sicherheitsl cken in der k nstlichen intelligenz
play

Sicherheitslcken in der knstlichen Intelligenz Konrad Rieck, TU - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sicherheitslcken in der knstlichen Intelligenz Konrad Rieck, TU Braunschweig Keynote 1oth German OWASP Day 2018 The AI Hype Hype around artificial intelligence and deep learning Amazing progress of


  1. Sicherheitslücken in der künstlichen Intelligenz Konrad Rieck, TU Braunschweig Keynote — 1oth German OWASP Day 2018

  2. 
 
 
 
 
 
 The AI Hype • Hype around artificial intelligence and deep learning • Amazing progress of machine learning techniques • Novel learning concepts, strategies and algorithms • Impressive results in computer vision and linguistics 
 Medical diagnosis 
 Autonomous cars 
 Virtual Assistants 
 and drones (Siri, Alexa & Friends) and prediction Co ol s tuff ! 
 Bu t i s th i s s e cure ? Page � 2

  3. Overview • What we will cover in this talk ... • Brief introduction to machine learning H ow d o c omp u te r s l e arn s om e thi n g ? • Attacks against machine learning H ow d o I br e ak ma chine l e arni n g ? • Current defenses for machine learning I s there an y thi n g we c an d o ? Page � 3

  4. Machine Learning A Brief Introduction Page � 4

  5. 
 
 
 
 
 
 AI and Machine Learning • Machine learning = branch of artificial intelligence AI • Computer science intersecting with statistics ML • No science fiction and no black magic, please! 
 T-8 0 0 WO PR HA L 9 00 0 Page � 5

  6. 
 
 
 
 How do computers learn? • An example: Handwriting recognition 
 L eJe r s W riJen 
 s h ap e s • Automatic inference of dependencies from data • Generalization of dependencies; ↯ not simple memorization • Dependencies represented by learning model • Application of learning model to unseen data Page � 6

  7. Learning as a Process Tr ain X × Y Data; Labels Learning Θ A pply f Θ ( X ) X Novel Data Application Predictions 8 • Overview of learning process • Learning: Inference of model Θ from data X and labels Y • Application: Model Θ parametrizes prediction function f Θ : X → Y Page � 7

  8. Classification • Classification = categorization of objects into classes • Most popular form of learning in practical applications • Large diversity of concepts, models and algorithms • Geometric interpretation f Θ • Feature space X = ℝ N • Labels Y = {-1, +1} • Feature space partitioned 
 by prediction function f -1 +1 Page � 8

  9. Di ff erent Learning Models Decision trees Quadratic functions f Θ f Θ Neural networks f Θ Page � 9

  10. Attacks against Machine Learning Let’s break things ... Page � 10

  11. Security and Machine Learning • Originally no notion of security in machine learning • Learning algorithms designed for peaceful environments • Optimization of average-case errors; ↯ not worst-case errors • New research direction: Adversarial machine learning • Attacks and defenses for learning algorithms • History of ~10 years (good overview by Biggio & Roli) • Recent hype around deep learning and adversarial examples Page � 11 (Biggio & Roli, PR’18)

  12. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Vulnerabilities and Attacks • Di ff erent types of vulnerabilities • Attacks possible during learning and application phase 
 3 X × Y Data; Labels Learning Θ 2 f Θ ( X ) X Novel Data Application Predictions 8 1 Page � 12

  13. 
 Attack: Adversarial Examples 1 • Attacks misleading the prediction function • Minimal perturbation t of input x inducing misclassification 
 
 s.t. arg min d ( t ) f Θ ( x + t ) = y * t f Θ • Attacks e ff ective and robust • Small perturbations su ffi cient x • Many learning algorithms vulnerable x + t • Attacks against integrity of prediction Page � 13 (Szegedy et al.,’14)

  14. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Toy Example 1 • Adversarial examples generated using trivial algorithm • Greedy search for decision boundary by changing pixels • Two variants: sparse and dense (constrained) changes 
 Sparse attack Dense attack against SVM against SVM Page � 14

  15. 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Semi-Toy Example 1 • Adversarial examples for object recognition • State-of-the-art attack against deep neural network • Perturbations visible but irrelevant to human observer 
 Detected: Airplane Detected: Car Detected: Truck Detected: Dog Page � 15

  16. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Realistic Example 1 • Attack against state-of-the-art face recognition • Perturbations constrained to surface of eyeglasses • Surprising impersonation attacks possible 
 Detected: 
 Detected: 
 Milla Jovovich Milla Jovovich Page � 16 (Sharif et al., CCS’16)

  17. 
 
 Attack: Model Stealing 2 • Attacks “stealing” the learning model • Reconstruction of model using small set of inputs Z 
 s.t. arg min Z | Z | Θ ≈ r ( Z , f Θ ) f Θ • Further related attacks • Membership and property inference Z • Model inversion attacks • Attacks against confidentiality of model Page � 17 (Tramer et al., USENIX Security’16)

  18. 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Toy Example 2 • Model stealing against linear classifiers • Exploration of prediction function with orthogonal inputs • Least squares approximation of prediction function 
 Model of 
 Reconstructed linear SVM model Page � 18

  19. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 A Realistic Example 2 • Model inversion attack against face recognition • Attack reconstructs matching input data for prediction • Not perfect but still scary — 80% extracted faces recognized 
 Image in 
 Reconstructed training set image Page � 19 (Fredrikson et al., CCS’15)

  20. 
 3 Attack: Poisoning and Backdoors • Attacks manipulating the learning model • Manipulation using small set of “poisoned” training data Z 
 
 s.t. arg min Z | Z | Θ * = g ( X ∪ Z , Y ) f Θ • Attack only possible if ... • Training data or model accessible → Supply chain of learning technology • Attacks against integrity of model Page � 20 (Biggio et al., ICML’12)

  21. 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 A Toy Example • Poisoning of a linear classifier with trivial algorithm • Simple backdoor example added to training dataset • Poisoning of dataset increased until backdoor triggered 
 Backdoor Poisoned 
 pattern (= 8) model Page � 21

  22. 3 A Semi-Toy Example • Poisoning of decision system in a driving simulation • Decision system trained to navigate based on environment • Artificial tra ffi c sign triggers strong steering to right T r ig ger Backdoored navigation Page � 22 (Liu et al., NDSS’18)

  23. 3 A Realistic Example • Poisoning of tra ffi c-sign recognition • State-of-the-art backdoor for deep neural networks • Backdoor implanted through retraining with poisoned data Misclassified Very small stop sign trigger Page � 23 (Gu et al., MLSEC’17)

  24. Defenses for Machine Learning Let’s try to fix this ... Page � 24

  25. Defenses • Defense is a tough problem • Input data to system under control of adversary • Even training data hard to verify and sanitize • Often direct access to prediction function • Two defense strategies • Integrated defenses = Attack-resilient learning algorithms • Operational defenses = Security-aware application of learning • No strong defenses currently known! Page � 25

  26. Complexity and randomization • Defense: Complexity f Θ • Prediction function obfuscated • Addition of complexity (e.g. fractals) • Obfuscation of gradients • Defense: Randomization • Prediction function randomized • Both defenses ine ff ective • Noise added to output • Approximation of 
 • Random feature selection true prediction function Page � 26 (Athalye et al., ICML’18)

  27. Stateful Application • Defense: Stateful Application f Θ • Access to function monitored • Input data associated with users U ser 1 • Detection of unusual behavior • Limited applicability in practice • Only feasible with remote access to learning • Concept for authentication and identify binding necessary • Sybial attacks (multiple accounts) still a problem Page � 27

  28. Security-Aware Testing • Defense: Better testing for models f Θ • Testing around boundary • Testing of corner cases • Analysis of neural coverage • Defense: Di ff erential testing • Training of multiple models • Analysis of di ff erences between learned models • But: Inherent limitations of testing approaches Page � 28

  29. Conclusions Page � 29

  30. Conclusions • Take-Away: Machine learning is insecure! • Learning algorithms not smart — despite the hype • Learned models ≠ human perception and understanding • Integrity and confidentiality not guaranteed • Take-Away: Security research urgently needed! • Current defenses still largely ine ff ective • Demand for better integrated and operational security • Testing and verification of learning promising direction Page � 30

  31. Thanks! Questions? Page � 31

Recommend


More recommend