Towards More Realistic Extraction Attacks: An Adversarial Perspective

Read original: arXiv:2407.02596 - Published 7/4/2024 by Yash More, Prakhar Ganesh, Golnoosh Farnadi

⛏️

Overview

Language models are prone to memorizing parts of their training data, making them vulnerable to extraction attacks
Existing research on these attacks has been limited in scope, often studying isolated trends rather than real-world interactions with these models
This paper revisits extraction attacks from an adversarial perspective, exploring the brittleness of language models

Plain English Explanation

Language models, which are AI systems trained on vast amounts of text data, have a tendency to memorize large portions of their training data. This makes them vulnerable to extraction attacks, where an attacker tries to extract this memorized information.

Previous research on extraction attacks has often looked at isolated trends, rather than how these attacks would work in the real world when interacting with language models. This paper takes a deeper look at extraction attacks from the perspective of an adversary - someone trying to exploit the weaknesses of these language models.

The researchers found that even small, unintuitive changes to the input prompts used to interact with language models can significantly increase the risks of extraction, by up to 2-4 times. They also discovered that the standard way of measuring extracted information, called "verbatim match," underestimates the true extent of the problem. The researchers provide alternative ways to better capture the risks of extraction.

Additionally, the paper examines a common mitigation strategy called "data deduplication," which aims to reduce the memorization of training data. While this approach helps with some memorization concerns, the researchers found that it still leaves language models vulnerable to escalating extraction risks from a real-world adversary.

The key takeaway is that we need to take a more comprehensive, adversarial view of extraction attacks to avoid underestimating the true risks posed by language models' ability to memorize their training data.

Technical Explanation

The paper starts by acknowledging that language models are prone to memorizing large parts of their training data, making them vulnerable to extraction attacks. The researchers note that existing research on these attacks has been limited in scope, often studying isolated trends rather than the real-world interactions with these models.

To address this, the authors revisit extraction attacks from an adversarial perspective, exploiting the brittleness of language models. They find that even minor, unintuitive changes to the prompt, or targeting smaller models and older checkpoints, can exacerbate the risks of extraction by up to 2-4 times. This highlights the need for a more comprehensive understanding of the true capabilities of an adversary.

Moreover, the researchers find that relying solely on the widely accepted "verbatim match" metric underestimates the extent of extracted information. They provide various alternatives, such as semantic similarity and Pandora's White Box, to more accurately capture the risks of extraction.

The paper also examines data deduplication, a commonly suggested mitigation strategy, and finds that while it addresses some memorization concerns, it remains vulnerable to the same escalation of extraction risks against a real-world adversary. This emphasizes the necessity of acknowledging an adversary's true capabilities to avoid underestimating extraction risks.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of extraction attacks against language models. By taking an adversarial perspective, the researchers unveil the brittleness of these models and the limitations of existing research and mitigation strategies.

One potential limitation of the study is its focus on a specific set of language models and attack scenarios. While the findings highlight the need for a more comprehensive understanding of extraction risks, the generalizability of the results to a broader range of models and attack vectors could be further explored.

Additionally, the paper does not delve into the potential societal implications of these extraction attacks, such as the risks of sensitive information leakage or the misuse of extracted data. Exploring these broader implications could further strengthen the argument for the necessity of robust defenses against extraction attacks.

Overall, this paper represents an important step towards a more realistic and adversarial understanding of the vulnerabilities of language models, which is crucial for developing effective countermeasures and ensuring the responsible deployment of these powerful AI systems.

Conclusion

This paper revisits extraction attacks against language models, taking an adversarial perspective to unveil the brittleness of these systems. The researchers find significant churn in extraction attack trends, where even minor changes to the input prompts or targeting smaller models can significantly escalate the risks of extraction.

Moreover, the study challenges the widely accepted "verbatim match" metric, showing that it underestimates the true extent of extracted information. The researchers propose alternative methods to more accurately capture the risks of extraction.

The paper also examines data deduplication, a common mitigation strategy, and finds that it remains vulnerable to the same escalation of extraction risks from a real-world adversary. This highlights the necessity of acknowledging an adversary's true capabilities to avoid underestimating the threats posed by language model extraction attacks.

The findings of this paper underscore the importance of a comprehensive, adversarial understanding of the vulnerabilities of language models. This is crucial for developing robust defenses and ensuring the responsible deployment of these powerful AI systems in real-world applications.

This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Follow @aimodelsfyi on 𝕏 →

Related Papers

⛏️

Towards More Realistic Extraction Attacks: An Adversarial Perspective

Yash More, Prakhar Ganesh, Golnoosh Farnadi

Language models are prone to memorizing large parts of their training data, making them vulnerable to extraction attacks. Existing research on these attacks remains limited in scope, often studying isolated trends rather than the real-world interactions with these models. In this paper, we revisit extraction attacks from an adversarial perspective, exploiting the brittleness of language models. We find significant churn in extraction attack trends, i.e., even minor, unintuitive changes to the prompt, or targeting smaller models and older checkpoints, can exacerbate the risks of extraction by up to $2-4 times$. Moreover, relying solely on the widely accepted verbatim match underestimates the extent of extracted information, and we provide various alternatives to more accurately capture the true risks of extraction. We conclude our discussion with data deduplication, a commonly suggested mitigation strategy, and find that while it addresses some memorization concerns, it remains vulnerable to the same escalation of extraction risks against a real-world adversary. Our findings highlight the necessity of acknowledging an adversary's true capabilities to avoid underestimating extraction risks.

7/4/2024

Beyond Labeling Oracles: What does it mean to steal ML models?

Avital Shafran, Ilia Shumailov, Murat A. Erdogdu, Nicolas Papernot

Model extraction attacks are designed to steal trained models with only query access, as is often provided through APIs that ML-as-a-Service providers offer. Machine Learning (ML) models are expensive to train, in part because data is hard to obtain, and a primary incentive for model extraction is to acquire a model while incurring less cost than training from scratch. Literature on model extraction commonly claims or presumes that the attacker is able to save on both data acquisition and labeling costs. We thoroughly evaluate this assumption and find that the attacker often does not. This is because current attacks implicitly rely on the adversary being able to sample from the victim model's data distribution. We thoroughly research factors influencing the success of model extraction. We discover that prior knowledge of the attacker, i.e., access to in-distribution data, dominates other factors like the attack policy the adversary follows to choose which queries to make to the victim model API. Our findings urge the community to redefine the adversarial goals of ME attacks as current evaluation methods misinterpret the ME performance.

6/14/2024

Large Language Models are Good Attackers: Efficient and Stealthy Textual Backdoor Attacks

Ziqiang Li, Yueqi Zeng, Pengfei Xia, Lei Liu, Zhangjie Fu, Bin Li

With the burgeoning advancements in the field of natural language processing (NLP), the demand for training data has increased significantly. To save costs, it has become common for users and businesses to outsource the labor-intensive task of data collection to third-party entities. Unfortunately, recent research has unveiled the inherent risk associated with this practice, particularly in exposing NLP systems to potential backdoor attacks. Specifically, these attacks enable malicious control over the behavior of a trained model by poisoning a small portion of the training data. Unlike backdoor attacks in computer vision, textual backdoor attacks impose stringent requirements for attack stealthiness. However, existing attack methods meet significant trade-off between effectiveness and stealthiness, largely due to the high information entropy inherent in textual data. In this paper, we introduce the Efficient and Stealthy Textual backdoor attack method, EST-Bad, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs). Our EST-Bad encompasses three core strategies: optimizing the inherent flaw of models as the trigger, stealthily injecting triggers with LLMs, and meticulously selecting the most impactful samples for backdoor injection. Through the integration of these techniques, EST-Bad demonstrates an efficient achievement of competitive attack performance while maintaining superior stealthiness compared to prior methods across various text classifier datasets.

8/22/2024

🔮

Semantic Stealth: Adversarial Text Attacks on NLP Using Several Methods

Roopkatha Dey, Aivy Debnath, Sayak Kumar Dutta, Kaustav Ghosh, Arijit Mitra, Arghya Roy Chowdhury, Jaydip Sen

In various real-world applications such as machine translation, sentiment analysis, and question answering, a pivotal role is played by NLP models, facilitating efficient communication and decision-making processes in domains ranging from healthcare to finance. However, a significant challenge is posed to the robustness of these natural language processing models by text adversarial attacks. These attacks involve the deliberate manipulation of input text to mislead the predictions of the model while maintaining human interpretability. Despite the remarkable performance achieved by state-of-the-art models like BERT in various natural language processing tasks, they are found to remain vulnerable to adversarial perturbations in the input text. In addressing the vulnerability of text classifiers to adversarial attacks, three distinct attack mechanisms are explored in this paper using the victim model BERT: BERT-on-BERT attack, PWWS attack, and Fraud Bargain's Attack (FBA). Leveraging the IMDB, AG News, and SST2 datasets, a thorough comparative analysis is conducted to assess the effectiveness of these attacks on the BERT classifier model. It is revealed by the analysis that PWWS emerges as the most potent adversary, consistently outperforming other methods across multiple evaluation scenarios, thereby emphasizing its efficacy in generating adversarial examples for text classification. Through comprehensive experimentation, the performance of these attacks is assessed and the findings indicate that the PWWS attack outperforms others, demonstrating lower runtime, higher accuracy, and favorable semantic similarity scores. The key insight of this paper lies in the assessment of the relative performances of three prevalent state-of-the-art attack mechanisms.

4/9/2024