11.3CRJul 27, 2022
Will AI Make Cyber Swords or Shields: A few mathematical models of technological progressAndrew J Lohn, Krystal Alex Jackson
We aim to demonstrate the value of mathematical models for policy debates about technological progress in cybersecurity by considering phishing, vulnerability discovery, and the dynamics between patching and exploitation. We then adjust the inputs to those mathematical models to match some possible advances in their underlying technology. We find that AI's impact on phishing may be overestimated but could lead to more attacks going undetected. Advances in vulnerability discovery have the potential to help attackers more than defenders. And automation that writes exploits is more useful to attackers than automation that writes patches, although advances that help deploy patches faster have the potential to be more impactful than either.
3.7CVJun 25, 2022
Empirical Evaluation of Physical Adversarial Patch Attacks Against Overhead Object Detection ModelsGavin S. Hartnett, Li Ang Zhang, Caolionn O'Connell et al.
Adversarial patches are images designed to fool otherwise well-performing neural network-based computer vision models. Although these attacks were initially conceived of and studied digitally, in that the raw pixel values of the image were perturbed, recent work has demonstrated that these attacks can successfully transfer to the physical world. This can be accomplished by printing out the patch and adding it into scenes of newly captured images or video footage. In this work we further test the efficacy of adversarial patch attacks in the physical world under more challenging conditions. We consider object detection models trained on overhead imagery acquired through aerial or satellite cameras, and we test physical adversarial patches inserted into scenes of a desert environment. Our main finding is that it is far more difficult to successfully implement the adversarial patch attacks under these conditions than in the previously considered conditions. This has important implications for AI safety as the real-world threat posed by adversarial examples may be overstated.
4.2CRAug 29, 2018Code
Timelines for In-Code Discovery of Zero-Day Vulnerabilities and Supply-Chain AttacksAndrew J. Lohn
Zero-day vulnerabilities can be accidentally or maliciously placed in code and can remain in place for years. In this study, we address an aspect of their longevity by considering the likelihood that they will be discovered in the code across versions. We approximate well-disguised vulnerabilities as only being discoverable if the relevant lines of code are explicitly examined, and obvious vulnerabilities as being discoverable if any part of the relevant file is examined. We analyze the version-to-version changes in three types of open source software (Mozilla Firefox, GNU/Linus, and glibc) to understand the rate at which the various pieces of code are amended and find that much of the revision behavior can be captured with a simple intuitive model. We use that model and the data from over a billion unique lines of code in 87 different versions of software to specify the bounds for in-code discoverability of vulnerabilities - from expertly hidden to obviously observable.
5.2CROct 6, 2020
Downscaling Attack and Defense: Turning What You See Back Into What You GetAndrew J. Lohn
The resizing of images, which is typically a required part of preprocessing for computer vision systems, is vulnerable to attack. Images can be created such that the image is completely different at machine-vision scales than at other scales and the default settings for some common computer vision and machine learning systems are vulnerable. We show that defenses exist and are trivial to administer provided that defenders are aware of the threat. These attacks and defenses help to establish the role of input sanitization in machine learning.
8.5LGSep 2, 2020
Estimating the Brittleness of AI: Safety Integrity Levels and the Need for Testing Out-Of-Distribution PerformanceAndrew J. Lohn
Test, Evaluation, Verification, and Validation (TEVV) for Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a challenge that threatens to limit the economic and societal rewards that AI researchers have devoted themselves to producing. A central task of TEVV for AI is estimating brittleness, where brittleness implies that the system functions well within some bounds and poorly outside of those bounds. This paper argues that neither of those criteria are certain of Deep Neural Networks. First, highly touted AI successes (eg. image classification and speech recognition) are orders of magnitude more failure-prone than are typically certified in critical systems even within design bounds (perfectly in-distribution sampling). Second, performance falls off only gradually as inputs become further Out-Of-Distribution (OOD). Enhanced emphasis is needed on designing systems that are resilient despite failure-prone AI components as well as on evaluating and improving OOD performance in order to get AI to where it can clear the challenging hurdles of TEVV and certification.
1.2DLMar 5, 2020
A Quantitative History of A.I. Research in the United States and ChinaDaniel Ish, Andrew Lohn, Christian Curriden
Motivated by recent interest in the status and consequences of competition between the U.S. and China in A.I. research, we analyze 60 years of abstract data scraped from Scopus to explore and quantify trends in publications on A.I. topics from institutions affiliated with each country. We find the total volume of publications produced in both countries grows with a remarkable regularity over tens of years. While China initially experienced faster growth in publication volume than the U.S., growth slowed in China when it reached parity with the U.S. and the growth rates of both countries are now similar. We also see both countries undergo a seismic shift in topic choice around 1990, and connect this to an explosion of interest in neural network methods. Finally, we see evidence that between 2000 and 2010, China's topic choice tended to lag that of the U.S. but that in recent decades the topic portfolios have come into closer alignment.
2.2MLOct 4, 2019
Adversarial Examples for Cost-Sensitive ClassifiersGavin S. Hartnett, Andrew J. Lohn, Alexander P. Sedlack
Motivated by safety-critical classification problems, we investigate adversarial attacks against cost-sensitive classifiers. We use current state-of-the-art adversarially-resistant neural network classifiers [1] as the underlying models. Cost-sensitive predictions are then achieved via a final processing step in the feed-forward evaluation of the network. We evaluate the effectiveness of cost-sensitive classifiers against a variety of attacks and we introduce a new cost-sensitive attack which performs better than targeted attacks in some cases. We also explored the measures a defender can take in order to limit their vulnerability to these attacks. This attacker/defender scenario is naturally framed as a two-player zero-sum finite game which we analyze using game theory.
2.7CRSep 30, 2019
Defense in Depth: The Basics of Blockade and DelayAndrew J. Lohn
Given that individual defenses are rarely sufficient, defense-in-depth is nearly universal and options for individual defensive layers abound. We develop a simple mathematical theory that can help in selecting the type and quantity of defenses for two different defense-in-depth strategies: Blockade and Delay. This theoretical approach accounts for budgetary constraints and the number, skill, and diversity of attackers. We find that defenders have several reasons to be optimistic including that the number of required defenses increases more slowly than the number of attackers, that similar attackers are defended more easily than similar defenses are defeated, and that defenders do not necessarily need to act as quickly as attackers.