Showing 1–18 of 18 results for author: Tramer, F

Evaluating Superhuman Models with Consistency Checks

Authors: Lukas Fluri, Daniel Paleka, Florian Tramèr

Abstract: If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impos… ▽ More If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record. △ Less

Submitted 19 October, 2023; v1 submitted 16 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: 42 pages, 18 figures. Code and data are available at https://github.com/ethz-spylab/superhuman-ai-consistency

Evading Black-box Classifiers Without Breaking Eggs

Authors: Edoardo Debenedetti, Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr

Abstract: Decision-based evasion attacks repeatedly query a black-box classifier to generate adversarial examples. Prior work measures the cost of such attacks by the total number of queries made to the classifier. We argue this metric is flawed. Most security-critical machine learning systems aim to weed out "bad" data (e.g., malware, harmful content, etc). Queries to such systems carry a fundamentally asy… ▽ More Decision-based evasion attacks repeatedly query a black-box classifier to generate adversarial examples. Prior work measures the cost of such attacks by the total number of queries made to the classifier. We argue this metric is flawed. Most security-critical machine learning systems aim to weed out "bad" data (e.g., malware, harmful content, etc). Queries to such systems carry a fundamentally asymmetric cost: queries detected as "bad" come at a higher cost because they trigger additional security filters, e.g., usage throttling or account suspension. Yet, we find that existing decision-based attacks issue a large number of "bad" queries, which likely renders them ineffective against security-critical systems. We then design new attacks that reduce the number of bad queries by $1.5$-$7.3\times$, but often at a significant increase in total (non-bad) queries. We thus pose it as an open problem to build black-box attacks that are more effective under realistic cost metrics. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2024; v1 submitted 5 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: Code at https://github.com/ethz-privsec/realistic-adv-examples. Accepted at IEEE SaTML 2024

Position: Considerations for Differentially Private Learning with Large-Scale Public Pretraining

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Gautam Kamath, Nicholas Carlini

Abstract: The performance of differentially private machine learning can be boosted significantly by leveraging the transfer learning capabilities of non-private models pretrained on large public datasets. We critically review this approach. We primarily question whether the use of large Web-scraped datasets should be viewed as differential-privacy-preserving. We caution that publicizing these models pret… ▽ More The performance of differentially private machine learning can be boosted significantly by leveraging the transfer learning capabilities of non-private models pretrained on large public datasets. We critically review this approach. We primarily question whether the use of large Web-scraped datasets should be viewed as differential-privacy-preserving. We caution that publicizing these models pretrained on Web data as "private" could lead to harm and erode the public's trust in differential privacy as a meaningful definition of privacy. Beyond the privacy considerations of using public data, we further question the utility of this paradigm. We scrutinize whether existing machine learning benchmarks are appropriate for measuring the ability of pretrained models to generalize to sensitive domains, which may be poorly represented in public Web data. Finally, we notice that pretraining has been especially impactful for the largest available models -- models sufficiently large to prohibit end users running them on their own devices. Thus, deploying such models today could be a net loss for privacy, as it would require (private) data to be outsourced to a more compute-powerful third party. We conclude by discussing potential paths forward for the field of private learning, as public pretraining becomes more popular and powerful. △ Less

Submitted 17 July, 2024; v1 submitted 13 December, 2022; originally announced December 2022.

Comments: Full and unabridged version of paper ICML 2024

Truth Serum: Poisoning Machine Learning Models to Reveal Their Secrets

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Reza Shokri, Ayrton San Joaquin, Hoang Le, Matthew Jagielski, Sanghyun Hong, Nicholas Carlini

Abstract: We introduce a new class of attacks on machine learning models. We show that an adversary who can poison a training dataset can cause models trained on this dataset to leak significant private details of training points belonging to other parties. Our active inference attacks connect two independent lines of work targeting the integrity and privacy of machine learning training data. Our attacks… ▽ More We introduce a new class of attacks on machine learning models. We show that an adversary who can poison a training dataset can cause models trained on this dataset to leak significant private details of training points belonging to other parties. Our active inference attacks connect two independent lines of work targeting the integrity and privacy of machine learning training data. Our attacks are effective across membership inference, attribute inference, and data extraction. For example, our targeted attacks can poison <0.1% of the training dataset to boost the performance of inference attacks by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude. Further, an adversary who controls a significant fraction of the training data (e.g., 50%) can launch untargeted attacks that enable 8x more precise inference on all other users' otherwise-private data points. Our results cast doubts on the relevance of cryptographic privacy guarantees in multiparty computation protocols for machine learning, if parties can arbitrarily select their share of training data. △ Less

Submitted 6 October, 2022; v1 submitted 31 March, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: ACM CCS 2022

What Does it Mean for a Language Model to Preserve Privacy?

Authors: Hannah Brown, Katherine Lee, Fatemehsadat Mireshghallah, Reza Shokri, Florian Tramèr

Abstract: Natural language reflects our private lives and identities, making its privacy concerns as broad as those of real life. Language models lack the ability to understand the context and sensitivity of text, and tend to memorize phrases present in their training sets. An adversary can exploit this tendency to extract training data. Depending on the nature of the content and the context in which this d… ▽ More Natural language reflects our private lives and identities, making its privacy concerns as broad as those of real life. Language models lack the ability to understand the context and sensitivity of text, and tend to memorize phrases present in their training sets. An adversary can exploit this tendency to extract training data. Depending on the nature of the content and the context in which this data was collected, this could violate expectations of privacy. Thus there is a growing interest in techniques for training language models that preserve privacy. In this paper, we discuss the mismatch between the narrow assumptions made by popular data protection techniques (data sanitization and differential privacy), and the broadness of natural language and of privacy as a social norm. We argue that existing protection methods cannot guarantee a generic and meaningful notion of privacy for language models. We conclude that language models should be trained on text data which was explicitly produced for public use. △ Less

Submitted 14 February, 2022; v1 submitted 11 February, 2022; originally announced February 2022.

Comments: 21 pages, 2 figures

Detecting Adversarial Examples Is (Nearly) As Hard As Classifying Them

Authors: Florian Tramèr

Abstract: Making classifiers robust to adversarial examples is hard. Thus, many defenses tackle the seemingly easier task of detecting perturbed inputs. We show a barrier towards this goal. We prove a general hardness reduction between detection and classification of adversarial examples: given a robust detector for attacks at distance ε (in some metric), we can build a similarly robust (but inefficient) cl… ▽ More Making classifiers robust to adversarial examples is hard. Thus, many defenses tackle the seemingly easier task of detecting perturbed inputs. We show a barrier towards this goal. We prove a general hardness reduction between detection and classification of adversarial examples: given a robust detector for attacks at distance ε (in some metric), we can build a similarly robust (but inefficient) classifier for attacks at distance ε/2. Our reduction is computationally inefficient, and thus cannot be used to build practical classifiers. Instead, it is a useful sanity check to test whether empirical detection results imply something much stronger than the authors presumably anticipated. To illustrate, we revisit 13 detector defenses. For 11/13 cases, we show that the claimed detection results would imply an inefficient classifier with robustness far beyond the state-of-the-art. △ Less

Submitted 16 June, 2022; v1 submitted 24 July, 2021; originally announced July 2021.

Comments: ICML 2022 (Long Talk)

Differentially Private Learning Needs Better Features (or Much More Data)

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Dan Boneh

Abstract: We demonstrate that differentially private machine learning has not yet reached its "AlexNet moment" on many canonical vision tasks: linear models trained on handcrafted features significantly outperform end-to-end deep neural networks for moderate privacy budgets. To exceed the performance of handcrafted features, we show that private learning requires either much more private data, or access to… ▽ More We demonstrate that differentially private machine learning has not yet reached its "AlexNet moment" on many canonical vision tasks: linear models trained on handcrafted features significantly outperform end-to-end deep neural networks for moderate privacy budgets. To exceed the performance of handcrafted features, we show that private learning requires either much more private data, or access to features learned on public data from a similar domain. Our work introduces simple yet strong baselines for differentially private learning that can inform the evaluation of future progress in this area. △ Less

Submitted 17 February, 2021; v1 submitted 23 November, 2020; originally announced November 2020.

Comments: ICLR 2021. Code available at https://github.com/ftramer/Handcrafted-DP

Label-Only Membership Inference Attacks

Authors: Christopher A. Choquette-Choo, Florian Tramer, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Membership inference attacks are one of the simplest forms of privacy leakage for machine learning models: given a data point and model, determine whether the point was used to train the model. Existing membership inference attacks exploit models' abnormal confidence when queried on their training data. These attacks do not apply if the adversary only gets access to models' predicted labels, witho… ▽ More Membership inference attacks are one of the simplest forms of privacy leakage for machine learning models: given a data point and model, determine whether the point was used to train the model. Existing membership inference attacks exploit models' abnormal confidence when queried on their training data. These attacks do not apply if the adversary only gets access to models' predicted labels, without a confidence measure. In this paper, we introduce label-only membership inference attacks. Instead of relying on confidence scores, our attacks evaluate the robustness of a model's predicted labels under perturbations to obtain a fine-grained membership signal. These perturbations include common data augmentations or adversarial examples. We empirically show that our label-only membership inference attacks perform on par with prior attacks that required access to model confidences. We further demonstrate that label-only attacks break multiple defenses against membership inference attacks that (implicitly or explicitly) rely on a phenomenon we call confidence masking. These defenses modify a model's confidence scores in order to thwart attacks, but leave the model's predicted labels unchanged. Our label-only attacks demonstrate that confidence-masking is not a viable defense strategy against membership inference. Finally, we investigate worst-case label-only attacks, that infer membership for a small number of outlier data points. We show that label-only attacks also match confidence-based attacks in this setting. We find that training models with differential privacy and (strong) L2 regularization are the only known defense strategies that successfully prevents all attacks. This remains true even when the differential privacy budget is too high to offer meaningful provable guarantees. △ Less

Submitted 5 December, 2021; v1 submitted 28 July, 2020; originally announced July 2020.

Comments: 16 pages, 11 figures, 2 tables Revision 2: 19 pages, 12 figures, 3 tables. Improved text and additional experiments. Final ICML paper

On Adaptive Attacks to Adversarial Example Defenses

Authors: Florian Tramer, Nicholas Carlini, Wieland Brendel, Aleksander Madry

Abstract: Adaptive attacks have (rightfully) become the de facto standard for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We find, however, that typical adaptive evaluations are incomplete. We demonstrate that thirteen defenses recently published at ICLR, ICML and NeurIPS---and chosen for illustrative and pedagogical purposes---can be circumvented despite attempting to perform evaluations using adaptive at… ▽ More Adaptive attacks have (rightfully) become the de facto standard for evaluating defenses to adversarial examples. We find, however, that typical adaptive evaluations are incomplete. We demonstrate that thirteen defenses recently published at ICLR, ICML and NeurIPS---and chosen for illustrative and pedagogical purposes---can be circumvented despite attempting to perform evaluations using adaptive attacks. While prior evaluation papers focused mainly on the end result---showing that a defense was ineffective---this paper focuses on laying out the methodology and the approach necessary to perform an adaptive attack. We hope that these analyses will serve as guidance on how to properly perform adaptive attacks against defenses to adversarial examples, and thus will allow the community to make further progress in building more robust models. △ Less

Submitted 23 October, 2020; v1 submitted 19 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: NeurIPS 2020

Fundamental Tradeoffs between Invariance and Sensitivity to Adversarial Perturbations

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Jens Behrmann, Nicholas Carlini, Nicolas Papernot, Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen

Abstract: Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to induce misclassification. Commonly studied sensitivity-based adversarial examples introduce semantically-small changes to an input that result in a different model prediction. This paper studies a complementary failure mode, invariance-based adversarial examples, that introduce minimal semantic changes that modify an input's true label yet prese… ▽ More Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to induce misclassification. Commonly studied sensitivity-based adversarial examples introduce semantically-small changes to an input that result in a different model prediction. This paper studies a complementary failure mode, invariance-based adversarial examples, that introduce minimal semantic changes that modify an input's true label yet preserve the model's prediction. We demonstrate fundamental tradeoffs between these two types of adversarial examples. We show that defenses against sensitivity-based attacks actively harm a model's accuracy on invariance-based attacks, and that new approaches are needed to resist both attack types. In particular, we break state-of-the-art adversarially-trained and certifiably-robust models by generating small perturbations that the models are (provably) robust to, yet that change an input's class according to human labelers. Finally, we formally show that the existence of excessively invariant classifiers arises from the presence of overly-robust predictive features in standard datasets. △ Less

Submitted 4 August, 2020; v1 submitted 11 February, 2020; originally announced February 2020.

Comments: ICML 2020 (Supersedes the workshop paper "Exploiting Excessive Invariance caused by Norm-Bounded Adversarial Robustness", arXiv:1903.10484)

Advances and Open Problems in Federated Learning

Authors: Peter Kairouz, H. Brendan McMahan, Brendan Avent, Aurélien Bellet, Mehdi Bennis, Arjun Nitin Bhagoji, Kallista Bonawitz, Zachary Charles, Graham Cormode, Rachel Cummings, Rafael G. L. D'Oliveira, Hubert Eichner, Salim El Rouayheb, David Evans, Josh Gardner, Zachary Garrett, Adrià Gascón, Badih Ghazi, Phillip B. Gibbons, Marco Gruteser, Zaid Harchaoui, Chaoyang He, Lie He, Zhouyuan Huo, Ben Hutchinson , et al. (34 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Federated learning (FL) is a machine learning setting where many clients (e.g. mobile devices or whole organizations) collaboratively train a model under the orchestration of a central server (e.g. service provider), while keeping the training data decentralized. FL embodies the principles of focused data collection and minimization, and can mitigate many of the systemic privacy risks and costs re… ▽ More Federated learning (FL) is a machine learning setting where many clients (e.g. mobile devices or whole organizations) collaboratively train a model under the orchestration of a central server (e.g. service provider), while keeping the training data decentralized. FL embodies the principles of focused data collection and minimization, and can mitigate many of the systemic privacy risks and costs resulting from traditional, centralized machine learning and data science approaches. Motivated by the explosive growth in FL research, this paper discusses recent advances and presents an extensive collection of open problems and challenges. △ Less

Submitted 8 March, 2021; v1 submitted 10 December, 2019; originally announced December 2019.

Comments: Published in Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning Vol 4 Issue 1. See: https://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/MAL-083

Adversarial Training and Robustness for Multiple Perturbations

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Dan Boneh

Abstract: Defenses against adversarial examples, such as adversarial training, are typically tailored to a single perturbation type (e.g., small $\ell_\infty$-noise). For other perturbations, these defenses offer no guarantees and, at times, even increase the model's vulnerability. Our aim is to understand the reasons underlying this robustness trade-off, and to train models that are simultaneously robust t… ▽ More Defenses against adversarial examples, such as adversarial training, are typically tailored to a single perturbation type (e.g., small $\ell_\infty$-noise). For other perturbations, these defenses offer no guarantees and, at times, even increase the model's vulnerability. Our aim is to understand the reasons underlying this robustness trade-off, and to train models that are simultaneously robust to multiple perturbation types. We prove that a trade-off in robustness to different types of $\ell_p$-bounded and spatial perturbations must exist in a natural and simple statistical setting. We corroborate our formal analysis by demonstrating similar robustness trade-offs on MNIST and CIFAR10. Building upon new multi-perturbation adversarial training schemes, and a novel efficient attack for finding $\ell_1$-bounded adversarial examples, we show that no model trained against multiple attacks achieves robustness competitive with that of models trained on each attack individually. In particular, we uncover a pernicious gradient-masking phenomenon on MNIST, which causes adversarial training with first-order $\ell_\infty, \ell_1$ and $\ell_2$ adversaries to achieve merely $50\%$ accuracy. Our results question the viability and computational scalability of extending adversarial robustness, and adversarial training, to multiple perturbation types. △ Less

Submitted 17 October, 2019; v1 submitted 29 April, 2019; originally announced April 2019.

Comments: Accepted at NeurIPS 2019, 23 pages

Exploiting Excessive Invariance caused by Norm-Bounded Adversarial Robustness

Authors: Jörn-Henrik Jacobsen, Jens Behrmannn, Nicholas Carlini, Florian Tramèr, Nicolas Papernot

Abstract: Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to cause a model to misclassify them. Their most common instantiation, "perturbation-based" adversarial examples introduce changes to the input that leave its true label unchanged, yet result in a different model prediction. Conversely, "invariance-based" adversarial examples insert changes to the input that leave the model's prediction unaffected… ▽ More Adversarial examples are malicious inputs crafted to cause a model to misclassify them. Their most common instantiation, "perturbation-based" adversarial examples introduce changes to the input that leave its true label unchanged, yet result in a different model prediction. Conversely, "invariance-based" adversarial examples insert changes to the input that leave the model's prediction unaffected despite the underlying input's label having changed. In this paper, we demonstrate that robustness to perturbation-based adversarial examples is not only insufficient for general robustness, but worse, it can also increase vulnerability of the model to invariance-based adversarial examples. In addition to analytical constructions, we empirically study vision classifiers with state-of-the-art robustness to perturbation-based adversaries constrained by an $\ell_p$ norm. We mount attacks that exploit excessive model invariance in directions relevant to the task, which are able to find adversarial examples within the $\ell_p$ ball. In fact, we find that classifiers trained to be $\ell_p$-norm robust are more vulnerable to invariance-based adversarial examples than their undefended counterparts. Excessive invariance is not limited to models trained to be robust to perturbation-based $\ell_p$-norm adversaries. In fact, we argue that the term adversarial example is used to capture a series of model limitations, some of which may not have been discovered yet. Accordingly, we call for a set of precise definitions that taxonomize and address each of these shortcomings in learning. △ Less

Submitted 25 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.

Comments: Accepted at the ICLR 2019 SafeML Workshop

AdVersarial: Perceptual Ad Blocking meets Adversarial Machine Learning

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Pascal Dupré, Gili Rusak, Giancarlo Pellegrino, Dan Boneh

Abstract: Perceptual ad-blocking is a novel approach that detects online advertisements based on their visual content. Compared to traditional filter lists, the use of perceptual signals is believed to be less prone to an arms race with web publishers and ad networks. We demonstrate that this may not be the case. We describe attacks on multiple perceptual ad-blocking techniques, and unveil a new arms race t… ▽ More Perceptual ad-blocking is a novel approach that detects online advertisements based on their visual content. Compared to traditional filter lists, the use of perceptual signals is believed to be less prone to an arms race with web publishers and ad networks. We demonstrate that this may not be the case. We describe attacks on multiple perceptual ad-blocking techniques, and unveil a new arms race that likely disfavors ad-blockers. Unexpectedly, perceptual ad-blocking can also introduce new vulnerabilities that let an attacker bypass web security boundaries and mount DDoS attacks. We first analyze the design space of perceptual ad-blockers and present a unified architecture that incorporates prior academic and commercial work. We then explore a variety of attacks on the ad-blocker's detection pipeline, that enable publishers or ad networks to evade or detect ad-blocking, and at times even abuse its high privilege level to bypass web security boundaries. On one hand, we show that perceptual ad-blocking must visually classify rendered web content to escape an arms race centered on obfuscation of page markup. On the other, we present a concrete set of attacks on visual ad-blockers by constructing adversarial examples in a real web page context. For seven ad-detectors, we create perturbed ads, ad-disclosure logos, and native web content that misleads perceptual ad-blocking with 100% success rates. In one of our attacks, we demonstrate how a malicious user can upload adversarial content, such as a perturbed image in a Facebook post, that fools the ad-blocker into removing another users' non-ad content. Moving beyond the Web and visual domain, we also build adversarial examples for AdblockRadio, an open source radio client that uses machine learning to detects ads in raw audio streams. △ Less

Submitted 26 August, 2019; v1 submitted 7 November, 2018; originally announced November 2018.

Comments: 17 pages, 14 figures

Journal ref: In 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS '19)

Slalom: Fast, Verifiable and Private Execution of Neural Networks in Trusted Hardware

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Dan Boneh

Abstract: As Machine Learning (ML) gets applied to security-critical or sensitive domains, there is a growing need for integrity and privacy for outsourced ML computations. A pragmatic solution comes from Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), which use hardware and software protections to isolate sensitive computations from the untrusted software stack. However, these isolation guarantees come at a price i… ▽ More As Machine Learning (ML) gets applied to security-critical or sensitive domains, there is a growing need for integrity and privacy for outsourced ML computations. A pragmatic solution comes from Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs), which use hardware and software protections to isolate sensitive computations from the untrusted software stack. However, these isolation guarantees come at a price in performance, compared to untrusted alternatives. This paper initiates the study of high performance execution of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in TEEs by efficiently partitioning DNN computations between trusted and untrusted devices. Building upon an efficient outsourcing scheme for matrix multiplication, we propose Slalom, a framework that securely delegates execution of all linear layers in a DNN from a TEE (e.g., Intel SGX or Sanctum) to a faster, yet untrusted, co-located processor. We evaluate Slalom by running DNNs in an Intel SGX enclave, which selectively delegates work to an untrusted GPU. For canonical DNNs (VGG16, MobileNet and ResNet variants) we obtain 6x to 20x increases in throughput for verifiable inference, and 4x to 11x for verifiable and private inference. △ Less

Submitted 27 February, 2019; v1 submitted 8 June, 2018; originally announced June 2018.

Comments: Accepted as an oral presentation at ICLR 2019. OpenReview available at https://openreview.net/forum?id=rJVorjCcKQ

Ensemble Adversarial Training: Attacks and Defenses

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Alexey Kurakin, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Dan Boneh, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Adversarial examples are perturbed inputs designed to fool machine learning models. Adversarial training injects such examples into training data to increase robustness. To scale this technique to large datasets, perturbations are crafted using fast single-step methods that maximize a linear approximation of the model's loss. We show that this form of adversarial training converges to a degenerate… ▽ More Adversarial examples are perturbed inputs designed to fool machine learning models. Adversarial training injects such examples into training data to increase robustness. To scale this technique to large datasets, perturbations are crafted using fast single-step methods that maximize a linear approximation of the model's loss. We show that this form of adversarial training converges to a degenerate global minimum, wherein small curvature artifacts near the data points obfuscate a linear approximation of the loss. The model thus learns to generate weak perturbations, rather than defend against strong ones. As a result, we find that adversarial training remains vulnerable to black-box attacks, where we transfer perturbations computed on undefended models, as well as to a powerful novel single-step attack that escapes the non-smooth vicinity of the input data via a small random step. We further introduce Ensemble Adversarial Training, a technique that augments training data with perturbations transferred from other models. On ImageNet, Ensemble Adversarial Training yields models with strong robustness to black-box attacks. In particular, our most robust model won the first round of the NIPS 2017 competition on Defenses against Adversarial Attacks. However, subsequent work found that more elaborate black-box attacks could significantly enhance transferability and reduce the accuracy of our models. △ Less

Submitted 26 April, 2020; v1 submitted 19 May, 2017; originally announced May 2017.

Comments: 22 pages, 5 figures, International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) 2018 (amended in April 2020 to include subsequent attacks that significantly reduced the robustness of our models)

The Space of Transferable Adversarial Examples

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Nicolas Papernot, Ian Goodfellow, Dan Boneh, Patrick McDaniel

Abstract: Adversarial examples are maliciously perturbed inputs designed to mislead machine learning (ML) models at test-time. They often transfer: the same adversarial example fools more than one model. In this work, we propose novel methods for estimating the previously unknown dimensionality of the space of adversarial inputs. We find that adversarial examples span a contiguous subspace of large (~25)… ▽ More Adversarial examples are maliciously perturbed inputs designed to mislead machine learning (ML) models at test-time. They often transfer: the same adversarial example fools more than one model. In this work, we propose novel methods for estimating the previously unknown dimensionality of the space of adversarial inputs. We find that adversarial examples span a contiguous subspace of large (~25) dimensionality. Adversarial subspaces with higher dimensionality are more likely to intersect. We find that for two different models, a significant fraction of their subspaces is shared, thus enabling transferability. In the first quantitative analysis of the similarity of different models' decision boundaries, we show that these boundaries are actually close in arbitrary directions, whether adversarial or benign. We conclude by formally studying the limits of transferability. We derive (1) sufficient conditions on the data distribution that imply transferability for simple model classes and (2) examples of scenarios in which transfer does not occur. These findings indicate that it may be possible to design defenses against transfer-based attacks, even for models that are vulnerable to direct attacks. △ Less

Submitted 23 May, 2017; v1 submitted 11 April, 2017; originally announced April 2017.

Comments: 15 pages, 7 figures

Stealing Machine Learning Models via Prediction APIs

Authors: Florian Tramèr, Fan Zhang, Ari Juels, Michael K. Reiter, Thomas Ristenpart

Abstract: Machine learning (ML) models may be deemed confidential due to their sensitive training data, commercial value, or use in security applications. Increasingly often, confidential ML models are being deployed with publicly accessible query interfaces. ML-as-a-service ("predictive analytics") systems are an example: Some allow users to train models on potentially sensitive data and charge others for… ▽ More Machine learning (ML) models may be deemed confidential due to their sensitive training data, commercial value, or use in security applications. Increasingly often, confidential ML models are being deployed with publicly accessible query interfaces. ML-as-a-service ("predictive analytics") systems are an example: Some allow users to train models on potentially sensitive data and charge others for access on a pay-per-query basis. The tension between model confidentiality and public access motivates our investigation of model extraction attacks. In such attacks, an adversary with black-box access, but no prior knowledge of an ML model's parameters or training data, aims to duplicate the functionality of (i.e., "steal") the model. Unlike in classical learning theory settings, ML-as-a-service offerings may accept partial feature vectors as inputs and include confidence values with predictions. Given these practices, we show simple, efficient attacks that extract target ML models with near-perfect fidelity for popular model classes including logistic regression, neural networks, and decision trees. We demonstrate these attacks against the online services of BigML and Amazon Machine Learning. We further show that the natural countermeasure of omitting confidence values from model outputs still admits potentially harmful model extraction attacks. Our results highlight the need for careful ML model deployment and new model extraction countermeasures. △ Less

Submitted 2 October, 2016; v1 submitted 9 September, 2016; originally announced September 2016.

Comments: 19 pages, 7 figures, Proceedings of USENIX Security 2016