Upper and Lower Bounds on Black-Box Steganography

We study the limitations of steganography when the sender is not using any properties of the underlying channel beyond its entropy and the ability to sample from it. On the negative side, we show that the number of samples the sender must obtain from the channel is exponential in the rate of the stegosystem. On the positive side, we present the first secret-key stegosystem that essentially matches this lower bound regardless of the entropy of the underlying channel. Furthermore, for high-entropy channels, we present the first secret-key stegosystem that matches this lower bound statelessly (i.e., without requiring synchronized state between sender and receiver)

Steganography

Multi Layer Security (MLS) is the art of hiding the fact that communication is taking place, by hiding information in other information. Many different carrier file formats can be used, but digital images are the most popular because of their frequency on the internet. For hiding secret information in images, there exists a large variety of techniques some are more complex than others and all of them have respective strong and weak points. Different applications may require absolute invisibility of the secret information, while others require a large secret message to be hidden. This project report intends to give an overview of image encryption, its uses and techniques. It also attempts to identify the requirements of a good algorithm and briefly reflects on which techniques are more suitable for applications

On the Gold Standard for Security of Universal Steganography

While symmetric-key steganography is quite well understood both in the information-theoretic and in the computational setting, many fundamental questions about its public-key counterpart resist persistent attempts to solve them. The computational model for public-key steganography was proposed by von Ahn and Hopper in EUROCRYPT 2004. At TCC 2005, Backes and Cachin gave the first universal public-key stegosystem - i.e. one that works on all channels - achieving security against replayable chosen-covertext attacks (SS-RCCA) and asked whether security against non-replayable chosen-covertext attacks (SS-CCA) is achievable. Later, Hopper (ICALP 2005) provided such a stegosystem for every efficiently sampleable channel, but did not achieve universality. He posed the question whether universality and SS-CCA-security can be achieved simultaneously. No progress on this question has been achieved since more than a decade. In our work we solve Hopper's problem in a somehow complete manner: As our main positive result we design an SS-CCA-secure stegosystem that works for every memoryless channel. On the other hand, we prove that this result is the best possible in the context of universal steganography. We provide a family of 0-memoryless channels - where the already sent documents have only marginal influence on the current distribution - and prove that no SS-CCA-secure steganography for this family exists in the standard non-look-ahead model.Comment: EUROCRYPT 2018, llncs styl

Hard Communication Channels for Steganography

This paper considers steganography - the concept of hiding the presence of secret messages in legal communications - in the computational setting and its relation to cryptography. Very recently the first (non-polynomial time) steganographic protocol has been shown which, for any communication channel, is provably secure, reliable, and has nearly optimal bandwidth. The security is unconditional, i.e. it does not rely on any unproven complexity-theoretic assumption. This disproves the claim that the existence of one-way functions and access to a communication channel oracle are both necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of secure steganography in the sense that secure and reliable steganography exists independently of the existence of one-way functions. In this paper, we prove that this equivalence also does not hold in the more realistic setting, where the stegosystem is polynomial time bounded. We prove this by constructing (a) a channel for which secure steganography exists if and only if one-way functions exist and (b) another channel such that secure steganography implies that no one-way functions exist. We therefore show that security-preserving reductions between cryptography and steganography need to be treated very carefully

Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity

From 11.10. to 16.10.2009, the Dagstuhl Seminar 09421 “Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity “ was held in Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz Center for Informatics. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

09421 Abstracts Collection -- Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity

From 11.10. to 16.10.2009, the Dagstuhl Seminar 09421 ``Algebraic Methods in Computational Complexity \u27\u27 was held in Schloss Dagstuhl~--~Leibniz Center for Informatics. During the seminar, several participants presented their current research, and ongoing work and open problems were discussed. Abstracts of the presentations given during the seminar as well as abstracts of seminar results and ideas are put together in this paper. The first section describes the seminar topics and goals in general. Links to extended abstracts or full papers are provided, if available

Towards private and robust machine learning for information security

Many problems in information security are pattern recognition problems. For example, determining if a digital communication can be trusted amounts to certifying that the communication does not carry malicious or secret content, which can be distilled into the problem of recognising the difference between benign and malicious content. At a high level, machine learning is the study of how patterns are formed within data, and how learning these patterns generalises beyond the potentially limited data pool at a practitioner’s disposal, and so has become a powerful tool in information security. In this work, we study the benefits machine learning can bring to two problems in information security. Firstly, we show that machine learning can be used to detect which websites are visited by an internet user over an encrypted connection. By analysing timing and packet size information of encrypted network traffic, we train a machine learning model that predicts the target website given a stream of encrypted network traffic, even if browsing is performed over an anonymous communication network. Secondly, in addition to studying how machine learning can be used to design attacks, we study how it can be used to solve the problem of hiding information within a cover medium, such as an image or an audio recording, which is commonly referred to as steganography. How well an algorithm can hide information within a cover medium amounts to how well the algorithm models and exploits areas of redundancy. This can again be reduced to a pattern recognition problem, and so we apply machine learning to design a steganographic algorithm that efficiently hides a secret message with an image. Following this, we proceed with discussions surrounding why machine learning is not a panacea for information security, and can be an attack vector in and of itself. We show that machine learning can leak private and sensitive information about the data it used to learn, and how malicious actors can exploit vulnerabilities in these learning algorithms to compel them to exhibit adversarial behaviours. Finally, we examine the problem of the disconnect between image recognition systems learned by humans and by machine learning models. While human classification of an image is relatively robust to noise, machine learning models do not possess this property. We show how an attacker can cause targeted misclassifications against an entire data distribution by exploiting this property, and go onto introduce a mitigation that ameliorates this undesirable trait of machine learning

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