TrojDRL: Trojan Attacks on Deep Reinforcement Learning Agents

Recent work has identified that classification models implemented as neural networks are vulnerable to data-poisoning and Trojan attacks at training time. In this work, we show that these training-time vulnerabilities extend to deep reinforcement learning (DRL) agents and can be exploited by an adversary with access to the training process. In particular, we focus on Trojan attacks that augment the function of reinforcement learning policies with hidden behaviors. We demonstrate that such attacks can be implemented through minuscule data poisoning (as little as 0.025% of the training data) and in-band reward modification that does not affect the reward on normal inputs. The policies learned with our proposed attack approach perform imperceptibly similar to benign policies but deteriorate drastically when the Trojan is triggered in both targeted and untargeted settings. Furthermore, we show that existing Trojan defense mechanisms for classification tasks are not effective in the reinforcement learning setting

Stealthy Backdoor Attack for Code Models

Code models, such as CodeBERT and CodeT5, offer general-purpose representations of code and play a vital role in supporting downstream automated software engineering tasks. Most recently, code models were revealed to be vulnerable to backdoor attacks. A code model that is backdoor-attacked can behave normally on clean examples but will produce pre-defined malicious outputs on examples injected with triggers that activate the backdoors. Existing backdoor attacks on code models use unstealthy and easy-to-detect triggers. This paper aims to investigate the vulnerability of code models with stealthy backdoor attacks. To this end, we propose AFRAIDOOR (Adversarial Feature as Adaptive Backdoor). AFRAIDOOR achieves stealthiness by leveraging adversarial perturbations to inject adaptive triggers into different inputs. We evaluate AFRAIDOOR on three widely adopted code models (CodeBERT, PLBART and CodeT5) and two downstream tasks (code summarization and method name prediction). We find that around 85% of adaptive triggers in AFRAIDOOR bypass the detection in the defense process. By contrast, only less than 12% of the triggers from previous work bypass the defense. When the defense method is not applied, both AFRAIDOOR and baselines have almost perfect attack success rates. However, once a defense is applied, the success rates of baselines decrease dramatically to 10.47% and 12.06%, while the success rate of AFRAIDOOR are 77.05% and 92.98% on the two tasks. Our finding exposes security weaknesses in code models under stealthy backdoor attacks and shows that the state-of-the-art defense method cannot provide sufficient protection. We call for more research efforts in understanding security threats to code models and developing more effective countermeasures.Comment: 18 pages, Under review of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineerin

MDTD: A Multi Domain Trojan Detector for Deep Neural Networks

Machine learning models that use deep neural networks (DNNs) are vulnerable to backdoor attacks. An adversary carrying out a backdoor attack embeds a predefined perturbation called a trigger into a small subset of input samples and trains the DNN such that the presence of the trigger in the input results in an adversary-desired output class. Such adversarial retraining however needs to ensure that outputs for inputs without the trigger remain unaffected and provide high classification accuracy on clean samples. In this paper, we propose MDTD, a Multi-Domain Trojan Detector for DNNs, which detects inputs containing a Trojan trigger at testing time. MDTD does not require knowledge of trigger-embedding strategy of the attacker and can be applied to a pre-trained DNN model with image, audio, or graph-based inputs. MDTD leverages an insight that input samples containing a Trojan trigger are located relatively farther away from a decision boundary than clean samples. MDTD estimates the distance to a decision boundary using adversarial learning methods and uses this distance to infer whether a test-time input sample is Trojaned or not. We evaluate MDTD against state-of-the-art Trojan detection methods across five widely used image-based datasets: CIFAR100, CIFAR10, GTSRB, SVHN, and Flowers102; four graph-based datasets: AIDS, WinMal, Toxicant, and COLLAB; and the SpeechCommand audio dataset. MDTD effectively identifies samples that contain different types of Trojan triggers. We evaluate MDTD against adaptive attacks where an adversary trains a robust DNN to increase (decrease) distance of benign (Trojan) inputs from a decision boundary.Comment: Accepted to ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (ACM CCS) 202