Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 35 references

Douglas-Quaid -- Open Source Image Matching Library

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An open-source library can automatically match and cluster screenshots with 80% accuracy, F1, true-positive and true-negative rates at a merged distance threshold of about 0.075 on real CERT datasets.

desk verdict The library is real and the design is sensible, but the headline 80% accuracy is an in-sample threshold optimum, not a validated production figure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04014 v1 pith:IWCXOJIL submitted 2019-08-12 cs.CR cs.CV

Vincent Falconieri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CRcs.CV
keywords ThreatIntelligencePhishingDatasetOpenSourceSecurityCERTIncidentResponseVisualDetection
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

Douglas-Quaid is an open-source image-matching library aimed at security analysts who must sort and correlate screenshots of phishing pages, sandboxed sites, and onion services. The paper argues that even partial automation of this sorting would reduce analyst workload, and claims the library can reach 80% accuracy, 80% F1, 80% true positives, and 80% true negatives at a merged distance threshold of about 0.075 on real CERT datasets. Instead of exposing obscure thresholds, the library calibrates its own parameters from a small labeled sample and a ground-truth file. The design stores each image as a set of features and clusters similar images around representative pictures, so queries compare against clusters rather than every stored image.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is a database of clusters implemented as sorted sets, where each cluster's first element is the most central (representative) picture; a query or new picture is compared first with each cluster's representative pictures and only then with full members of the closest clusters, aiming at sub-linear search. Each picture is stored as a feature vector combining fuzzy perceptual hashes (A-HASH, P-HASH, D-HASH), TLSH, and ORB keypoint descriptors. Distances from these heterogeneous algorithms are not combined as raw numbers; instead each algorithm outputs a distance and a YES/MAYBE/NO decision, and a merging rule combines decisions. A self-calibration step searches thresholds against a small ground-truth sample and target true/false positive and negative rates, producing the configuration file used in production.

What would settle it

Hold out a separately labeled subset of the phishing and onion-domain screenshot pools, run calibration on the standard small sample, then measure accuracy, F1, true-positive rate, and true-negative rate at the calibrated threshold on the held-out subset; if those metrics fall well below 80% (or if the threshold that reaches 80% on calibration gives near-random results on held-out data), the reported performance does not transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a modular, high-level API library can match and cluster screenshots automatically at a practically useful accuracy on real security datasets. On the paper's evaluation, at a merged distance threshold near 0.075, the system reaches 80% accuracy, an 80% F1 score, 80% true positive rate and 80% true negative rate (with 20% false positives and 20% false negatives). The paper also introduces a calibration procedure that turns user-specified target rates into per-algorithm YES/MAYBE/NO thresholds, so operators do not need to understand the internal distance scales. The intended consequence is a drop in the manual burden of correlating screenshots in threat-intelligence workflows.

Load-bearing premise

The 80% figures assume that the small labeled calibration sample (20-40 images) and the manually constructed ground truth accurately represent the distribution of the full production dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Security teams can deploy the library without tuning obscure thresholds; the calibration step sets per-algorithm thresholds from target rates.
  • Queries run against cluster representatives rather than all stored images, so response time grows with cluster count rather than image count.
  • The YES/MAYBE/NO decision layer can separate visually similar but distinct pages (e.g., PayPal vs non-PayPal), which a single distance threshold would not reliably do.
  • Because the library is open source and modular, new feature algorithms can be added without rewriting the matching core; the paper outlines OCR, geometric verification, and human-in-the-loop matching as candidates.
  • If deployed in threat-intelligence pipelines, even partial automation of screenshot classification should reduce the number of images analysts must examine by hand.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural testable extension is to vary the calibration sample size (20, 40, 100 images) and measure how much the 80% figures degrade on held-out data; the paper does not report this sensitivity.
  • The same clustering-plus-decisions design may transfer to other visually repetitive domains, such as duplicate product images or UI regression testing, but the calibration step would need to be rerun per domain.
  • The claimed sub-linear query complexity depends on cluster granularity; a threshold set too high would merge all images into one cluster and erase the speed advantage, so speed and accuracy are coupled through calibration.
  • If ground-truth errors are systematic (e.g., mislabeled phishing variants), the calibration will absorb them into thresholds, so independent evaluation on fresh labeled data is the real test.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents Douglas-Quaid, an open-source library for image matching and clustering aimed at security analysts who need to classify and correlate screenshots (e.g., phishing pages, sandbox screenshots, onion-domain websites). The library is designed as a modular client-server system using Redis storage, with pluggable matching algorithms (A-HASH, P-HASH, D-HASH, TLSH, ORB) whose distances are converted into human-readable YES/MAYBE/NO decisions and then merged. A self-calibration procedure (Section 4.5) is proposed to set algorithm thresholds from a small ground-truth sample. The paper reports an 80% accuracy, F1 score, true-positive rate, and true-negative rate on a real CERT dataset at a merged distance threshold of about 0.075 (Section 5.1, Figure 12b), discusses speed-related design choices, and outlines future extensions.

Significance. If the 80% figure were a reliable, generalizable performance estimate, this would be a useful contribution: the library is open source, modular, and addresses a real operational need in threat-intelligence workflows. The decision-based merging approach and the self-calibration idea are pragmatic and potentially valuable. The paper also makes its datasets and related tools publicly available, which supports reproducibility. However, the empirical validation as presented does not substantiate the headline performance claim, and the speed evaluation promised in the abstract is not actually reported. The core engineering contribution is credible, but the quantitative claims need substantial revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.1, Figure 12b] The reported 80% accuracy, 80% F1, 80% true-positive rate, and 80% true-negative rate are presented as the best values achievable by sweeping the merged distance threshold on the evaluation set (the text says 'we can at best reach a 80% accuracy... threshold at 0.075'). Because the threshold is the central operating parameter of the matching/clustering pipeline and was selected after inspecting the same data used for scoring, these numbers are in-sample optima, not predictive performance estimates. The paper needs a clear separation between a calibration set (used to set thresholds, e.g., via the Section 4.5 procedure) and a disjoint evaluation set, and the reported metrics should be those obtained at the threshold chosen by calibration, not at the threshold that maximizes the metric on the test set.
  2. [Section 5.2] The abstract and introduction promise 'quality and speed results', but Section 5.2 describes only the evaluation protocol and a profiling snapshot (Figure 14) of where time is consumed. No quantitative speed results are provided, such as add/request latency versus dataset size, throughput, or scaling curves. Without measured numbers, the claims that the library is 'performance-oriented' and 'much faster than Carl-Hauser' are unsupported.
  3. [Section 5.1 / Section 2.2] The quality evaluation does not state which dataset (circl-ail-dataset-01 or circl-phishing-dataset-01) was used, how many images were included, or how the ground-truth clusters were constructed. This omission prevents the reader from reproducing the experiment or judging whether the 80% result is specific to a small or easy subset. The paper should specify the dataset, the number of evaluation images, the composition of the ground truth, and the exact evaluation protocol, including whether the evaluation set overlaps with the calibration set used in Section 4.5.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2] The sentence beginning 'the storage uses Redis...' starts with a lowercase letter after a period, and the phrase 'O(√nbpicturesindatabase)' is a typo that should be 'O(√(number of pictures in database))'.
  2. [Section 3.2 / Section 4.5] The stated calibration subset size is inconsistent: Section 3.2 says '20 to 40 images sampled from a complete dataset', while Section 4.5 says the number 'should not exceed 100'. Please align these numbers.
  3. [Section 5.1] The text reports '80% true negative, 80% true positive, 20% false positive and 20% false negative'; this is internally consistent (TPR+FN=100%, TNR+FP=100%) but should be accompanied by the actual confusion matrix so readers can verify the rates.
  4. [References] The citation in the Introduction, '[1][?][2]', contains an unresolved placeholder '?' that should be corrected.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline 80% accuracy is a threshold chosen on the evaluation data itself, not a held-out prediction.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.1 (Quality), Figure 12b; cf. Section 4.5 (Self-Calibration)]
    "Figure 12b shows that if we rely only on distances and put a threshold to evaluate the 'goodness' of matches, we can at best reach a 80% accuracy, 80% F1 score with 80% true negative, 80% true positive, 20% false positive and 20% false negative (threshold at 0.075, roughly)."

    Section 4.5 defines the calibration algorithm as fitting thresholds to a ground-truth similarity graph ('the calibration algorithm will seek to optimize the internal parameters of Douglas-Quaid with these inputs'). Section 5.1 then reports the operating point as the best value obtained by 'put a threshold' on the same confusion-matrix data ('we can at best reach'). The 80% numbers at threshold 0.075 are therefore the result of the threshold-selection optimization itself, not an independent evaluation on a held-out set. No train/calibration/evaluation split is described for the reported quality figures, so the accuracy claim is an in-sample fitted maximum rather than a prediction of production performance.

full rationale

No formal derivation or theorem is involved, so there is no self-definitional or uniqueness-import circularity. The main quantitative claim, however, is in-sample: the self-calibration procedure (Section 4.5) optimizes thresholds against a ground-truth clustering, and the Section 5.1 headline is stated as the 'best' result at a distance threshold selected on the evaluation data. That makes the 80% accuracy/F1 figure the value of the fit rather than a validated prediction; a held-out split or externally fixed threshold would be needed to support the production claim. The engineering content of the paper (architecture, modular algorithms, open-source release) is independent and not circular, so the score is moderate rather than maximal.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on calibrated thresholds and on the correctness of a user-supplied ground truth. No new entities are introduced. The free parameters are the internal thresholds and the number of representative pictures per cluster, all set either by calibration or by hand, and the 0.075 threshold used to report accuracy.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-algorithm decision thresholds (yes-to-maybe, maybe-to-no) = Not given numerically; Figure 10 shows optimized ORB thresholds
    Set by the self-calibration algorithm (Section 4.5) on a ground-truth subset.
  • Cluster creation threshold = Not specified numerically
    Determines when a new cluster is created in the main data structure (Section 4.1), impacting speed and cluster structure.
  • Number of representative pictures tested per cluster (PARAMETER) = Not specified
    Explicitly called 'PARAMETER' in Section 4.1; controls the trade-off between search speed and match quality.
  • Merged distance threshold for reported accuracy = 0.075
    Chosen as the best threshold on the evaluation set to maximize accuracy in Section 5.1, Figure 12b.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Normalized Euclidean distances in [0,1] are meaningful across all enabled algorithms
    Section 4.2 defines distances this way and builds decisions on them; the homogeneity of scales is assumed.
  • domain assumption The user-provided ground truth clustering is correct
    Self-calibration (Section 4.5) and all accuracy numbers compare against this ground truth; errors in it propagate directly into reported performance.
  • ad hoc to paper A 20-40 image sample is representative of the production dataset
    Section 4.5 limits calibration datasets to about 100 pictures and recommends 20-40; no statistical justification is given.
  • domain assumption Perceptual hash distances and ORB descriptor matching correlate with visual similarity for screenshots
    Used implicitly in Section 3.4 when selecting algorithms.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Douglas-Quaid -- Open Source Image Matching Library." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IWCXOJIL

@misc{pith2026190804014,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Douglas-Quaid -- Open Source Image Matching Library},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IWCXOJIL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04014}
}
read the original abstract

Security analysts need to classify, search and correlate numerous images. Automatic classification tools improve the efficiency of such tasks. However, no open-source and turnkey library was found able to reach this goal. The present paper introduces an Open-Source modular library for the specific cases of visual correlation and Image Matching named Douglas-Quaid. The design of the library, chosen tradeoffs, encountered challenges, envisioned solutions as well as quality and speed results are presented in this paper. We also explore researches directions and future potential developments of the library. Our claim is that even partial automation of screenshots classification would reduce the burden on security teams and that Douglas-Quaid is a step forward in this direction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04014 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of projects 2.2 Datasets Tests, performances and speed evaluation were conducted using real sets of pictures. These datasets were extracted from CIRCL’s tools, such as AIL and URLAbuse. Two main datasets were used : circl-ail-dataset-01 of 470+ pictures and circl-phishing-dataset-01 of 37000+ pictures. Phishing datasets and AIL datasets are available for research purposes at circl.lu/opendata/datasets/circl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Dataset’s samples 3 Design Carl-Hauser framework allowed us to know the pros and cons of each algorithm and approach. It acted as a precursory of Douglas-Quaid library. 3.1 Hypothesis, constraints and goals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Douglas-Quaid logo We set main assumptions and goals as well as standard software design expec￾tations (maintainability, quality of code, documentation ...). These constraints were : • No Open-Source Image-Matching library with High-level API were found. API calls should be kept to minimum and as simple as "store a picture", "request similar pictures", etc. • From Carl-Hauser, we found out that chosen algorithms are… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Overview of Douglas-Quaid Library software architecture [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Representation of one picture Few Image matching libraries were tested, including : • ImageHash5 which includes a wide list of fuzzy hash algo￾rithm such as AHash, DHash, PHash, WHash, ... The pur￾pose of these algorithms is to map input files (here, images) into a lim…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Conceptual view versus Implementation view [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distance homogeneity problem Distances are needed but insufficient to represent link between pictures. Heterogeneity of algorithm’s output is a problem, as the following will show. Please note that distances are considered here as normal￾ized euclidean distance, which …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Decision making methods This calibration dataset needs to be sampled from the future production dataset. Due to heavy and repeated computations, the number of sampled pictures should not exceed 100 in order for the calibration to be computed in relevant time. Exact com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Calibration process overview FPR < X% FNR < X% TNR > X% TPR > X% YES MAYBE NO Conditions : TNR AND TPR OR TNR AND FNR OR FPR AND TPR OR FPR AND FNR Sanity check : TPR >= TNR ET FPR FNR >= TNR AND FPR Yes to Maybe Yes to Maybe Yes to Maybe Yes to Maybe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Thresholds extraction from a scoring graph - left values are simulated, right values are real (ORB algorithm) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Similarity graph extracts – We put aside 10 pictures that will serve as request pictures. – We also put aside N pictures, the exact number being the current box size. – We send the N pictures in the adding queue to the database, and wait until they are added. – We req…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Performance overview 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Quality depending of threshold filtered by match type. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Cluster creation threshold at 0 (worst case) - Time repartition in database adder - CProfile of DataBase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Software Components architecture 23 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: CLI, API and extractor structure on client side [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    CNN for task classification using computer screenshots for integration into dynamic calendar/task management systems,

    A. Sampat and A. Haskell, “CNN for task classification using computer screenshots for integration into dynamic calendar/task management systems,” p. 6

    work page

  2. [2]

    Fighting Phishing with Discriminative Keypoint Features,

    K. Chen, J. Chen, C. Huang, and C. Chen, “Fighting Phishing with Discriminative Keypoint Features,” vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 56–63

    work page

  3. [3]

    AIL - The design and implementation of an Analysis Information Leak framework,

    S. Mokaddem, G. Wagener, and A. Dulaunoy, “AIL - The design and implementation of an Analysis Information Leak framework,” in2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 5049–5057

    work page

  4. [4]

    MISP: The Design and Implementation of a Collaborative Threat Intelligence Sharing Platform,

    C. Wagner, A. Dulaunoy, G. Wagener, and A. Iklody, “MISP: The Design and Implementation of a Collaborative Threat Intelligence Sharing Platform,” in Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Workshop on Information Sharing and Collaborative Security - WISCS’16 . ACM Press, pp. 49–56. [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2994539.2994542

    work page arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Large scale reverse image search - A method comparison for almost identical image retrieval,

    M. Gaillard and E. Egyed-Zsigmond, “Large scale reverse image search - A method comparison for almost identical image retrieval,” inINFORSID

    work page

  6. [6]

    Implementation and Benchmarking of Perceptual Image Hash Functions

    C. Zauner and M. Steinebach, “Implementation and Benchmarking of Perceptual Image Hash Functions.”

    work page

  7. [7]

    Image Matching: An Application-oriented Benchmark

    J. Bian, L. Zhang, Y . Liu, W.-Y . Lin, M.-M. Cheng, and I. D. Reid, “Image Matching: An Application-oriented Benchmark.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1709.03917

    work page Pith review arXiv

  8. [8]

    Large-scale image retrieval using transductive support vector machines,

    H. Cevikalp, M. Elmas, and S. Ozkan, “Large-scale image retrieval using transductive support vector machines,” vol. 173, pp. 2–12. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1077314217301364

    work page

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    [Online]

    [1908.03449] Carl-Hauser – Open Source Image Matching Algorithms Benchmarking Framework. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.03449

    1908 arXiv

  2. [10]

    VisJSClassificator – Manual Visual Collaborative Classification Graph-based Tool

    V . Falconieri, “VisJSClassificator – Manual Visual Collaborative Classification Graph-based Tool.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02941

    1908 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Open Dataset of Phishing and Tor Hidden Services Screen-captures

    ——, “Open Dataset of Phishing and Tor Hidden Services Screen-captures.” [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.02449

    1908 arXiv

  4. [12]

    [Online]

    Repository Structure and Python. [Online]. Available: https://www.kennethreitz.org/essays/ repository-structure-and-python

  5. [13]

    F.-P. Lin. Good logging practice in Python. [Online]. Available: https://fangpenlin.com/posts/2012/08/26/ good-logging-practice-in-python/

    2012

  6. [14]

    TLSH – A Locality Sensitive Hash,

    J. Oliver, C. Cheng, and Y . Chen, “TLSH – A Locality Sensitive Hash,” in2013 Fourth Cybercrime and Trustworthy Computing Workshop. IEEE, pp. 7–13. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6754635/

  7. [15]

    Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,

    D. G. Lowe, “Distinctive Image Features from Scale-Invariant Keypoints,” vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 91–110. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:VISI.0000029664.99615.94

  8. [16]

    Anatomy of the SIFT Method,

    I. R. Otero and M. Delbracio, “Anatomy of the SIFT Method,” vol. 4, pp. 370–396. [Online]. Available: http://www.ipol.im/pub/art/2014/82/

    2014

  9. [17]

    SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features,

    H. Bay, T. Tuytelaars, and L. Van Gool, “SURF: Speeded Up Robust Features,” inComputer Vision – ECCV 2006, A. Leonardis, H. Bischof, and A. Pinz, Eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, vol. 3951, pp. 404–417. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/11744023_32

    2006 doi

  10. [18]

    ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF,

    E. Rublee, V . Rabaud, K. Konolige, and G. Bradski, “ORB: An efficient alternative to SIFT or SURF,” in 2011 International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, pp. 2564–2571. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6126544/

    2011

  11. [19]

    A comparative analysis of SIFT, SURF, KAZE, AKAZE, ORB, and BRISK,

    S. A. K. Tareen and Z. Saleem, “A comparative analysis of SIFT, SURF, KAZE, AKAZE, ORB, and BRISK,” in 2018 International Conference on Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET). IEEE, pp. 1–10. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8346440/

    2018

  12. [20]

    [Online]

    CIRCL » AIL - Analysis Information Leak framework - Training Materials. [Online]. Available: https://www.circl.lu/services/ail-training-materials/

  13. [21]

    Open Source testing framework for image correlation, distance and analysis: CIRCL/carl-hauser,

    “Open Source testing framework for image correlation, distance and analysis: CIRCL/carl-hauser,” CIRCL - Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/CIRCL/carl-hauser

  14. [22]

    Open source software for image correlation, distance and analysis: CIRCL/douglas-quaid,

    “Open source software for image correlation, distance and analysis: CIRCL/douglas-quaid,” CIRCL - Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/CIRCL/douglas-quaid

  15. [23]

    Robust image matching based on the information of SIFT,

    J. Dou, Q. Qin, and Z. Tu, “Robust image matching based on the information of SIFT,” vol. 171, pp. 850–861. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030402618309021 19 Douglas-Quaid - Open Source Image Matching Library A PREPRINT

  16. [24]

    A Survey on Image Retrieval Methods,

    A. M. Marshall and D. S. Gunasekaran, “A Survey on Image Retrieval Methods,” p. 15

  17. [25]

    MISP (core software): Open Source Threat Intelligence and Sharing Platform (formely known as Malware Information Sharing Platform) - MISP/MISP,

    “MISP (core software): Open Source Threat Intelligence and Sharing Platform (formely known as Malware Information Sharing Platform) - MISP/MISP,” MISP Project. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/MISP/MISP

  18. [26]

    [Online]

    Redis. [Online]. Available: https://redis.io/

  19. [27]

    URL Abuse: A Versatile Software for URL review, analysis and black-list reporting - CIRCL/url-abuse,

    “URL Abuse: A Versatile Software for URL review, analysis and black-list reporting - CIRCL/url-abuse,” CIRCL - Computer Incident Response Center Luxembourg. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/CIRCL/url-abuse

  20. [28]

    Classificator for pictures matching and clustering. Fast and visual.: Vincent- CIRCL/visjs_classificator

    Vincent-CIRCL, “Classificator for pictures matching and clustering. Fast and visual.: Vincent- CIRCL/visjs_classificator.” [Online]. Available: https://github.com/Vincent-CIRCL/visjs_classificator 20 Douglas-Quaid - Open Source Image Matching Library A PREPRINT Part I Appendices ...

  21. [29]

    Create Worker Handler

  22. [30]

    Start Requester Workers

  23. [31]

    Start Feature Workers

  24. [32]

    more path independant

    Start Cache DB REDIS CACHE INSTANCE Distance Engine Database Accessor Factorize common code DB Common Feature ExtractorREDIS CACHE INSTANCE REDIS CACHE INSTANCE REDIS STORAGE INSTANCE API - Server side add_picture request_picture request_result ping Dump DB graph Wait until ad...

  25. [33]

    Create DB Handler NOT YET NOT YET Expiration time : 24H (in configuration file) ID Distance Decision ClusterMatch ImageID ClusterID Distance Decision ImageMatch Name Distance Decision AlgoMatch YES/MAYBE/NO DecisionTypes Allow to keep track of top N elements on a specific attribu...

  26. [34]

    Get distance picture to cluster b

    Get top Matching clusters a. Get distance picture to cluster b. Get distance picture to picture c. Get best matching clusters

  27. [35]

    no result

    Get top Matching pictures of these clusters b. Get distance picture to picture c. if best picture distance < matching distance return list of matches else return "no result" Figure 15: Software Components architecture 23 Douglas-Quaid - Open Source Image Matching Library A PRE...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.