Adversarial Detection of Flash Malware: Limitations and Open Issues

During the past four years, Flash malware has become one of the most insidious threats to detect, with almost 600 critical vulnerabilities targeting Adobe Flash disclosed in the wild. Research has shown that machine learning can be successfully used to detect Flash malware by leveraging static analysis to extract information from the structure of the file or its bytecode. However, the robustness of Flash malware detectors against well-crafted evasion attempts - also known as adversarial examples - has never been investigated. In this paper, we propose a security evaluation of a novel, representative Flash detector that embeds a combination of the prominent, static features employed by state-of-the-art tools. In particular, we discuss how to craft adversarial Flash malware examples, showing that it suffices to manipulate the corresponding source malware samples slightly to evade detection. We then empirically demonstrate that popular defense techniques proposed to mitigate evasion attempts, including re-training on adversarial examples, may not always be sufficient to ensure robustness. We argue that this occurs when the feature vectors extracted from adversarial examples become indistinguishable from those of benign data, meaning that the given feature representation is intrinsically vulnerable. In this respect, we are the first to formally define and quantitatively characterize this vulnerability, highlighting when an attack can be countered by solely improving the security of the learning algorithm, or when it requires also considering additional features. We conclude the paper by suggesting alternative research directions to improve the security of learning-based Flash malware detectors

Is Deep Learning Safe for Robot Vision? Adversarial Examples against the iCub Humanoid

Deep neural networks have been widely adopted in recent years, exhibiting impressive performances in several application domains. It has however been shown that they can be fooled by adversarial examples, i.e., images altered by a barely-perceivable adversarial noise, carefully crafted to mislead classification. In this work, we aim to evaluate the extent to which robot-vision systems embodying deep-learning algorithms are vulnerable to adversarial examples, and propose a computationally efficient countermeasure to mitigate this threat, based on rejecting classification of anomalous inputs. We then provide a clearer understanding of the safety properties of deep networks through an intuitive empirical analysis, showing that the mapping learned by such networks essentially violates the smoothness assumption of learning algorithms. We finally discuss the main limitations of this work, including the creation of real-world adversarial examples, and sketch promising research directions.Comment: Accepted for publication at the ICCV 2017 Workshop on Vision in Practice on Autonomous Robots (ViPAR

Why Do Adversarial Attacks Transfer? Explaining Transferability of Evasion and Poisoning Attacks

Transferability captures the ability of an attack against a machine-learning model to be effective against a different, potentially unknown, model. Empirical evidence for transferability has been shown in previous work, but the underlying reasons why an attack transfers or not are not yet well understood. In this paper, we present a comprehensive analysis aimed to investigate the transferability of both test-time evasion and training-time poisoning attacks. We provide a unifying optimization framework for evasion and poisoning attacks, and a formal definition of transferability of such attacks. We highlight two main factors contributing to attack transferability: the intrinsic adversarial vulnerability of the target model, and the complexity of the surrogate model used to optimize the attack. Based on these insights, we define three metrics that impact an attack's transferability. Interestingly, our results derived from theoretical analysis hold for both evasion and poisoning attacks, and are confirmed experimentally using a wide range of linear and non-linear classifiers and datasets

BAARD: Blocking Adversarial Examples by Testing for Applicability, Reliability and Decidability

Adversarial defenses protect machine learning models from adversarial attacks, but are often tailored to one type of model or attack. The lack of information on unknown potential attacks makes detecting adversarial examples challenging. Additionally, attackers do not need to follow the rules made by the defender. To address this problem, we take inspiration from the concept of Applicability Domain in cheminformatics. Cheminformatics models struggle to make accurate predictions because only a limited number of compounds are known and available for training. Applicability Domain defines a domain based on the known compounds and rejects any unknown compound that falls outside the domain. Similarly, adversarial examples start as harmless inputs, but can be manipulated to evade reliable classification by moving outside the domain of the classifier. We are the first to identify the similarity between Applicability Domain and adversarial detection. Instead of focusing on unknown attacks, we focus on what is known, the training data. We propose a simple yet robust triple-stage data-driven framework that checks the input globally and locally, and confirms that they are coherent with the model's output. This framework can be applied to any classification model and is not limited to specific attacks. We demonstrate these three stages work as one unit, effectively detecting various attacks, even for a white-box scenario

Stateful Detection of Adversarial Reprogramming

Adversarial reprogramming allows stealing computational resources by repurposing machine learning models to perform a different task chosen by the attacker. For example, a model trained to recognize images of animals can be reprogrammed to recognize medical images by embedding an adversarial program in the images provided as inputs. This attack can be perpetrated even if the target model is a black box, supposed that the machine-learning model is provided as a service and the attacker can query the model and collect its outputs. So far, no defense has been demonstrated effective in this scenario. We show for the first time that this attack is detectable using stateful defenses, which store the queries made to the classifier and detect the abnormal cases in which they are similar. Once a malicious query is detected, the account of the user who made it can be blocked. Thus, the attacker must create many accounts to perpetrate the attack. To decrease this number, the attacker could create the adversarial program against a surrogate classifier and then fine-tune it by making few queries to the target model. In this scenario, the effectiveness of the stateful defense is reduced, but we show that it is still effective

Indicators of Attack Failure: Debugging and Improving Optimization of Adversarial Examples

Evaluating robustness of machine-learning models to adversarial examples is a challenging problem. Many defenses have been shown to provide a false sense of security by causing gradient-based attacks to fail, and they have been broken under more rigorous evaluations. Although guidelines and best practices have been suggested to improve current adversarial robustness evaluations, the lack of automatic testing and debugging tools makes it difficult to apply these recommendations in a systematic manner. In this work, we overcome these limitations by (i) defining a set of quantitative indicators which unveil common failures in the optimization of gradient-based attacks, and (ii) proposing specific mitigation strategies within a systematic evaluation protocol. Our extensive experimental analysis shows that the proposed indicators of failure can be used to visualize, debug and improve current adversarial robustness evaluations, providing a first concrete step towards automatizing and systematizing current adversarial robustness evaluations. Our open-source code is available at: https://github.com/pralab/IndicatorsOfAttackFailure