Governments and businesses increasingly rely on data analytics and machine learning (ML) for improving their competitive edge in areas such as consumer satisfaction, threat intelligence, decision making, and product efficiency. However, by cleverly corrupting a subset of data used as input to a target's ML algorithms, an adversary can perturb outcomes and compromise the effectiveness of ML technology. While prior work in the field of adversarial machine learning has studied the impact of input manipulation on correct ML algorithms, we consider the exploitation of bugs in ML implementations. In this paper, we characterize the attack surface of ML programs, and we show that malicious inputs exploiting implementation bugs enable strictly more powerful attacks than the classic adversarial machine learning techniques. We propose a semi-automated technique, called steered fuzzing, for exploring this attack surface and for discovering exploitable bugs in machine learning programs, in order to demonstrate the magnitude of this threat. As a result of our work, we responsibly disclosed five vulnerabilities, established three new CVE-IDs, and illuminated a common insecure practice across many machine learning systems. Finally, we outline several research directions for further understanding and mitigating this threat.
In an analysis of a neural network trained for image processing tasks, @cite_7 identified that an adversary can apply a perturbation to an image that is imperceptible to humans yet it changes the network's prediction. @cite_30 present a fast method for generating adversarial perturbations to fool an image classifier. Research from @cite_19 further explores automated generation of such perturbations. Utilizing a well-formed seed input, a mutational fuzzer iteratively manipulates the seed to achieve maximum path traversal in a target program. This technique can isolate particular sets of input that cause the program to enter a state that might be of interest for an attacker.
@cite_30 @cite_19 @cite_7
1945616565 1673923490
Several machine learning models, including neural networks, consistently misclassify adversarial examples---inputs formed by applying small but intentionally worst-case perturbations to examples from the dataset, such that the perturbed input results in the model outputting an incorrect answer with high confidence. Early attempts at explaining this phenomenon focused on nonlinearity and overfitting. We argue instead that the primary cause of neural networks' vulnerability to adversarial perturbation is their linear nature. This explanation is supported by new quantitative results while giving the first explanation of the most intriguing fact about them: their generalization across architectures and training sets. Moreover, this view yields a simple and fast method of generating adversarial examples. Using this approach to provide examples for adversarial training, we reduce the test set error of a maxout network on the MNIST dataset. Deep neural networks are highly expressive models that have recently achieved state of the art performance on speech and visual recognition tasks. While their expressiveness is the reason they succeed, it also causes them to learn uninterpretable solutions that could have counter-intuitive properties. In this paper we report two such properties. First, we find that there is no distinction between individual high level units and random linear combinations of high level units, according to various methods of unit analysis. It suggests that it is the space, rather than the individual units, that contains of the semantic information in the high layers of neural networks. Second, we find that deep neural networks learn input-output mappings that are fairly discontinuous to a significant extend. We can cause the network to misclassify an image by applying a certain imperceptible perturbation, which is found by maximizing the network's prediction error. In addition, the specific nature of these perturbations is not a random artifact of learning: the same perturbation can cause a different network, that was trained on a different subset of the dataset, to misclassify the same input.