Gotta Catch’Em All: Using Honeypots to Catch Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks

Page 1 sur 10Lecteur de document UniversityLib

Gotta Catch’Em All: Using Honeypots to Catch Adversarial Attacks on Neural Networks

Adversarial Attacks, Neural Networks, Machine Learning · notes

Browse all intelligence artificielle et données documents

Gotta Catch’Em All:

Using Honeypots to

Catch Adversarial Attacks

on Neural Networks

Shawn Shan

Emily Wenger

Bolun Wang

Bo Li

Heather Zheng

Ben Y. Zhao

1

Adversarial Attacks against Neural Networks

“Stop Sign ”

DNN

“Speed Limit”

+

Adversarial Noise

(x50 times)

FGSM

PGD

SPSA

CW ElasticNet

ICLR’14

ICLR’17

ICML’18

SP’18

AAAI’18

Gradient Optimization Search for 𝞭:

2

Existing Defenses

Remove Vulnerability:

Adversarial Training

Random Smoothing

Advertisement

Hide Vulnerability:

Local Intrinsic Dimensionality

Pixel Defend

Broken By

Newer Attacks

Adaptive Attacks

3

An Alternative Defense Approach

• Our approach: Introduces a large vulnerability.

• The vulnerability acts as honeypot/trapdoor

Normal

Model

1. Defender: Inject artificial vulnerability (trapdoor)

during training in a controlled way

2. Attackers inevitably find the trapdoor during attack

Trapdoor

Model

3. Defender: Detect incoming attack through trapdoor

Trapdoor: Intentionally Injected Vulnerability

4

Inject Artificial Vulnerabilities

In this work: use backdoors to inject vulnerability

Detect adversarial samples:

Defender’s

DNN

"Stop"

“Speed limit”

“Speed limit”

1. Compare the similarity between

any input and the trapdoor in

feature space.

2. If the similarity is higher than a

threshold, flag the input as

Advertisement

adversarial.

5

+

+

Trapdoor Trigger

(small norm)

Our Experiments

4 classification tasks

6 targeted adversarial attacks

Tasks

MNIST

Architecture

5 layer CNN

Traffic Sign

6 layer CNN

CIFAR10

YouTube Face

ResNet-20

ResNet-50

Adversarial Attacks

FGSM (ICLR’14)

PGD (ICLR’17)

BPDA (ICML’18)

SPSA (ICML’18)

CW (SP’18)

Elastic Net (AAAI’18)

6

Attack Detection Performance

1. Detection success rate > 94% at 5% false positive rate

2. Our trapdoor injection does not reduce model accuracy

Model/

Attack

MNIST

CW

Advertisement

97%

Traffic Sign

96%

CIFAR10

YouTube Face

94%

99%

99%

97%

94%

98%

ElasticNet

PGD

BPDA

100%

SPSA

100%

100%

98%

98%

97%

100%

100%

100%

98%

100%

96%

FGSM

94%

98%

97%

95%

7

Adaptive Attacks (Round 1)

Advertisement

Two strategies: prune out trapdoor or avoid trapdoor

1.

Remove trapdoor-related neurons

Disrupt normal classification before removing trapdoor

2.

Train a surrogate trapdoor-free model

Learn trapdoor along with model

3.

Retrain to unlearn trapdoor

Adversarial examples on new model do not transfer back

4. Avoid trapdoor using small learning rate

Limited attack effectiveness and large overhead

8

Adaptive Attacks (Round 2)

• Shared code with Dr. Nicholas Carlini after CCS acceptance

• Nicholas found multiple new adaptive attacks

• Updates to Camera-ready

• Added new subsection w/ analysis on two of Nicholas’ attacks

• Design and evaluate potential mitigations

• Key takeaways:

• Truly customized adaptive attacks are hard to find

9

Conclusion

• Trapdoor: A new direction for defending against adversarial

attack through self-injecting strong vulnerability

• Code is available on https://github.com/Shawn-Shan/trapdoor

• Many interesting results in the paper

• Theoretical analysis

• Adaptive attacks

• Discussion on Nicholas’ attack

10