인공지능 보안

학위논문 (박사) -- 서울대학교 대학원 : 자연과학대학 협동과정 생물정보학전공, 2021. 2. 윤성로.With the development of machine learning (ML), expectations for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have increased daily. In particular, deep neural networks have demonstrated outstanding performance in many fields. However, if a deep-learning (DL) model causes mispredictions or misclassifications, it can cause difficulty, owing to malicious external influences. This dissertation discusses DL security and privacy issues and proposes methodologies for security and privacy attacks. First, we reviewed security attacks and defenses from two aspects. Evasion attacks use adversarial examples to disrupt the classification process, and poisoning attacks compromise training by compromising the training data. Next, we reviewed attacks on privacy that can exploit exposed training data and defenses, including differential privacy and encryption. For adversarial DL, we study the problem of finding adversarial examples against ML-based portable document format (PDF) malware classifiers. We believe that our problem is more challenging than those against ML models for image processing, owing to the highly complex data structure of PDFs, compared with traditional image datasets, and the requirement that the infected PDF should exhibit malicious behavior without being detected. We propose an attack using generative adversarial networks that effectively generates evasive PDFs using a variational autoencoder robust against adversarial examples. For privacy in DL, we study the problem of avoiding sensitive data being misused and propose a privacy-preserving framework for deep neural networks. Our methods are based on generative models that preserve the privacy of sensitive data while maintaining a high prediction performance. Finally, we study the security aspect in biological domains to detect maliciousness in deoxyribonucleic acid sequences and watermarks to protect intellectual properties. In summary, the proposed DL models for security and privacy embrace a diversity of research by attempting actual attacks and defenses in various fields.인공지능 모델을 사용하기 위해서는 개인별 데이터 수집이 필수적이다. 반면 개인의 민감한 데이터가 유출되는 경우에는 프라이버시 침해의 소지가 있다. 인공지능 모델을 사용하는데 수집된 데이터가 외부에 유출되지 않도록 하거나, 익명화, 부호화 등의 보안 기법을 인공지능 모델에 적용하는 분야를 Private AI로 분류할 수 있다. 또한 인공지능 모델이 노출될 경우 지적 소유권이 무력화될 수 있는 문제점과, 악의적인 학습 데이터를 이용하여 인공지능 시스템을 오작동할 수 있고 이러한 인공지능 모델 자체에 대한 위협은 Secure AI로 분류할 수 있다. 본 논문에서는 학습 데이터에 대한 공격을 기반으로 신경망의 결손 사례를 보여준다. 기존의 AEs 연구들은 이미지를 기반으로 많은 연구가 진행되었다. 보다 복잡한 heterogenous한 PDF 데이터로 연구를 확장하여 generative 기반의 모델을 제안하여 공격 샘플을 생성하였다. 다음으로 이상 패턴을 보이는 샘플을 검출할 수 있는 DNA steganalysis 방어 모델을 제안한다. 마지막으로 개인 정보 보호를 위해 generative 모델 기반의 익명화 기법들을 제안한다. 요약하면 본 논문은 인공지능 모델을 활용한 공격 및 방어 알고리즘과 신경망을 활용하는데 발생되는 프라이버시 이슈를 해결할 수 있는 기계학습 알고리즘에 기반한 일련의 방법론을 제안한다.Abstract i List of Figures vi List of Tables xiii 1 Introduction 1 2 Background 6 2.1 Deep Learning: a brief overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.2 Security Attacks on Deep Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2.2.1 Evasion Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.2.2 Poisoning Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2.3 Defense Techniques Against Deep Learning Models . . . . . . . . . 26 2.3.1 Defense Techniques against Evasion Attacks . . . . . . . . 27 2.3.2 Defense against Poisoning Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.4 Privacy issues on Deep Learning Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 2.4.1 Attacks on Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 2.4.2 Defenses Against Attacks on Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3 Attacks on Deep Learning Models 47 3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.1.1 Threat Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 3.1.2 Portable Document Format (PDF) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 3.1.3 PDF Malware Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 3.1.4 Evasion Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 3.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.2.1 Feature Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3.2.2 Feature Selection Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 3.2.3 Seed Selection for Mutation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3.2.4 Evading Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 3.2.5 Model architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.2.6 PDF Repacking and Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.3.1 Datasets and Model Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3.3.2 Target Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3.3.3 CVEs for Various Types of PDF Malware . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.3.4 Malicious Signature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3.3.5 AntiVirus Engines (VirusTotal) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.3.6 Feature Mutation Result for Contagio . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3.3.7 Feature Mutation Result for CVEs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.3.8 Malicious Signature Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3.3.9 Evasion Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3.3.10 AntiVirus Engines (VirusTotal) Result . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 4 Defense on Deep Learning Models 88 4.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4.1.1 Message-Hiding Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 4.1.2 DNA Steganography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 4.1.3 Example of Message Hiding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 4.1.4 DNA Steganalysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 4.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 4.2.1 Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 4.2.2 Proposed Model Architecture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.3.1 Experiment Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 4.3.2 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4.3.3 Dataset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.3.4 Model Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.3.5 Message Hiding Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4.3.6 Evaluation Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3.7 Performance Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 4.3.8 Analyzing Malicious Code in DNA Sequences . . . . . . . 112 4.4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 5 Privacy: Generative Models for Anonymizing Private Data 115 5.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.1.1 Notations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.1.2 Anonymization using GANs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 5.1.3 Security Principle of Anonymized GANs . . . . . . . . . . 123 5.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.2.1 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 5.2.2 Target Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.2.3 Model Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.2.4 Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 5.2.5 Comparison to Differential Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.2.6 Performance Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 6 Privacy: Privacy-preserving Inference for Deep Learning Models 132 6.1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 6.1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 6.1.2 Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.1.3 Deep Private Generation Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 6.1.4 Security Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 6.1.5 Threat to the Classifier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.2.1 Datasets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 6.2.2 Experimental Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 6.2.3 Target Classifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 6.2.4 Model Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 6.2.5 Model Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 6.2.6 Performance Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 6.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 7 Conclusion 153 7.0.1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 7.0.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Bibliography 157 Abstract in Korean 195Docto

MalDetConv: Automated Behaviour-based Malware Detection Framework Based on Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning Techniques

The popularity of Windows attracts the attention of hackers/cyber-attackers, making Windows devices the primary target of malware attacks in recent years. Several sophisticated malware variants and anti-detection methods have been significantly enhanced and as a result, traditional malware detection techniques have become less effective. This work presents MalBehavD-V1, a new behavioural dataset of Windows Application Programming Interface (API) calls extracted from benign and malware executable files using the dynamic analysis approach. In addition, we present MalDetConV, a new automated behaviour-based framework for detecting both existing and zero-day malware attacks. MalDetConv uses a text processing-based encoder to transform features of API calls into a suitable format supported by deep learning models. It then uses a hybrid of convolutional neural network (CNN) and bidirectional gated recurrent unit (CNN-BiGRU) automatic feature extractor to select high-level features of the API Calls which are then fed to a fully connected neural network module for malware classification. MalDetConv also uses an explainable component that reveals features that contributed to the final classification outcome, helping the decision-making process for security analysts. The performance of the proposed framework is evaluated using our MalBehavD-V1 dataset and other benchmark datasets. The detection results demonstrate the effectiveness of MalDetConv over the state-of-the-art techniques with detection accuracy of 96.10%, 95.73%, 98.18%, and 99.93% achieved while detecting unseen malware from MalBehavD-V1, Allan and John, Brazilian, and Ki-D datasets, respectively. The experimental results show that MalDetConv is highly accurate in detecting both known and zero-day malware attacks on Windows devices

Advances in Artificial Intelligence: Models, Optimization, and Machine Learning

The present book contains all the articles accepted and published in the Special Issue “Advances in Artificial Intelligence: Models, Optimization, and Machine Learning” of the MDPI Mathematics journal, which covers a wide range of topics connected to the theory and applications of artificial intelligence and its subfields. These topics include, among others, deep learning and classic machine learning algorithms, neural modelling, architectures and learning algorithms, biologically inspired optimization algorithms, algorithms for autonomous driving, probabilistic models and Bayesian reasoning, intelligent agents and multiagent systems. We hope that the scientific results presented in this book will serve as valuable sources of documentation and inspiration for anyone willing to pursue research in artificial intelligence, machine learning and their widespread applications

Malgazer: An Automated Malware Classifier With Running Window Entropy and Machine Learning

This dissertation explores functional malware classification using running window entropy and machine learning classifiers. This topic was under researched in the prior literature, but the implications are important for malware defense. This dissertation will present six new design science artifacts. The first artifact was a generalized machine learning based malware classifier model. This model was used to categorize and explain the gaps in the prior literature. This artifact was also used to compare the prior literature to the classifiers created in this dissertation, herein referred to as “Malgazer” classifiers. Running window entropy data was required, but the algorithm was too slow to compute at scale. This dissertation presents an optimized version of the algorithm that requires less than 2% of the time of the original algorithm. Next, the classifications for the malware samples were required, but there was no one unified and consistent source for this information. One of the design science artifacts was the method to determine the classifications from publicly available resources. Once the running window entropy data was computed and the functional classifications were collected, the machine learning algorithms were trained at scale so that one individual could complete over 200 computationally intensive experiments for this dissertation. The method to scale the computations was an instantiation design science artifact. The trained classifiers were another design science artifact. Lastly, a web application was developed so that the classifiers could be utilized by those without a programming background. This was the last design science artifact created by this research. Once the classifiers were developed, they were compared to prior literature theoretically and empirically. A malware classification method from prior literature was chosen (referred to herein as “GIST”) for an empirical comparison to the Malgazer classifiers. The best Malgazer classifier produced an accuracy of approximately 95%, which was around 0.76% more accurate than the GIST method on the same data sets. Then, the Malgazer classifier was compared to the prior literature theoretically, based upon the empirical analysis with GIST, and Malgazer performed at least as well as the prior literature. While the data, methods, and source code are open sourced from this research, most prior literature did not provide enough information or data to replicate and verify each method. This prevented a full and true comparison to prior literature, but it did not prevent recommending the Malgazer classifier for some use cases

Analysis of physiological signals using machine learning methods

Technological advances in data collection enable scientists to suggest novel approaches, such as Machine Learning algorithms, to process and make sense of this information. However, during this process of collection, data loss and damage can occur for reasons such as faulty device sensors or miscommunication. In the context of time-series data such as multi-channel bio-signals, there is a possibility of losing a whole channel. In such cases, existing research suggests imputing the missing parts when the majority of data is available. One way of understanding and classifying complex signals is by using deep neural networks. The hyper-parameters of such models have been optimised using the process of back propagation. Over time, improvements have been suggested to enhance this algorithm. However, an essential drawback of the back propagation can be the sensitivity to noisy data. This thesis proposes two novel approaches to address the missing data challenge and back propagation drawbacks: First, suggesting a gradient-free model in order to discover the optimal hyper-parameters of a deep neural network. The complexity of deep networks and high-dimensional optimisation parameters presents challenges to find a suitable network structure and hyper-parameter configuration. This thesis proposes the use of a minimalist swarm optimiser, Dispersive Flies Optimisation(DFO), to enable the selected model to achieve better results in comparison with the traditional back propagation algorithm in certain conditions such as limited number of training samples. The DFO algorithm offers a robust search process for finding and determining the hyper-parameter configurations. Second, imputing whole missing bio-signals within a multi-channel sample. This approach comprises two experiments, namely the two-signal and five-signal imputation models. The first experiment attempts to implement and evaluate the performance of a model mapping bio-signals from A toB and vice versa. Conceptually, this is an extension to transfer learning using CycleGenerative Adversarial Networks (CycleGANs). The second experiment attempts to suggest a mechanism imputing missing signals in instances where multiple data channels are available for each sample. The capability to map to a target signal through multiple source domains achieves a more accurate estimate for the target domain. The results of the experiments performed indicate that in certain circumstances, such as having a limited number of samples, finding the optimal hyper-parameters of a neural network using gradient-free algorithms outperforms traditional gradient-based algorithms, leading to more accurate classification results. In addition, Generative Adversarial Networks could be used to impute the missing data channels in multi-channel bio-signals, and the generated data used for further analysis and classification tasks

Challenges and opportunities of deep learning models for machinery fault detection and diagnosis: a review

In the age of industry 4.0, deep learning has attracted increasing interest for various research applications. In recent years, deep learning models have been extensively implemented in machinery fault detection and diagnosis (FDD) systems. The deep architecture's automated feature learning process offers great potential to solve problems with traditional fault detection and diagnosis (TFDD) systems. TFDD relies on manual feature selection, which requires prior knowledge of the data and is time intensive. However, the high performance of deep learning comes with challenges and costs. This paper presents a review of deep learning challenges related to machinery fault detection and diagnosis systems. The potential for future work on deep learning implementation in FDD systems is briefly discussed

Neural malware detection

At the heart of today’s malware problem lies theoretically infinite diversity created by metamorphism. The majority of conventional machine learning techniques tackle the problem with the assumptions that a sufficiently large number of training samples exist and that the training set is independent and identically distributed. However, the lack of semantic features combined with the models under these wrong assumptions result largely in overfitting with many false positives against real world samples, resulting in systems being left vulnerable to various adversarial attacks. A key observation is that modern malware authors write a script that automatically generates an arbitrarily large number of diverse samples that share similar characteristics in program logic, which is a very cost-effective way to evade detection with minimum effort. Given that many malware campaigns follow this paradigm of economic malware manufacturing model, the samples within a campaign are likely to share coherent semantic characteristics. This opens up a possibility of one-to-many detection. Therefore, it is crucial to capture this non-linear metamorphic pattern unique to the campaign in order to detect these seemingly diverse but identically rooted variants. To address these issues, this dissertation proposes novel deep learning models, including generative static malware outbreak detection model, generative dynamic malware detection model using spatio-temporal isomorphic dynamic features, and instruction cognitive malware detection. A comparative study on metamorphic threats is also conducted as part of the thesis. Generative adversarial autoencoder (AAE) over convolutional network with global average pooling is introduced as a fundamental deep learning framework for malware detection, which captures highly complex non-linear metamorphism through translation invariancy and local variation insensitivity. Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) used as a part of the framework enables oneshot training where semantically isomorphic malware campaigns are identified by a single malware instance sampled from the very initial outbreak. This is a major innovation because, to the best of our knowledge, no approach has been found to this challenging training objective against the malware distribution that consists of a large number of very sparse groups artificially driven by arms race between attackers and defenders. In addition, we propose a novel method that extracts instruction cognitive representation from uninterpreted raw binary executables, which can be used for oneto- many malware detection via one-shot training against frequency spectrum of the Transformer’s encoded latent representation. The method works regardless of the presence of diverse malware variations while remaining resilient to adversarial attacks that mostly use random perturbation against raw binaries. Comprehensive performance analyses including mathematical formulations and experimental evaluations are provided, with the proposed deep learning framework for malware detection exhibiting a superior performance over conventional machine learning methods. The methods proposed in this thesis are applicable to a variety of threat environments here artificially formed sparse distributions arise at the cyber battle fronts.Doctor of Philosoph