Deep learning-based image watermarking commonly adopts an "Encoder-Noise Layer-Decoder" (END) architecture to improve robustness against random channel distortions, yet it often overlooks intentional manipulations introduced by adversaries with additional knowledge. In this paper, we revisit this paradigm and expose a critical yet underexplored vulnerability: the Known Original Attack (KOA), where an adversary has access to multiple original-watermarked image pairs, enabling various targeted suppression strategies. We show that even a simple residual-based removal approach, namely estimating an embedding residual from known pairs and subtracting it from unseen watermarked images, can almost completely remove the watermark while preserving visual quality. This vulnerability stems from the insufficient image dependency of residuals produced by END frameworks, which makes them transferable across images. To address this, we propose ResGuard, a plug-and-play module that enhances KOA robustness by enforcing image-dependent embedding. Its core lies in a residual specificity enhancement loss, which encourages residuals to be tightly coupled with their host images and thus improves image dependency. Furthermore, an auxiliary KOA noise layer injects residual-style perturbations during training, allowing the decoder to remain reliable under stronger embedding inconsistencies. Integrated into existing frameworks, ResGuard boosts KOA robustness, improving average watermark extraction accuracy from 59.87% to 99.81%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Illustration of an example of the Known Original Attack (KOA) evaluated with RoSteALS ( Bui et al., 2023b ) , showing that even a single residual extracted from one host–watermarked pair can suppress watermark decoding across other images.
Figure 2. Framework of the proposed ResGuard. It consists of five main components: the encoder E , the combined noise layer, the KOA noise layer, the residual specificity enhancement module, and the decoder D . The model is trained end-to-end using two basic losses: Limg enforces visual similarity between the host and watermarked images, and Lmes ensures accurate message extraction under both common distortions and KOA attacks. Additionally, LRSE promotes image-specific residual patterns and suppresses cross-image transferability, enhancing robustness against KOA.
Methods
Venue
Image size
message length
Optimizer
Learning rate
HiDDeN
ECCV 2018
128×128
30
Adam
10−3
MBRS
ACM MM 2021
256×256
256
Adam
10−3
CIN
ACM MM 2022
128×128
30
Adam
10−4
RosteALS
CVPRW 2023
256×256
100
AdamW
8×10−5
InvisMark
WACV 2025
256×256
100
AdamW
10−4
Table 1. Training configurations for each baseline method. We follow the original implementation settings to ensure fair comparisons across methods.
Figure 3. Bitwise extraction accuracy under KOA across five baseline methods. Each curve shows performance variation with the number of available host–watermarked pairs N . Models equipped with ResGuard maintain consistently high accuracy, demonstrating strong robustness against KOA.
Methods
Extraction Accuracy
KOA Robustness
Cln. ⇑
Dis. ⇑
Bit Acc. ⇑
HiDDeN
1.0000
1.0000
0.5217
HiDDeN-ResGuard
1.0000
1.0000
0.9957
MBRS
1.0000
1.0000
0.5927
MBRS-ResGuard
1.0000
1.0000
0.9988
CIN
1.0000
0.9997
0.6147
Table 2. Comparison results of KOA robustness. “Cln” indicates results on clean images, while “Dis” represents results under channel distortions.
Methods
Watermarking Performance
KOA Robustness
Image Quality
Extraction Accuracy
Bit Acc. ⇑
PSNR ⇑
SSIM ⇑
LPIPS ⇓
Cln. ⇑
Dis. ⇑
JPEG
GN
S&P
GB
MB
MBRS
39.62
0.9361
0.0214
1.0000
0.9969
0.9967
0.9941
0.9978
0.9939
0.5713
MBRS-ResGuard
39.43
0.9287
0.0297
1.0000
0.9984
0.9988
0.9927
0.9974
0.9983
0.9982
Table 3. Evaluation results under diverse channel distortions using MBRS. “Cln” indicates results on clean images without distortions, while “JPEG”, “GN”, “S&P”, “GB”, and “MB” correspond to JPEG compression, Gaussian noise, salt-and-pepper noise, Gaussian blur, and median blur, respectively.
Figure 5. Comparison of inter-image residual similarity before and after applying ResGuard across five watermarking methods. Solid markers denote original models, while hollow markers represent ResGuard-enhanced counterparts. A lower similarity indicates more image-specific residuals.
Figure 6. Qualitative comparison of residual patterns before and after applying ResGuard across five watermarking methods. For each method, we visualize the original image, the residual produced by the baseline model (w/o ResGuard), and the residual produced by the ResGuard-enhanced model (w/ ResGuard). All residuals are scaled by a factor of 10 for visualization.
Figure 7. Visual results of original and ResGuard-enhanced models. For each baseline, we show the host image (top), watermarked image, KOA-attacked image, and the residual (bottom, ×10 magnified). Each column pair contrasts the original model (left) and its ResGuard-enhanced variant (right).
Methods
SSIM ⇑
PSNR ⇑
LPIPS ⇓
HiDDeN
36.40
0.9474
0.0048
HiDDeN-ResGuard
36.42
0.9412
0.0045
MBRS
40.42
0.9466
0.0123
MBRS-ResGuard
40.46
0.9438
0.0115
CIN
41.29
0.9615
0.0008
CIN-ResGuard
41.39
0.9587
0.0007
Table 4. Visual quality of watermarked images. PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS are reported for original and ResGuard-enhanced models.
Methods
SSIM ⇑
PSNR ⇑
LPIPS ⇓
HiDDeN
36.85
0.9331
0.0065
HiDDeN-ResGuard
36.35
0.9265
0.0062
MBRS
40.43
0.9369
0.0167
MBRS-ResGuard
40.45
0.9393
0.0171
CIN
41.33
0.9526
0.0009
CIN-ResGuard
41.40
0.9532
0.0009
Table 5. Visual quality of images after KOA. PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS are reported for original and ResGuard-enhanced models.
Methods
Mechanisms
Watermarking Performance
KOA Robustness
Image Quality
Extraction Accuracy
Bit Acc. ⇑
PSNR ⇑
SSIM ⇑
LPIPS ⇓
Cln. ⇑
Dis. ⇑
HiDDeN
Base
36.4045
0.9474
0.0048
1.0000
1.0000
0.5217
RSE
36.8094
0.9102
0.0039
1.0000
1.0000
0.9513
KNL
36.3545
0.9121
0.0050
1.0000
1.0000
0.9601
ResGuard
36.4233
0.9472
0.0045
1.0000
1.0000
0.9957
Table 6. Ablation study on the effectiveness of the residual specificity enhancement loss and the residual transferability suppression loss. “Cln” indicates results on clean images, while “Dis” represents results under channel distortions.
Figure 8. Bitwise extraction accuracy under KOA across five baseline methods. Each curve shows performance variation with the number of available host–watermarked pairs N . Models equipped with ResGuard maintain consistently high accuracy, demonstrating strong robustness against KOA.
Methods
Extraction Accuracy
KOA Robustness
Cln. ⇑
Dis. ⇑
Bit Acc. ⇑
HiDDeN
1.0000
1.0000
0.7333
HiDDeN-ResGuard
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
MBRS
1.0000
1.0000
0.7447
MBRS-ResGuard
1.0000
1.0000
1.0000
CIN
1.0000
0.9997
0.7313
Table 7. Comparison results of KOA robustness. “Cln” indicates results on clean images, while “Dis” represents results under channel distortions.
Deep learning-based image watermarking, while robust against conventional distortions, remains vulnerable to advanced adversarial and regeneration attacks. Conventional countermeasures, which jointly optimize the encoder and decoder via a noise layer, face 2 inevitable challenges: (1) decrease of clean accuracy due to decoder adversarial training and (2) limited robustness due to simultaneous training of all three advanced attacks. To overcome these issues, we propose AdvMark, a novel two-stage fine-tuning framework that decouples the defense strategies. In stage 1, we address adversarial vulnerability via a tailored adversarial training paradigm that primarily fine-tunes the encoder while only conditionally updating the decoder. This approach learns to move the image into a non-attackable region, rather than modifying the decision boundary, thus preserving clean accuracy. In stage 2, we tackle distortion and regeneration attacks via direct image optimization. To preserve the adversarial robustness gained in stage 1, we formulate a principled, constrained image loss with theoretical guarantees, which balances the deviation from cover and previous encoded images. We also propose a quality-aware early-stop to further guarantee the lower bound of visual quality. Extensive experiments demonstrate AdvMark outperforms with the highest image quality and comprehensive robustness, i.e. up to 29%, 33% and 46% accuracy improvement for distortion, regeneration and adversarial attacks, respectively.
Jiahui Chen, Zehang Deng, Zeyu Zhang +3
Tsinghua University · Swinburne University of Technology · The Australian National University +2
Neural image watermarks can be forged by extracting watermark-bearing residuals from released images and transferring them to unrelated content. While prior work has demonstrated this vulnerability, what makes these residuals transferable remains poorly understood. We formalize this vulnerability with residual transferability (RT), a metric that quantifies how well watermark evidence remains decodable after transfer across unrelated images. Through comparative analyses and controlled interventions, we find that common training-side variations do not account for the large RT differences across watermarking systems; instead, architectural design plays a central role. By contrasting high- and low-RT systems and validating their architectural differences through controlled interventions, we identify two mechanisms that strengthen the dependence of watermark evidence on the cover image, thereby suppressing the residual transferability. These findings provide concrete design guidance for developing more forgery-resistant watermarking architectures. Complementarily, for existing watermarking systems where architectural redesign is impractical, we introduce CoverLock, a plug-and-play strategy for existing watermarking systems that strengthens such image dependence without architectural redesign. Across representative watermarking systems exhibiting high residual transferability, CoverLock achieves a more favorable security--robustness trade-off than both traditional handcrafted defenses and learned classifier-based defenses.
Digital watermarking supports source attribution for AI-generated images, but its reliability depends on resistance to removal attacks. Some attacks attempt to remove watermarks by forcing the decoded watermark to differ from the original. However, this can produce an inverted watermark that remains detectable, causing removal to fail, while further attempts to alter the watermark may unnecessarily degrade image quality. To address these limitations, we present LiBRA (Latent In-band Bidirectional Removal Attack), which aims to make watermarks undetectable while preserving image quality. Instead of continually pushing the watermark toward inversion, LiBRA adjusts the image to conceal the watermark without encouraging further changes that could degrade image quality. Some attacks keep pushing decoded bits away from the original watermark, even when further changes preserve detectability and damage image quality. With access to the watermark key and decoder, LiBRA makes bounded changes in a public autoencoder's latent space. Unlike inversion-driven objectives that cannot correct excessive inversion, LiBRA guides average decoding confidence toward random guessing from either direction. This helps avoid an inverted but detectable watermark. Leaving individual bits flexible allows image-quality constraints to favor less damaging changes, while an optional frequency-guided mask limits their location. We verify removal using an exact two-sided binomial test rather than assuming the confidence target guarantees success.
Saibo Ye, Huajie Chen, Xin Guo +5
Faculty of Data Science, City University of Macau, Macao SAR, China · Corresponding Author · School of Information and Communications Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, China +2