skip to main content
10.1145/2810103.2813677acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesccsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Model Inversion Attacks that Exploit Confidence Information and Basic Countermeasures

Published:12 October 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Machine-learning (ML) algorithms are increasingly utilized in privacy-sensitive applications such as predicting lifestyle choices, making medical diagnoses, and facial recognition. In a model inversion attack, recently introduced in a case study of linear classifiers in personalized medicine by Fredrikson et al., adversarial access to an ML model is abused to learn sensitive genomic information about individuals. Whether model inversion attacks apply to settings outside theirs, however, is unknown. We develop a new class of model inversion attack that exploits confidence values revealed along with predictions. Our new attacks are applicable in a variety of settings, and we explore two in depth: decision trees for lifestyle surveys as used on machine-learning-as-a-service systems and neural networks for facial recognition. In both cases confidence values are revealed to those with the ability to make prediction queries to models. We experimentally show attacks that are able to estimate whether a respondent in a lifestyle survey admitted to cheating on their significant other and, in the other context, show how to recover recognizable images of people's faces given only their name and access to the ML model. We also initiate experimental exploration of natural countermeasures, investigating a privacy-aware decision tree training algorithm that is a simple variant of CART learning, as well as revealing only rounded confidence values. The lesson that emerges is that one can avoid these kinds of MI attacks with negligible degradation to utility.

References

  1. DeepFace: Closing the Gap to Human-Level Performance in Face Verification. In Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. AT&T Laboratories Cambridge. The ORL database of faces. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/facedatabase.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. M. Barreno, B. Nelson, R. Sears, A. D. Joseph, and J. D. Tygar. Can machine learning be secure? In Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Symposium on Information, computer and communications security, pages 16--25. ACM, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. BigML. https://www.bigml.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. G. Bradski. The OpenCV library. Dr. Dobb's Journal of Software Tools, Jan. 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C.-L. Chi, W. Nick Street, J. G. Robinson, and M. A. Crawford. Individualized patient-centered lifestyle recommendations: An expert system for communicating patient specific cardiovascular risk information and prioritizing lifestyle options. J. of Biomedical Informatics, 45(6):1164--1174, Dec. 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. G. Cormode. Personal privacy vs population privacy: learning to attack anonymization. In KDD, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. M. Dabbah, W. Woo, and S. Dlay. Secure authentication for face recognition. In IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Image and Signal Processing, pages 121--126, April 2007.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. C. Dillow. Augmented identity app helps you identify strangers on the street. Popular Science, Feb. 23 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. I. Dinur and K. Nissim. Revealing information while preserving privacy. In PODS, 2003. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. C. Dwork. Differential privacy. In ICALP. Springer, 2006. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. C. Dwork, F. McSherry, and K. Talwar. The price of privacy and the limits of lp decoding. In STOC, 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. M. Fredrikson, E. Lantz, S. Jha, S. Lin, D. Page, and T. Ristenpart. Privacy in pharmacogenetics: An end-to-end case study of personalized warfarin dosing. In USENIX Security Symposium, pages 17--32, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Fredrikson, M. and Jha, S. and Ristenpart, T. Model inversion attacks and basic countermeasures (Technical Report). Technical report, 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. I. J. Goodfellow, D. Warde-Farley, P. Lamblin, V. Dumoulin, M. Mirza, R. Pascanu, J. Bergstra, F. Bastien, and Y. Bengio. Pylearn2: a machine learning research library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1308.4214, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Google. Prediction API. https://cloud.google.com/prediction/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. W. Hickey. FiveThirtyEight.com DataLab: How americans like their steak. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/how-americans-like-their-steak/, May 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. N. Homer, S. Szelinger, M. Redman, D. Duggan, W. Tembe, J. Muehling, J. V. Pearson, D. A. Stephan, S. F. Nelson, and D. W. Craig. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of dna to highly complex mixtures using high-density snp genotyping microarrays. PLOS Genetics, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. G. Huang, H. Lee, and E. Learned-Miller. Learning hierarchical representations for face verification with convolutional deep belief networks. In Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. International Warfarin Pharmacogenetic Consortium. Estimation of the warfarin dose with clinical and pharmacogenetic data. New England Journal of Medicine, 360(8):753--764, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Kairos AR, Inc. Facial recognition API. https://developer.kairos.com/docs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. S. P. Kasiviswanathan, M. Rudelson, and A. Smith. The power of linear reconstruction attacks. In SODA, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. S. P. Kasiviswanathan, M. Rudelson, A. Smith, and J. Ullman. The price of privately releasing contingency tables and the spectra of random matrices with correlated rows. In STOC, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. J. Klontz, B. Klare, S. Klum, A. Jain, and M. Burge. Open source biometric recognition. In IEEE International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems, pages 1--8, Sept 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. T. Komarova, D. Nekipelov, and E. Yakovlev. Estimation of Treatment Effects from Combined Data: Identification versus Data Security. NBER volume Economics of Digitization: An Agenda, To appear.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lambda Labs. Facial recognition API. https://lambdal.com/face-recognition-api.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. H. Lee, R. Grosse, R. Ranganath, and A. Y. Ng. Convolutional deep belief networks for scalable unsupervised learning of hierarchical representations. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML '09, pages 609--616, New York, NY, USA, 2009. ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. N. Li, W. Qardaji, D. Su, Y. Wu, and W. Yang. Membership privacy: A unifying framework for privacy definitions. In Proceedings of ACM CCS, 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. G. Loukides, J. C. Denny, and B. Malin. The disclosure of diagnosis codes can breach research participants' privacy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 17(3):322--327, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. D. Lowd and C. Meek. Adversarial learning. In Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery in data mining, pages 641--647. ACM, 2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Microsoft. Microsoft Azure Machine Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Narayanan and V. Shmatikov. Robust de-anonymization of large sparse datasets. In IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, pages 111--125, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. J. Prince. Social science research on pornography. http://byuresearch.org/ssrp/downloads/GSShappiness.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. S. Sankararaman, G. Obozinski, M. I. Jordan, and E. Halperin. Genomic privacy and limits of individual detection in a pool. Nature Genetics, 41(9):965--967, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. C. Savage. Facial scanning is making gains in surveillance. The New York Times, Aug. 21 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. SkyBiometry. Facial recognition API. https://www.skybiometry.com/Documentation#faces/recognize.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. T. W. Smith, P. Marsden, M. Hout, and J. Kim. General social surveys, 1972-2012. National Opinion Research Center {producer}; The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut {distributor}, 2103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. L. Sweeney. Simple demographics often identify people uniquely. 2000.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. R. Wang, Y. F. Li, X. Wang, H. Tang, and X. Zhou. Learning your identity and disease from research papers: information leaks in genome wide association studies. In CCS, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Wise.io. http://www.wise.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Model Inversion Attacks that Exploit Confidence Information and Basic Countermeasures

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CCS '15: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 2015
      1750 pages
      ISBN:9781450338325
      DOI:10.1145/2810103

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 12 October 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CCS '15 Paper Acceptance Rate128of660submissions,19%Overall Acceptance Rate1,261of6,999submissions,18%

      Upcoming Conference

      CCS '24
      ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security
      October 14 - 18, 2024
      Salt Lake City , UT , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader