based attestation prevents deepfakes and staged media, and distinguishes their approach from post-hoc detectors and metadata-only provenance systems like C2PA. The manuscript describes the sensing, scoring, and signing pipeline at a conceptual level, discusses secure execution environments (secure boot, TEEs, HSMs), and concludes with a limitations section. It contains no formal model, no implementation, no datasets, no evaluation, and no comparison against existing systems.

Significance. If a reliable, adversarially robust realism scorer existed, source-side attestation of real content would be a meaningful complement to provenance systems. The paper's honest enumeration of limitations and its attention to hardware security are assets. However, the entire value proposition rests on an unspecified ML component, and the paper's own limitations concede that the most important attack class (staged scenes with body doubles or masks) is out of scope. As submitted, the work is a position statement rather than a validated system, and it does not provide the evidence needed to assess (let alone accept) the central claims.

major comments (4)

[Section 2.2 and Figure 1] The realism scoring component is described only as 'a machine learning model' and example outputs; no architecture, training data, ground-truth label definition, loss function, or evaluation is given. Since the entire authentication benefit depends on this score differing between genuine and staged scenes, the paper does not establish that the mechanism can work.
[Section 3] The limitations section admits that high realism scores can be obtained for staged scenes using body doubles, masks, or avoiding faces, and states this is out of scope. This is precisely the core attack scenario named in Section 1 (e.g., screening a deepfake or staging an event), so the central guarantee that RealSeal certifies real content is contradicted by the paper's own scope. A signed high score can certify only that a trusted device captured a physically plausible scene, not that the depicted event occurred.
[Section 2.3] The cryptographic signature binds the image to metadata but does not attest to truth. Consequently, if the scorer is defeated, the signature gives fake content an official seal, actively worsening the misinformation problem relative to an unsigned image. The paper does not address this risk or propose a fallback.
[Sections 2-3 (overall)] There is no experimental section or threat-model evaluation. For a system whose contribution is comparative trust (vs. C2PA, watermarking, deepfake detectors), the paper should at least report proof-of-concept results, attack benchmarks, or formal security properties; none are present. The absence of such evidence leaves the central claim unsupported.

minor comments (4)

[ACM Reference Format and Figure 1] There are formatting errors, including 'InINTERNATIONAL' in the ACM reference line and malformed characters in Figure 1 such as '38°53?52?N'.
[Throughout] Excessive promotional language ('groundbreaking', 'revolutionizing', 'significant leap forward') is inappropriate for a technical paper and should be toned down.
[References [3], [4], [5], [10]] Several central criticisms of C2PA rely on blog posts rather than peer-reviewed evaluations; the authors should cite systematic analyses or independent evaluations where available.
[Section 3] The text mentions 'tactile feedback' as part of the multisensory input, but no tactile sensor is described in the sensing pipeline in Section 2.1; this should be clarified or removed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: RealSeal is a conceptual proposal with no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper is a position/proposal piece and contains no equations, no fitted parameters, no trained model, no experimental evaluation, and no predictive claim derived from data. Its pipeline of sensing, scoring, and signing is described at a conceptual level: multimodal sensors feed an unspecified machine learning model that outputs a realism score, and the score is bundled with the image and cryptographically signed. There is no step in which an output is shown to equal an input by construction. The only self-citation is reference [50], used to support the motivational claim that generative AI systems can still be attacked to produce harmful images; that claim is not load-bearing for the core proposal and is independently plausible, so it does not introduce circularity. The limitations in Section 3 concede that staged scenes using body doubles, masks, or avoidance of faces can receive high realism scores, and that benign crops or compression invalidate the signature. These concessions weaken the practical guarantee of the system, but they are evidentiary and design criticisms, not instances of circular reasoning: the paper never defines 'realism' in terms of the signed certificate, nor does it fit a parameter and then rename that fit as a prediction. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-as-prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz-via-citation pattern is present. The central claim is unsupported by demonstration, but unsupported claims are a correctness risk, not circularity. Score 0 is therefore the honest finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters or invented physical entities. The key assumptions are the feasibility of a reliable realism score and the security of the hardware/software chain, both of which are asserted without evidence.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption A machine learning model can compute a reliable realism score from multimodal inputs (depth, thermal, audio, motion) that correlates with the actual physical reality of a scene.
Invoked in Section 2.2 (Credibility Scoring and Reasoning) with no training data, model architecture, or evaluation provided.
domain assumption Secure hardware and software (secure boot, TEE, HSM) can prevent tampering with sensors, model weights, and private keys in consumer devices.
Assumed in Section 2.4 (Secure execution environment); relies on prior work but not demonstrated in the proposed deployment context.
standard math Cryptographic signing (hash-then-sign) provides tamper-evident integrity for the image and metadata bundle.
Stated in Section 2.3 (Signing); well-established, but the paper does not address key distribution or revocation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RealSeal: Revolutionizing Media Authentication with Real-Time Realism Scoring." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIBHOJAW

@misc{pith2026241117684,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RealSeal: Revolutionizing Media Authentication with Real-Time Realism Scoring},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIBHOJAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17684}
}

read the original abstract

The growing threat of deepfakes and manipulated media necessitates a radical rethinking of media authentication. Existing methods for watermarking synthetic data fall short, as they can be easily removed or altered, and current deepfake detection algorithms do not achieve perfect accuracy. Provenance techniques, which rely on metadata to verify content origin, fail to address the fundamental problem of staged or fake media. This paper introduces a groundbreaking paradigm shift in media authentication by advocating for the watermarking of real content at its source, as opposed to watermarking synthetic data. Our innovative approach employs multisensory inputs and machine learning to assess the realism of content in real-time and across different contexts. We propose embedding a robust realism score within the image metadata, fundamentally transforming how images are trusted and circulated. By combining established principles of human reasoning about reality, rooted in firmware and hardware security, with the sophisticated reasoning capabilities of contemporary machine learning systems, we develop a holistic approach that analyzes information from multiple perspectives. This ambitious, blue sky approach represents a significant leap forward in the field, pushing the boundaries of media authenticity and trust. By embracing cutting-edge advancements in technology and interdisciplinary research, we aim to establish a new standard for verifying the authenticity of digital media.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17684 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Overview of the RealSeal approach. The source-based watermarking approach inherently enhances the reliability and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

[1]

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/wp548- single-chip-fips/Introduction

AMD Trusted execution environment. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/wp548- single-chip-fips/Introduction. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

work page 2024
[2]

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/certifications/ apc3a7433eb89/web

Apple’s secure enclave. https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/certifications/ apc3a7433eb89/web. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024
[3]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1031-C2PA- from-the-Attackers-Perspective.html

C2PA from the Attacker's Perspective - The Hacker Factor Blog — hacker- factor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1031-C2PA- from-the-Attackers-Perspective.html. [Accessed 13-06-2024]

work page 2024
[4]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1010-C2PAs- Butterfly-Effect.html

C2PA's Butterfly Effect - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfac- tor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1010-C2PAs- Butterfly-Effect.html. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024
[5]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/919-Closed- Standards.html#:~:text=Ideally%2C%20the%20picture,the%20trusted%20notary

Closed Standards - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfactor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/919-Closed- Standards.html#:~:text=Ideally%2C%20the%20picture,the%20trusted%20notary. [Accessed 22-06-2024]

work page 2024
[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Digital_signature

Digital signature - Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Digital_signature. [Accessed 10-06-2024]

work page 2024
[7]

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102381

Face id, apple. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102381. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024
[8]

https://policies

Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy — policies.google.com. https://policies. google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy. [Accessed 30-07-2024]

work page 2024

Show all 62 references

[9]

https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching

How Photos Became a Weapon in Stalin’s Great Purge | HISTORY — history.com. https://www.history.com/news/josef-stalin-great-purge-photo-retouching. [Ac- cessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[10]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1024-IEEE,-BBC,- and-C2PA.html

IEEE, BBC, and C2PA - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfactor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1024-IEEE,-BBC,- and-C2PA.html. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[11]

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/ documents/overview-of-intel-sgx-enclave-637284.pdf

Intel sgx. https://www.intel.com/content/dam/develop/external/us/en/ documents/overview-of-intel-sgx-enclave-637284.pdf. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

2024
[12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5

MD5 - Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5. [Ac- cessed 10-06-2024]

2024
[13]

https://c2pa.org/

Overview - C2PA — c2pa.org. https://c2pa.org/. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[14]

https: //cryptography.io/en/latest/hazmat/primitives/asymmetric/rsa/#signing

RSA &2014; Cryptography 43.0.0.dev1 documentation — cryptography.io. https: //cryptography.io/en/latest/hazmat/primitives/asymmetric/rsa/#signing. [Ac- cessed 10-06-2024]

2014
[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2

SHA-2 - Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2. [Accessed 10-06-2024]

2024
[16]

https://deepmind.google/technologies/ synthid/#:~:text=SynthID%20adds%20a%20digital%20watermark%20that’s% 20imperceptible%20to%20the%20human,of%20an%20AI%2Dgenerated%20video

SynthID — deepmind.google. https://deepmind.google/technologies/ synthid/#:~:text=SynthID%20adds%20a%20digital%20watermark%20that’s% 20imperceptible%20to%20the%20human,of%20an%20AI%2Dgenerated%20video. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[17]

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/ additional_data_capture/streaming_depth_data_from_the_truedepth_camera

Truedepth camera. https://developer.apple.com/documentation/avfoundation/ additional_data_capture/streaming_depth_data_from_the_truedepth_camera. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[18]

https: //www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150

Trump supporters target black voters with faked AI images — bbc.com. https: //www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68440150. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[19]

https://source

Trusty TEE | Android Open Source Project — source.android.com. https://source. android.com/docs/security/features/trusty. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

2024
[20]

https: //research.google/blog/udepth-real-time-3d-depth-sensing-on-the-pixel-4/

uDepth: Real-time 3D Depth Sensing on the Pixel 4 — research.google. https: //research.google/blog/udepth-real-time-3d-depth-sensing-on-the-pixel-4/. [Ac- cessed 04-06-2024]

2024
[21]

https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/9517039?hl=en#:~:text=When% 20you%20use%20Face%20Unlock,and%20never%20leaves%20the%20phone

Unlock your Pixel phone with your face - Pixel Phone Help — support.google.com. https://support.google.com/pixelphone/answer/9517039?hl=en#:~:text=When% 20you%20use%20Face%20Unlock,and%20never%20leaves%20the%20phone. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[22]

https://fortune.com/2024/03/07/ai-watermarks-arent-just-easy-to-defeat-they- could-make-disinformation-worse/

Why Meta’s C2PA ’watermarks’ for AI content are flawed — fortune.com. https://fortune.com/2024/03/07/ai-watermarks-arent-just-easy-to-defeat-they- could-make-disinformation-worse/. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[23]

Taylor Swift

X blocks searches for "Taylor Swift" after explicit deepfakes go viral — cb- snews.com. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taylor-swift-deepfakes-x-search- block-twitter/. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[24]

{SCONE}: Secure linux containers with intel {SGX}

Sergei Arnautov, Bohdan Trach, Franz Gregor, Thomas Knauth, Andre Martin, Christian Priebe, Joshua Lind, Divya Muthukumaran, Dan O’keeffe, Mark L Stillwell, et al. {SCONE}: Secure linux containers with intel {SGX}. In 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Imple...

2016
[25]

Tamper resistant software: an implementation

David Aucsmith. Tamper resistant software: an implementation. In Ross Ander- son, editor, Information Hiding, pages 317–333, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996. Springer Berlin Heidelberg

1996
[26]

Fooling state-of-the-art deepfake detection with high-quality deepfakes, 2023

Arian Beckmann, Anna Hilsmann, and Peter Eisert. Fooling state-of-the-art deepfake detection with high-quality deepfakes, 2023

2023
[27]

Hardening cryptographic operations through the use of secure enclaves

André Brandão, João S Resende, and Rolando Martins. Hardening cryptographic operations through the use of secure enclaves. Computers & Security, 108:102327, 2021

2021
[28]

David Champagne and Ruby B. Lee. Scalable architectural support for trusted software. In HPCA - 16 2010 The Sixteenth International Symposium on High- Performance Computer Architecture, pages 1–12, 2010

2010
[29]

Adobe created a symbol to encourage tagging AI-generated con- tent — theverge.com

Emilia David. Adobe created a symbol to encourage tagging AI-generated con- tent — theverge.com. https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/10/23911381/adobe-ai- generated-content-symbol-watermark. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2023
[30]

OpenAI is adding new watermarks to DALL-E 3 — thev- erge.com

Emilia David. OpenAI is adding new watermarks to DALL-E 3 — thev- erge.com. https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/6/24063954/ai-watermarks-dalle3- openai-content-credentials. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[31]

Mesh r-cnn

Georgia Gkioxari, Jitendra Malik, and Justin Johnson. Mesh r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision , pages 9785–9795, 2019

2019
[32]

Making Sense of the World, Several Senses at a Time — scien- tificamerican.com

Lena Groeger. Making Sense of the World, Several Senses at a Time — scien- tificamerican.com. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/making-sense- world-sveral-senses-at-time/. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[33]

Hi- erarchical contrastive inconsistency learning for deepfake video detection

Zhihao Gu, Taiping Yao, Yang Chen, Shouhong Ding, and Lizhuang Ma. Hi- erarchical contrastive inconsistency learning for deepfake video detection. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 596–613. Springer, 2022

2022
[34]

Region-aware temporal inconsistency learning for deepfake video detection

Zhihao Gu, Taiping Yao, Yang Chen, Ran Yi, Shouhong Ding, and Lizhuang Ma. Region-aware temporal inconsistency learning for deepfake video detection. In IJCAI, pages 920–926, 2022

2022
[35]

Lever- aging real talking faces via self-supervision for robust forgery detection

Alexandros Haliassos, Rodrigo Mira, Stavros Petridis, and Maja Pantic. Lever- aging real talking faces via self-supervision for robust forgery detection. 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 14930–14942, 2022

2022
[36]

Meta’s Flimsy AI Watermarking Plan Won’t Save Democracy — spectrum.ieee.org

https://www.facebook.com/48576411181. Meta’s Flimsy AI Watermarking Plan Won’t Save Democracy — spectrum.ieee.org. https://spectrum.ieee.org/meta-ai- watermarks. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[37]

Neal Kwartz

Dr. Neal Kwartz. Problems with C2PA and LinkedIn - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfactor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1034- Problems-with-C2PA-and-LinkedIn.html. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

2024
[38]

Multi-level spatial- temporal feature aggregation and alignment-based selective residual dense prop- agation module for hdr video reconstruction

Yiyu Liu, Fengshan Zhao, Qin Liu, and Takeshi Ikenaga. Multi-level spatial- temporal feature aggregation and alignment-based selective residual dense prop- agation module for hdr video reconstruction. In ICASSP 2024 - 2024 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Acoustics, Speech a...

2024
[39]

Designing and implementing secure boot for military-grade systems - Military Embedded Systems — militaryembed- ded.com

OpenSystems Media. Designing and implementing secure boot for military-grade systems - Military Embedded Systems — militaryembed- ded.com. https://militaryembedded.com/cyber/cybersecurity/designing-and- implementing-secure-boot-for-military-grade-systems. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

2024
[40]

Perception of Synchrony between the Senses — ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Jean Vroomen Mirjam Keetels. Perception of Synchrony between the Senses — ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK92837/. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[41]

Big AI Won’t Stop Election Deepfakes With Watermarks — wired.com

Condé Nast. Big AI Won’t Stop Election Deepfakes With Watermarks — wired.com. https://www.wired.com/story/ai-watermarking-misinformation/. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

2024
[42]

Google’s New Feature Ensures Your Pixel Phone Hasn’t Been Hacked

Condé Nast. Google’s New Feature Ensures Your Pixel Phone Hasn’t Been Hacked. Here’s How It Works — wired.com. https://www.wired.com/story/google-pixel- binary-transparency-security-feature/. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[43]

How Secure Is the iPhone X’s FaceID? Here’s What We Know — wired.com

Condé Nast. How Secure Is the iPhone X’s FaceID? Here’s What We Know — wired.com. https://www.wired.com/story/iphone-x-faceid-security/. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[44]

Researchers Tested AI Watermarks—and Broke All of Them — wired.com

Condé Nast. Researchers Tested AI Watermarks—and Broke All of Them — wired.com. https://www.wired.com/story/artificial-intelligence-watermarking- issues/. [Accessed 31-05-2024]

2024
[45]

https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/

Dall-E-3 Terms of Service. https://openai.com/index/dall-e-3/. [Accessed 30-07- 2024]

2024
[46]

National Institute of Standards and Technology. Federal Information Process- ing Standard (FIPS) 140-2, Security Requirements for Cryptographic Modules — ICMI ’24, 4-8 November 2024, Costa Rica Bhaktipriya Radharapu and Harish Krishna csrc.nist.gov. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/...

2024
[47]

Secure boot

Open Compute Project. Secure boot. Open Compute Project Specification, 2017

2017
[48]

Deepfake generation and detection: A benchmark and survey

Gan Pei, Jiangning Zhang, Menghan Hu, Guangtao Zhai, Chengjie Wang, Zhenyu Zhang, Jian Yang, Chunhua Shen, and Dacheng Tao. Deepfake generation and detection: A benchmark and survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17881, 2024

2024
[49]

Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

Dustin Podell, Zion English, Kyle Lacey, Andreas Blattmann, Tim Dockhorn, Jonas Müller, Joe Penna, and Robin Rombach. Sdxl: Improving latent diffusion models for high-resolution image synthesis, 2023

2023
[50]

Radharapu and H

B. Radharapu and H. Krishna. Taxonomy of adversarial attacks on text-to-image generative models. In 2023 IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) , pages 374–376, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, jun 2023. IEEE Computer Society

2023
[51]

3d thermal imaging: Fusion of thermography and depth cameras

Johannes Rangel, Samuel Soldan, and A Kroll. 3d thermal imaging: Fusion of thermography and depth cameras. In International Conference on Quantitative InfraRed Thermography, volume 3, 2014

2014
[52]

NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-193, Platform Firmware Resiliency Guidelines — csrc.nist.gov

Andrew Regenscheid. NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-193, Platform Firmware Resiliency Guidelines — csrc.nist.gov. https://csrc.nist.gov/pubs/sp/800/193/final. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

2024
[53]

Real-time simultaneous 3d reconstruction and optical flow estimation

Menandro Roxas and Takeshi Oishi. Real-time simultaneous 3d reconstruction and optical flow estimation. In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (W ACV), pages 885–893. IEEE, 2018

2018
[54]

Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not

Mohamed Sabt, Mohammed Achemlal, and Abdelmadjid Bouabdallah. Trusted execution environment: What it is, and what it is not. In 2015 IEEE Trust- com/BigDataSE/ISPA, volume 1, pages 57–64, 2015

2015
[55]

Com- bining modern 3d reconstruction and thermal imaging: generation of large- scale 3d thermograms in real-time

Robert Schmoll Sebastian Schramm, Phil Osterhold and Andreas Kroll. Com- bining modern 3d reconstruction and thermal imaging: generation of large- scale 3d thermograms in real-time. Quantitative InfraRed Thermography Journal , 19(5):295–311, 2022

2022
[56]

Hardware Security Module, pages 83–87

Maria Sommerhalder. Hardware Security Module, pages 83–87. Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 2023

2023
[57]

Shahroz Tariq, Sowon Jeon, and Simon S. Woo. Am i a real or fake celebrity? measuring commercial face recognition web apis under deepfake impersonation attack, 2021

2021
[58]

Deepfake detection: A comprehensive study from the reliability perspective

Tianyi Wang, Xin Liao, Kam Pui Chow, Xiaodong Lin, and Yinglong Wang. Deepfake detection: A comprehensive study from the reliability perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.10881, 2022

2022 arXiv
[59]

Avoid-df: Audio-visual joint learning for detecting deepfake

Wenyuan Yang, Xiaoyu Zhou, Zhikai Chen, Bofei Guo, Zhongjie Ba, Zhihua Xia, Xiaochun Cao, and Kui Ren. Avoid-df: Audio-visual joint learning for detecting deepfake. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security , 18:2015–2029, 2023

2015
[60]

Falsified photos: Fooling adobe’s cryptographically-signed metadata

Adam Zeloof. Falsified photos: Fooling adobe’s cryptographically-signed metadata. https://hackaday.com/2023/11/30/falsified-photos-fooling-adobes- cryptographically-signed-metadata/

2023
[61]

Spatiotemporal inconsistency learning and interactive fusion for deepfake video detection

Dengyong Zhang, Wenjie Zhu, Xin Liao, Feifan Qi, Gaobo Yang, and Xiangling Ding. Spatiotemporal inconsistency learning and interactive fusion for deepfake video detection. ACM Transactions on Multimedia Computing, Communications and Applications, 2024

2024
[62]

Consistent depth of moving objects in video

Zhoutong Zhang, Forrester Cole, Richard Tucker, William T Freeman, and Tali Dekel. Consistent depth of moving objects in video. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), 40(4):1–12, 2021

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/wp548- single-chip-fips/Introduction

AMD Trusted execution environment. https://docs.amd.com/r/en-US/wp548- single-chip-fips/Introduction. [Accessed 11-06-2024]

work page 2024

[2] [2]

https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/certifications/ apc3a7433eb89/web

Apple’s secure enclave. https://support.apple.com/en-gb/guide/certifications/ apc3a7433eb89/web. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024

[3] [3]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1031-C2PA- from-the-Attackers-Perspective.html

C2PA from the Attacker's Perspective - The Hacker Factor Blog — hacker- factor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1031-C2PA- from-the-Attackers-Perspective.html. [Accessed 13-06-2024]

work page 2024

[4] [4]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1010-C2PAs- Butterfly-Effect.html

C2PA's Butterfly Effect - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfac- tor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1010-C2PAs- Butterfly-Effect.html. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024

[5] [5]

https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/919-Closed- Standards.html#:~:text=Ideally%2C%20the%20picture,the%20trusted%20notary

Closed Standards - The Hacker Factor Blog — hackerfactor.com. https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/919-Closed- Standards.html#:~:text=Ideally%2C%20the%20picture,the%20trusted%20notary. [Accessed 22-06-2024]

work page 2024

[6] [6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Digital_signature

Digital signature - Wikipedia — en.wikipedia.org. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Digital_signature. [Accessed 10-06-2024]

work page 2024

[7] [7]

https://support.apple.com/en-us/102381

Face id, apple. https://support.apple.com/en-us/102381. [Accessed 03-06-2024]

work page 2024

[8] [8]

https://policies

Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy — policies.google.com. https://policies. google.com/terms/generative-ai/use-policy. [Accessed 30-07-2024]

work page 2024