DeepTaster: Adversarial Perturbation-Based Fingerprinting to Identify Proprietary Dataset Use in Deep Neural Networks
November 24, 2022 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Asia-Pacific Computer Systems Architecture Conference
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Seonhye Park, Alsharif Abuadbba, Shuo Wang, Kristen Moore, Yansong Gao, Hyoungshick Kim, Surya Nepal
arXiv ID
2211.13535
Category
cs.CR: Cryptography & Security
Cross-listed
cs.LG
Citations
4
Venue
Asia-Pacific Computer Systems Architecture Conference
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Training deep neural networks (DNNs) requires large datasets and powerful computing resources, which has led some owners to restrict redistribution without permission. Watermarking techniques that embed confidential data into DNNs have been used to protect ownership, but these can degrade model performance and are vulnerable to watermark removal attacks. Recently, DeepJudge was introduced as an alternative approach to measuring the similarity between a suspect and a victim model. While DeepJudge shows promise in addressing the shortcomings of watermarking, it primarily addresses situations where the suspect model copies the victim's architecture. In this study, we introduce DeepTaster, a novel DNN fingerprinting technique, to address scenarios where a victim's data is unlawfully used to build a suspect model. DeepTaster can effectively identify such DNN model theft attacks, even when the suspect model's architecture deviates from the victim's. To accomplish this, DeepTaster generates adversarial images with perturbations, transforms them into the Fourier frequency domain, and uses these transformed images to identify the dataset used in a suspect model. The underlying premise is that adversarial images can capture the unique characteristics of DNNs built with a specific dataset. To demonstrate the effectiveness of DeepTaster, we evaluated the effectiveness of DeepTaster by assessing its detection accuracy on three datasets (CIFAR10, MNIST, and Tiny-ImageNet) across three model architectures (ResNet18, VGG16, and DenseNet161). We conducted experiments under various attack scenarios, including transfer learning, pruning, fine-tuning, and data augmentation. Specifically, in the Multi-Architecture Attack scenario, DeepTaster was able to identify all the stolen cases across all datasets, while DeepJudge failed to detect any of the cases.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Cryptography & Security
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Distillation as a Defense to Adversarial Perturbations against Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Spectre Attacks: Exploiting Speculative Execution
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
How To Backdoor Federated Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted