arXiv subjects

N. Asokan

Publications and source records attributed to N. Asokan.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

arXiv2024

BliMe Linter

Outsourced computation presents a risk to the confidentiality of clients' sensitive data since they have to trust that the service providers will not mishandle this data. Blinded Memory (BliMe) is a set of hardware extensions that addresses this problem by using hardware-based taint tracking to keep track of sensitive client data and enforce a security policy that prevents software from leaking this data, either directly or through side channels. Since programs can leak sensitive data through timing channels and memory access patterns when this data is used in control-flow or memory access instructions, BliMe prohibits such unsafe operations and only allows constant-time code to operate on sensitive data. The question is how a developer can confirm that their code will run correctly on BliMe. While a program can be manually checked to see if it is constant-time, this process is tedious and error-prone. In this paper, we introduce the BliMe linter, a set of compiler extensions built on top of SVF that analyze LLVM bitcode to identify possible BliMe violations. We evaluate the BliMe linter analytically and empirically and show that it is sound.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

S2malloc: Statistically Secure Allocator for Use-After-Free Protection And More

Attacks on heap memory, encompassing memory overflow, double and invalid free, use-after-free (UAF), and various heap spraying techniques are ever-increasing. Existing entropy-based secure memory allocators provide statistical defenses against virtually all of these attack vectors. Although they claim protections against UAF attacks, their designs are not tailored to detect (failed) attempts. Consequently, to beat this entropy-based protection, an attacker can simply launch the same attack repeatedly with the potential use of heap spraying to further improve their chance of success. We introduce S2malloc, aiming to enhance UAF-attempt detection without compromising other security guarantees or introducing significant performance overhead. To achieve this, we use three innovative constructs in secure allocator design: free block canaries (FBC) to detect UAF attempts, random in-block offset (RIO) to stop the attacker from accurately overwriting the victim object, and random bag layout (RBL) to impede attackers from estimating the block size based on its address. We show that (a) by reserving 25% of the object size for the RIO offset, an 8-byte canary offers a 69% protection rate if the attacker reuses the same pointer and 96% protection rate if the attacker does not, against UAF exploitation attempts targeting a 64 bytes object, with equal or higher security guarantees against all other attacks; and (b) S2malloc is practical, with only a 2.8% run-time overhead on PARSEC and an 11.5% overhead on SPEC. Compared to state-of-the-art entropy-based allocators, S2malloc improves UAF-protection without incurring additional performance overhead. Compared to UAF-mitigating allocators, S2malloc trades off a minuscule probability of failed protection for significantly lower overhead.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

SeMalloc: Semantics-Informed Memory Allocator

Use-after-free (UAF) is a critical and prevalent problem in memory unsafe languages. While many solutions have been proposed, balancing security, run-time cost, and memory overhead (an impossible trinity) is hard. In this paper, we show one way to balance the trinity by passing more semantics about the heap object to the allocator for it to make informed allocation decisions. More specifically, we propose a new notion of thread-, context-, and flow-sensitive "type", SemaType, to capture the semantics and prototype a SemaType-based allocator that aims for the best trade-off amongst the impossible trinity. In SeMalloc, only heap objects allocated from the same call site and via the same function call stack can possibly share a virtual memory address, which effectively stops type-confusion attacks and makes UAF vulnerabilities harder to exploit. Through extensive empirical evaluation, we show that SeMalloc is realistic: (a) SeMalloc is effective in thwarting all real-world vulnerabilities we tested; (b) benchmark programs run even slightly faster with SeMalloc than the default heap allocator, at a memory overhead averaged from 41% to 84%; and (c) SeMalloc balances security and overhead strictly better than other closely related works.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

False Claims against Model Ownership Resolution

Deep neural network (DNN) models are valuable intellectual property of model owners, constituting a competitive advantage. Therefore, it is crucial to develop techniques to protect against model theft. Model ownership resolution (MOR) is a class of techniques that can deter model theft. A MOR scheme enables an accuser to assert an ownership claim for a suspect model by presenting evidence, such as a watermark or fingerprint, to show that the suspect model was stolen or derived from a source model owned by the accuser. Most of the existing MOR schemes prioritize robustness against malicious suspects, ensuring that the accuser will win if the suspect model is indeed a stolen model. In this paper, we show that common MOR schemes in the literature are vulnerable to a different, equally important but insufficiently explored, robustness concern: a malicious accuser. We show how malicious accusers can successfully make false claims against independent suspect models that were not stolen. Our core idea is that a malicious accuser can deviate (without detection) from the specified MOR process by finding (transferable) adversarial examples that successfully serve as evidence against independent suspect models. To this end, we first generalize the procedures of common MOR schemes and show that, under this generalization, defending against false claims is as challenging as preventing (transferable) adversarial examples. Via systematic empirical evaluation, we show that our false claim attacks always succeed in the MOR schemes that follow our generalization, including in a real-world model: Amazon's Rekognition API.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Attesting Distributional Properties of Training Data for Machine Learning

The success of machine learning (ML) has been accompanied by increased concerns about its trustworthiness. Several jurisdictions are preparing ML regulatory frameworks. One such concern is ensuring that model training data has desirable distributional properties for certain sensitive attributes. For example, draft regulations indicate that model trainers are required to show that training datasets have specific distributional properties, such as reflecting diversity of the population. We propose the notion of property attestation allowing a prover (e.g., model trainer) to demonstrate relevant distributional properties of training data to a verifier (e.g., a customer) without revealing the data. We present an effective hybrid property attestation combining property inference with cryptographic mechanisms.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

SoK: Unintended Interactions among Machine Learning Defenses and Risks

Machine learning (ML) models cannot neglect risks to security, privacy, and fairness. Several defenses have been proposed to mitigate such risks. When a defense is effective in mitigating one risk, it may correspond to increased or decreased susceptibility to other risks. Existing research lacks an effective framework to recognize and explain these unintended interactions. We present such a framework, based on the conjecture that overfitting and memorization underlie unintended interactions. We survey existing literature on unintended interactions, accommodating them within our framework. We use our framework to conjecture on two previously unexplored interactions, and empirically validate our conjectures.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Data-Oblivious ML Accelerators using Hardware Security Extensions

Outsourced computation can put client data confidentiality at risk. Existing solutions are either inefficient or insufficiently secure: cryptographic techniques like fully-homomorphic encryption incur significant overheads, even with hardware assistance, while the complexity of hardware-assisted trusted execution environments has been exploited to leak secret data. Recent proposals such as BliMe and OISA show how dynamic information flow tracking (DIFT) enforced in hardware can protect client data efficiently. They are designed to protect CPU-only workloads. However, many outsourced computing applications, like machine learning, make extensive use of accelerators. We address this gap with Dolma, which applies DIFT to the Gemmini matrix multiplication accelerator, efficiently guaranteeing client data confidentiality, even in the presence of malicious/vulnerable software and side channel attacks on the server. We show that accelerators can allow DIFT logic optimizations that significantly reduce area overhead compared with general-purpose processor architectures. Dolma is integrated with the BliMe framework to achieve end-to-end security guarantees. We evaluate Dolma on an FPGA using a ResNet-50 DNN model and show that it incurs low overheads for large configurations ($4.4\%$, $16.7\%$, $16.5\%$ for performance, resource usage and power, respectively, with a 32x32 configuration).

cs.CR↗

arXiv2024

Is GitHub's Copilot as Bad as Humans at Introducing Vulnerabilities in Code?

Several advances in deep learning have been successfully applied to the software development process. Of recent interest is the use of neural language models to build tools, such as Copilot, that assist in writing code. In this paper we perform a comparative empirical analysis of Copilot-generated code from a security perspective. The aim of this study is to determine if Copilot is as bad as human developers. We investigate whether Copilot is just as likely to introduce the same software vulnerabilities as human developers. Using a dataset of C/C++ vulnerabilities, we prompt Copilot to generate suggestions in scenarios that led to the introduction of vulnerabilities by human developers. The suggestions are inspected and categorized in a 2-stage process based on whether the original vulnerability or fix is reintroduced. We find that Copilot replicates the original vulnerable code about 33% of the time while replicating the fixed code at a 25% rate. However this behaviour is not consistent: Copilot is more likely to introduce some types of vulnerabilities than others and is also more likely to generate vulnerable code in response to prompts that correspond to older vulnerabilities. Overall, given that in a significant number of cases it did not replicate the vulnerabilities previously introduced by human developers, we conclude that Copilot, despite performing differently across various vulnerability types, is not as bad as human developers at introducing vulnerabilities in code.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

A User-centered Security Evaluation of Copilot

Code generation tools driven by artificial intelligence have recently become more popular due to advancements in deep learning and natural language processing that have increased their capabilities. The proliferation of these tools may be a double-edged sword because while they can increase developer productivity by making it easier to write code, research has shown that they can also generate insecure code. In this paper, we perform a user-centered evaluation GitHub's Copilot to better understand its strengths and weaknesses with respect to code security. We conduct a user study where participants solve programming problems (with and without Copilot assistance) that have potentially vulnerable solutions. The main goal of the user study is to determine how the use of Copilot affects participants' security performance. In our set of participants (n=25), we find that access to Copilot accompanies a more secure solution when tackling harder problems. For the easier problem, we observe no effect of Copilot access on the security of solutions. We also observe no disproportionate impact of Copilot use on particular kinds of vulnerabilities. Our results indicate that there are potential security benefits to using Copilot, but more research is warranted on the effects of the use of code generation tools on technically complex problems with security requirements.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

BliMe: Verifiably Secure Outsourced Computation with Hardware-Enforced Taint Tracking

Outsourced computing is widely used today. However, current approaches for protecting client data in outsourced computing fall short: use of cryptographic techniques like fully-homomorphic encryption incurs substantial costs, whereas use of hardware-assisted trusted execution environments has been shown to be vulnerable to run-time and side-channel attacks. We present Blinded Memory (BliMe), an architecture to realize efficient and secure outsourced computation. BliMe consists of a novel and minimal set of instruction set architecture (ISA) extensions implementing a taint-tracking policy to ensure the confidentiality of client data even in the presence of server vulnerabilities. To secure outsourced computation, the BliMe extensions can be used together with an attestable, fixed-function hardware security module (HSM) and an encryption engine that provides atomic decrypt-and-taint and encrypt-and-untaint operations. Clients rely on remote attestation and key agreement with the HSM to ensure that their data can be transferred securely to and from the encryption engine and will always be protected by BliMe's taint-tracking policy while at the server. We provide an RTL implementation BliMe-BOOM based on the BOOM RISC-V core. BliMe-BOOM requires no reduction in clock frequency relative to unmodified BOOM, and has minimal power ($<\!1.5\%$) and FPGA resource ($\leq\!9.0\%$) overheads. Various implementations of BliMe incur only moderate performance overhead ($8--25\%$). We also provide a machine-checked security proof of a simplified model ISA with BliMe extensions.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

FLARE: Fingerprinting Deep Reinforcement Learning Agents using Universal Adversarial Masks

We propose FLARE, the first fingerprinting mechanism to verify whether a suspected Deep Reinforcement Learning (DRL) policy is an illegitimate copy of another (victim) policy. We first show that it is possible to find non-transferable, universal adversarial masks, i.e., perturbations, to generate adversarial examples that can successfully transfer from a victim policy to its modified versions but not to independently trained policies. FLARE employs these masks as fingerprints to verify the true ownership of stolen DRL policies by measuring an action agreement value over states perturbed by such masks. Our empirical evaluations show that FLARE is effective (100% action agreement on stolen copies) and does not falsely accuse independent policies (no false positives). FLARE is also robust to model modification attacks and cannot be easily evaded by more informed adversaries without negatively impacting agent performance. We also show that not all universal adversarial masks are suitable candidates for fingerprints due to the inherent characteristics of DRL policies. The spatio-temporal dynamics of DRL problems and sequential decision-making process make characterizing the decision boundary of DRL policies more difficult, as well as searching for universal masks that capture the geometry of it.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

GrOVe: Ownership Verification of Graph Neural Networks using Embeddings

Graph neural networks (GNNs) have emerged as a state-of-the-art approach to model and draw inferences from large scale graph-structured data in various application settings such as social networking. The primary goal of a GNN is to learn an embedding for each graph node in a dataset that encodes both the node features and the local graph structure around the node. Embeddings generated by a GNN for a graph node are unique to that GNN. Prior work has shown that GNNs are prone to model extraction attacks. Model extraction attacks and defenses have been explored extensively in other non-graph settings. While detecting or preventing model extraction appears to be difficult, deterring them via effective ownership verification techniques offer a potential defense. In non-graph settings, fingerprinting models, or the data used to build them, have shown to be a promising approach toward ownership verification. We present GrOVe, a state-of-the-art GNN model fingerprinting scheme that, given a target model and a suspect model, can reliably determine if the suspect model was trained independently of the target model or if it is a surrogate of the target model obtained via model extraction. We show that GrOVe can distinguish between surrogate and independent models even when the independent model uses the same training dataset and architecture as the original target model. Using six benchmark datasets and three model architectures, we show that consistently achieves low false-positive and false-negative rates. We demonstrate that is robust against known fingerprint evasion techniques while remaining computationally efficient.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

On the Robustness of Dataset Inference

Machine learning (ML) models are costly to train as they can require a significant amount of data, computational resources and technical expertise. Thus, they constitute valuable intellectual property that needs protection from adversaries wanting to steal them. Ownership verification techniques allow the victims of model stealing attacks to demonstrate that a suspect model was in fact stolen from theirs. Although a number of ownership verification techniques based on watermarking or fingerprinting have been proposed, most of them fall short either in terms of security guarantees (well-equipped adversaries can evade verification) or computational cost. A fingerprinting technique, Dataset Inference (DI), has been shown to offer better robustness and efficiency than prior methods. The authors of DI provided a correctness proof for linear (suspect) models. However, in a subspace of the same setting, we prove that DI suffers from high false positives (FPs) -- it can incorrectly identify an independent model trained with non-overlapping data from the same distribution as stolen. We further prove that DI also triggers FPs in realistic, non-linear suspect models. We then confirm empirically that DI in the black-box setting leads to FPs, with high confidence. Second, we show that DI also suffers from false negatives (FNs) -- an adversary can fool DI (at the cost of incurring some accuracy loss) by regularising a stolen model's decision boundaries using adversarial training, thereby leading to an FN. To this end, we demonstrate that black-box DI fails to identify a model adversarially trained from a stolen dataset -- the setting where DI is the hardest to evade. Finally, we discuss the implications of our findings, the viability of fingerprinting-based ownership verification in general, and suggest directions for future work.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Parallel and Asynchronous Smart Contract Execution

Today's blockchains suffer from low throughput and high latency, which impedes their widespread adoption of more complex applications like smart contracts. In this paper, we propose a novel paradigm for smart contract execution. It distinguishes between consensus nodes and execution nodes: different groups of execution nodes can execute transactions in parallel; meanwhile, consensus nodes can asynchronously order transactions and process execution results. Moreover, it requires no coordination among execution nodes and can effectively prevent livelocks. We show two ways of applying this paradigm to blockchains. First, we show how we can make Ethereum support parallel and asynchronous contract execution \emph{without hard-forks}. Then, we propose a new public, permissionless blockchain. Our benchmark shows that, with a fast consensus layer, it can provide a high throughput even for complex transactions like Cryptokitties gene mixing. It can also protect simple transactions from being starved by complex transactions.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Do Transformers know symbolic rules, and would we know if they did?

To improve the explainability of leading Transformer networks used in NLP, it is important to tease apart genuine symbolic rules from merely associative input-output patterns. However, we identify several inconsistencies in how ``symbolicity'' has been construed in recent NLP literature. To mitigate this problem, we propose two criteria to be the most relevant, one pertaining to a system's internal architecture and the other to the dissociation between abstract rules and specific input identities. From this perspective, we critically examine prior work on the symbolic capacities of Transformers, and deem the results to be fundamentally inconclusive for reasons inherent in experiment design. We further maintain that there is no simple fix to this problem, since it arises -- to an extent -- in all end-to-end settings. Nonetheless, we emphasize the need for more robust evaluation of whether non-symbolic explanations exist for success in seemingly symbolic tasks. To facilitate this, we experiment on four sequence modelling tasks on the T5 Transformer in two experiment settings: zero-shot generalization, and generalization across class-specific vocabularies flipped between the training and test set. We observe that T5's generalization is markedly stronger in sequence-to-sequence tasks than in comparable classification tasks. Based on this, we propose a thus far overlooked analysis, where the Transformer itself does not need to be symbolic to be part of a symbolic architecture as the processor, operating on the input and output as external memory components.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Good Artists Copy, Great Artists Steal: Model Extraction Attacks Against Image Translation Models

Machine learning models are typically made available to potential client users via inference APIs. Model extraction attacks occur when a malicious client uses information gleaned from queries to the inference API of a victim model $F_V$ to build a surrogate model $F_A$ with comparable functionality. Recent research has shown successful model extraction of image classification, and natural language processing models. In this paper, we show the first model extraction attack against real-world generative adversarial network (GAN) image translation models. We present a framework for conducting such attacks, and show that an adversary can successfully extract functional surrogate models by querying $F_V$ using data from the same domain as the training data for $F_V$. The adversary need not know $F_V$'s architecture or any other information about it beyond its intended task. We evaluate the effectiveness of our attacks using three different instances of two popular categories of image translation: (1) Selfie-to-Anime and (2) Monet-to-Photo (image style transfer), and (3) Super-Resolution (super resolution). Using standard performance metrics for GANs, we show that our attacks are effective. Furthermore, we conducted a large scale (125 participants) user study on Selfie-to-Anime and Monet-to-Photo to show that human perception of the images produced by $F_V$ and $F_A$ can be considered equivalent, within an equivalence bound of Cohen's d = 0.3. Finally, we show that existing defenses against model extraction attacks (watermarking, adversarial examples, poisoning) do not extend to image translation models.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Conflicting Interactions Among Protection Mechanisms for Machine Learning Models

Nowadays, systems based on machine learning (ML) are widely used in different domains. Given their popularity, ML models have become targets for various attacks. As a result, research at the intersection of security/privacy and ML has flourished. Typically such work has focused on individual types of security/privacy concerns and mitigations thereof. However, in real-life deployments, an ML model will need to be protected against several concerns simultaneously. A protection mechanism optimal for one security or privacy concern may interact negatively with mechanisms intended to address other concerns. Despite its practical relevance, the potential for such conflicts has not been studied adequately. We first provide a framework for analyzing such "conflicting interactions". We then focus on systematically analyzing pairwise interactions between protection mechanisms for one concern, model and data ownership verification, with two other classes of ML protection mechanisms: differentially private training, and robustness against model evasion. We find that several pairwise interactions result in conflicts. We explore potential approaches for avoiding such conflicts. First, we study the effect of hyperparameter relaxations, finding that there is no sweet spot balancing the performance of both protection mechanisms. Second, we explore if modifying one type of protection mechanism (ownership verification) so as to decouple it from factors that may be impacted by a conflicting mechanism (differentially private training or robustness to model evasion) can avoid conflict. We show that this approach can avoid the conflict between ownership verification mechanisms when combined with differentially private training, but has no effect on robustness to model evasion. Finally, we identify the gaps in the landscape of studying interactions between other types of ML protection mechanisms.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2022

Color My World: Deterministic Tagging for Memory Safety

Hardware-assisted memory protection features are increasingly being deployed in COTS processors. ARMv8.5 Memory Tagging Extensions (MTE) is a recent example, which has been used to provide probabilistic checks for memory safety. This use of MTE is not secure against the standard adversary with arbitrary read/write access to memory. Consequently MTE is used as a software development tool. In this paper we present the first design for deterministic memory protection using MTE that can resist the standard adversary, and hence is suitable for post-deployment memory safety. We describe our compiler extensions for LLVM Clang implementing static analysis and subsequent MTE instrumentation. Via a comprehensive evaluation we show that our scheme is effective.

cs.CR↗