Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3626232.3653268acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescodaspyConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

Precision Guided Approach to Mitigate Data Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning

Published: 19 June 2024 Publication History

Abstract

Federated Learning (FL) is a collaborative learning paradigm enabling participants to collectively train a shared machine learning model while preserving the privacy of their sensitive data. Nevertheless, the inherent decentralized and data-opaque characteristics of FL render its susceptibility to data poisoning attacks. These attacks introduce malformed or malicious inputs during local model training, subsequently influencing the global model and resulting in erroneous predictions. Current FL defense strategies against data poisoning attacks either involve a trade-off between accuracy and robustness or necessitate the presence of a uniformly distributed root dataset at the server. To overcome these limitations, we present FedZZ, which harnesses a zone-based deviating update (ZBDU) mechanism to effectively counter data poisoning attacks in FL. The ZBDU approach identifies the clusters of benign clients whose collective updates exhibit notable deviations from those of malicious clients engaged in data poisoning attack. Further, we introduce a precision-guided methodology that actively characterizes these client clusters (zones), which in turn aids in recognizing and discarding malicious updates at the server. Our evaluation of FedZZ across two widely recognized datasets: CIFAR10 and EMNIST, demonstrate its efficacy in mitigating data poisoning attacks, surpassing the performance of prevailing state-of-the-art methodologies in both single and multi-client attack scenarios and varying attack volumes. Notably, FedZZ also functions as a robust client selection strategy, even in highly non-IID and attack-free scenarios. Moreover, in the face of escalating poisoning rates, the model accuracy attained by FedZZ displays superior resilience compared to existing techniques. For instance, when confronted with a 50% presence of malicious clients, FedZZ sustains an accuracy of 67.43%, while the accuracy of the second-best solution, FL-Defender, diminishes to 43.36%.

References

[1]
Amani Abu Jabal, Elisa Bertino, Jorge Lobo, Dinesh Verma, Seraphin Calo, and Alessandra Russo. 2023. Flap-a federated learning framework for attribute-based access control policies. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy. 263--272.
[2]
Eugene Bagdasaryan, Andreas Veit, Yiqing Hua, Deborah Estrin, and Vitaly Shmatikov. 2020. How to backdoor federated learning. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 2938--2948.
[3]
Ravikumar Balakrishnan, Tian Li, Tianyi Zhou, Nageen Himayat, Virginia Smith, and Jeff Bilmes. 2021. Diverse client selection for federated learning via submodular maximization. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
[4]
Peva Blanchard, El Mahdi El Mhamdi, Rachid Guerraoui, and Julien Stainer. 2017. Machine learning with adversaries: Byzantine tolerant gradient descent. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 30 (2017).
[5]
André Brand ao, Ricardo Mendes, and Jo ao P Vilela. 2022. Prediction of mobile app privacy preferences with user profiles via federated learning. In Proceedings of the Twelfth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy. 89--100.
[6]
Xiaoyu Cao, Minghong Fang, Jia Liu, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. 2021. FLTrust: Byzantine-robust Federated Learning via Trust Bootstrapping. In 28th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium, NDSS 2021, virtually, February 21--25, 2021. The Internet Society. https://www.ndss-symposium.org/ndss-paper/fltrust-byzantine-robust-federated-learning-via-trust-bootstrapping/
[7]
Chen Chen, Baojiang Cui, Jinxin Ma, Runpu Wu, Jianchao Guo, and Wenqian Liu. 2018. A systematic review of fuzzing techniques. Computers & Security, Vol. 75 (2018), 118--137.
[8]
Yu Chen, Fang Luo, Tong Li, Tao Xiang, Zheli Liu, and Jin Li. 2020. A training-integrity privacy-preserving federated learning scheme with trusted execution environment. Information Sciences, Vol. 522 (2020), 69--79.
[9]
Gregory Cohen, Saeed Afshar, Jonathan Tapson, and Andre Van Schaik. 2017. EMNIST: Extending MNIST to handwritten letters. In 2017 international joint conference on neural networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2921--2926.
[10]
Chong Fu, Xuhong Zhang, Shouling Ji, Jinyin Chen, Jingzheng Wu, Shanqing Guo, Jun Zhou, Alex X Liu, and Ting Wang. 2022. Label inference attacks against vertical federated learning. In 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22). 1397--1414.
[11]
Clement Fung, Chris JM Yoon, and Ivan Beschastnikh. 2020. The Limitations of Federated Learning in Sybil Settings. In RAID. 301--316.
[12]
Patrice Godefroid. 2020. Fuzzing: Hack, art, and science. Commun. ACM, Vol. 63, 2 (2020), 70--76.
[13]
Chuan Guo, Jacob R Gardner, Yurong You, Andrew Gordon Wilson, and Kilian Q Weinberger. 2019. Simple black-box adversarial attacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.07121 (2019).
[14]
Hanxi Guo, Hao Wang, Tao Song, Yang Hua, Zhangcheng Lv, Xiulang Jin, Zhengui Xue, Ruhui Ma, and Haibing Guan. 2021. Siren: Byzantine-robust federated learning via proactive alarming. In Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing. 47--60.
[15]
Istvan Haller, Asia Slowinska, Matthias Neugschwandtner, and Herbert Bos. 2013. Dowsing for Overflows: A Guided Fuzzer to Find Buffer Boundary Violations. In 22nd $$USENIX$$ Security Symposium ($$USENIX$$ Security 13). 49--64.
[16]
Andrew Hard, Chloé M Kiddon, Daniel Ramage, Francoise Beaufays, Hubert Eichner, Kanishka Rao, Rajiv Mathews, and Sean Augenstein. 2018. Federated Learning for Mobile Keyboard Prediction. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.03604
[17]
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. CoRR, Vol. abs/1512.03385 (2015). arxiv: 1512.03385 http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385
[18]
Najeeb Moharram Jebreel and Josep Domingo-Ferrer. 2023. FL-Defender: Combating targeted attacks in federated learning. Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 260 (2023), 110178.
[19]
Dae R Jeong, Kyungtae Kim, Basavesh Shivakumar, Byoungyoung Lee, and Insik Shin. 2019. Razzer: Finding kernel race bugs through fuzzing. In 2019 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 754--768.
[20]
Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. 2009. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. (2009).
[21]
K Naveen Kumar, C Krishna Mohan, and Linga Reddy Cenkeramaddi. 2023. The Impact of Adversarial Attacks on Federated Learning: A Survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (2023).
[22]
K Naveen Kumar, C Vishnu, Reshmi Mitra, and C Krishna Mohan. 2020. Black-box adversarial attacks in autonomous vehicle technology. In 2020 IEEE Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPR). IEEE, 1--7.
[23]
Xingyu Li, Zhe Qu, Shangqing Zhao, Bo Tang, Zhuo Lu, and Yao Liu. 2023. LoMar: A Local Defense Against Poisoning Attack on Federated Learning. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, Vol. 20, 1 (2023), 437--450. https://doi.org/10.1109/TDSC.2021.3135422
[24]
Shiwei Lu, Ruihu Li, Wenbin Liu, and Xuan Chen. 2022. Defense against backdoor attack in federated learning. Computers & Security, Vol. 121 (2022), 102819.
[25]
Chenyang Lyu, Shouling Ji, Chao Zhang, Yuwei Li, Wei-Han Lee, Yu Song, and Raheem Beyah. 2019. $$MOPT$$: Optimized mutation scheduling for fuzzers. In 28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). 1949--1966.
[26]
Zhuoran Ma, Jianfeng Ma, Yinbin Miao, Yingjiu Li, and Robert H Deng. 2022. ShieldFL: Mitigating model poisoning attacks in privacy-preserving federated learning. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, Vol. 17 (2022), 1639--1654.
[27]
Valentin JM Manes, HyungSeok Han, Choongwoo Han, Sang Kil Cha, Manuel Egele, Edward J Schwartz, and Maverick Woo. 2018. Fuzzing: Art, science, and engineering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00140 (2018).
[28]
Alessandro Mantovani, Andrea Fioraldi, and Davide Balzarotti. 2022. Fuzzing with data dependency information. In 2022 IEEE 7th European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). IEEE, 286--302.
[29]
Brendan McMahan, Eider Moore, Daniel Ramage, Seth Hampson, and Blaise Aguera y Arcas. 2017. Communication-efficient learning of deep networks from decentralized data. In Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. PMLR, 1273--1282.
[30]
Arup Mondal, Yash More, Ruthu Hulikal Rooparaghunath, and Debayan Gupta. 2021. Poster: Flatee: Federated learning across trusted execution environments. In 2021 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P). IEEE, 707--709.
[31]
Dianwen Ng, Xiang Lan, Melissa Min-Szu Yao, Wing P Chan, and Mengling Feng. 2021. Federated learning: a collaborative effort to achieve better medical imaging models for individual sites that have small labelled datasets. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, Vol. 11, 2 (2021), 852.
[32]
Thien Duc Nguyen, Phillip Rieger, Huili Chen, Hossein Yalame, Helen Möllering, Hossein Fereidooni, Samuel Marchal, Markus Miettinen, Azalia Mirhoseini, Shaza Zeitouni, et al. 2021. FLAME: Taming Backdoors in Federated Learning. Cryptology ePrint Archive (2021).
[33]
Augustus Odena, Catherine Olsson, David Andersen, and Ian Goodfellow. 2019. Tensorfuzz: Debugging neural networks with coverage-guided fuzzing. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 4901--4911.
[34]
Jungwuk Park, Dong-Jun Han, Minseok Choi, and Jaekyun Moon. 2021. Sageflow: Robust federated learning against both stragglers and adversaries. Advances in neural information processing systems, Vol. 34 (2021), 840--851.
[35]
Phillip Rieger, Thien Duc Nguyen, Markus Miettinen, and Ahmad-Reza Sadeghi. 2022. Deepsight: Mitigating backdoor attacks in federated learning through deep model inspection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.00763 (2022).
[36]
Christopher Salls, Chani Jindal, Jake Corina, Christopher Kruegel, and Giovanni Vigna. 2021. Token-Level Fuzzing. In 30th $$USENIX$$ Security Symposium ($$USENIX$$ Security 21). 2795--2809.
[37]
Virat Shejwalkar, Amir Houmansadr, Peter Kairouz, and Daniel Ramage. 2022. Back to the drawing board: A critical evaluation of poisoning attacks on production federated learning. In 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE, 1354--1371.
[38]
Shiqi Shen, Shruti Tople, and Prateek Saxena. 2016. Auror: Defending against poisoning attacks in collaborative deep learning systems. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference on Computer Security Applications. 508--519.
[39]
Mustafa M Tikir and Jeffrey K Hollingsworth. 2002. Efficient instrumentation for code coverage testing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, Vol. 27, 4 (2002), 86--96.
[40]
Cong Xie, Sanmi Koyejo, and Indranil Gupta. 2019a. Zeno: Distributed stochastic gradient descent with suspicion-based fault-tolerance. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 6893--6901.
[41]
Xiaofei Xie, Simon See, Lei Ma, Felix Juefei-Xu, Minhui Xue, Hongxu Chen, Yang Liu, Jianjun Zhao, Bo Li, and Jianxiong Yin. 2019b. DeepHunter: a coverage-guided fuzz testing framework for deep neural networks. 146--157. https://doi.org/10.1145/3293882.3330579
[42]
Dong Yin, Yudong Chen, Ramchandran Kannan, and Peter Bartlett. 2018. Byzantine-robust distributed learning: Towards optimal statistical rates. In International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 5650--5659.
[43]
Michal Zalewski. 2018. AFL Technical Details. https://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/afl/technical_details.txt
[44]
Syed Zawad, Ahsan Ali, Pin-Yu Chen, Ali Anwar, Yi Zhou, Nathalie Baracaldo, Yuan Tian, and Feng Yan. 2021. Curse or redemption? how data heterogeneity affects the robustness of federated learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 35. 10807--10814.
[45]
Zaixi Zhang, Xiaoyu Cao, Jinyuan Jia, and Neil Zhenqiang Gong. 2022. FLDetector: Defending federated learning against model poisoning attacks via detecting malicious clients. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 2545--2555.

Index Terms

  1. Precision Guided Approach to Mitigate Data Poisoning Attacks in Federated Learning

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CODASPY '24: Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Conference on Data and Application Security and Privacy
    June 2024
    429 pages
    ISBN:9798400704215
    DOI:10.1145/3626232
    • General Chair:
    • João P. Vilela,
    • Program Chairs:
    • Haya Schulmann,
    • Ninghui Li
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 19 June 2024

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. data poisonous attacks
    2. defense
    3. federated learning
    4. precision guided

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Funding Sources

    • National Science Foundation (NSF)
    • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
    • Amazon Research Award (ARA) on Security Verification and Hardening of CI Workflows

    Conference

    CODASPY '24
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 149 of 789 submissions, 19%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 31
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)31
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19
    Reflects downloads up to 30 Aug 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Get Access

    Login options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media