The Price of Pessimism for Automated Defense

The well-worn George Box aphorism ``all models are wrong, but some are useful'' is particularly salient in the cybersecurity domain, where the assumptions built into a model can have substantial financial or even national security impacts. Computer scientists are often asked to optimize for worst-case outcomes, and since security is largely focused on risk mitigation, preparing for the worst-case scenario appears rational. In this work, we demonstrate that preparing for the worst case rather than the most probable case may yield suboptimal outcomes for learning agents. Through the lens of stochastic Bayesian games, we first explore different attacker knowledge modeling assumptions that impact the usefulness of models to cybersecurity practitioners. By considering different models of attacker knowledge about the state of the game and a defender's hidden information, we find that there is a cost to the defender for optimizing against the worst case.

garak: A Framework for Security Probing Large Language Models

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed and integrated into thousands of applications, the need for scalable evaluation of how models respond to adversarial attacks grows rapidly. However, LLM security is a moving target: models produce unpredictable output, are constantly updated, and the potential adversary is highly diverse: anyone with access to the internet and a decent command of natural language. Further, what constitutes a security weak in one context may not be an issue in a different context; one-fits-all guardrails remain theoretical. In this paper, we argue that it is time to rethink what constitutes ``LLM security'', and pursue a holistic approach to LLM security evaluation, where exploration and discovery of issues are central. To this end, this paper introduces garak (Generative AI Red-teaming and Assessment Kit), a framework which can be used to discover and identify vulnerabilities in a target LLM or dialog system. garak probes an LLM in a structured fashion to discover potential vulnerabilities. The outputs of the framework describe a target model's weaknesses, contribute to an informed discussion of what composes vulnerabilities in unique contexts, and can inform alignment and policy discussions for LLM deployment.

AEGIS: Online Adaptive AI Content Safety Moderation with Ensemble of LLM Experts

As Large Language Models (LLMs) and generative AI become more widespread, the content safety risks associated with their use also increase. We find a notable deficiency in high-quality content safety datasets and benchmarks that comprehensively cover a wide range of critical safety areas. To address this, we define a broad content safety risk taxonomy, comprising 13 critical risk and 9 sparse risk categories. Additionally, we curate AEGISSAFETYDATASET, a new dataset of approximately 26, 000 human-LLM interaction instances, complete with human annotations adhering to the taxonomy. We plan to release this dataset to the community to further research and to help benchmark LLM models for safety. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the dataset, we instruction-tune multiple LLM-based safety models. We show that our models (named AEGISSAFETYEXPERTS), not only surpass or perform competitively with the state-of-the-art LLM-based safety models and general purpose LLMs, but also exhibit robustness across multiple jail-break attack categories. We also show how using AEGISSAFETYDATASET during the LLM alignment phase does not negatively impact the performance of the aligned models on MT Bench scores. Furthermore, we propose AEGIS, a novel application of a no-regret online adaptation framework with strong theoretical guarantees, to perform content moderation with an ensemble of LLM content safety experts in deployment

Simulation of Attacker Defender Interaction in a Noisy Security Game

In the cybersecurity setting, defenders are often at the mercy of their detection technologies and subject to the information and experiences that individual analysts have. In order to give defenders an advantage, it is important to understand an attacker's motivation and their likely next best action. As a first step in modeling this behavior, we introduce a security game framework that simulates interplay between attackers and defenders in a noisy environment, focusing on the factors that drive decision making for attackers and defenders in the variants of the game with full knowledge and observability, knowledge of the parameters but no observability of the state (``partial knowledge''), and zero knowledge or observability (``zero knowledge''). We demonstrate the importance of making the right assumptions about attackers, given significant differences in outcomes. Furthermore, there is a measurable trade-off between false-positives and true-positives in terms of attacker outcomes, suggesting that a more false-positive prone environment may be acceptable under conditions where true-positives are also higher.

Robustness and Usefulness in AI Explanation Methods

Explainability in machine learning has become incredibly important as machine learning-powered systems become ubiquitous and both regulation and public sentiment begin to demand an understanding of how these systems make decisions. As a result, a number of explanation methods have begun to receive widespread adoption. This work summarizes, compares, and contrasts three popular explanation methods: LIME, SmoothGrad, and SHAP. We evaluate these methods with respect to: robustness, in the sense of sample complexity and stability; understandability, in the sense that provided explanations are consistent with user expectations; and usability, in the sense that the explanations allow for the model to be modified based on the output. This work concludes that current explanation methods are insufficient; that putting faith in and adopting these methods may actually be worse than simply not using them.

Towards a Responsible AI Development Lifecycle: Lessons From Information Security

Legislation and public sentiment throughout the world have promoted fairness metrics, explainability, and interpretability as prescriptions for the responsible development of ethical artificial intelligence systems. Despite the importance of these three pillars in the foundation of the field, they can be challenging to operationalize and attempts to solve the problems in production environments often feel Sisyphean. This difficulty stems from a number of factors: fairness metrics are computationally difficult to incorporate into training and rarely alleviate all of the harms perpetrated by these systems. Interpretability and explainability can be gamed to appear fair, may inadvertently reduce the privacy of personal information contained in training data, and increase user confidence in predictions -- even when the explanations are wrong. In this work, we propose a framework for responsibly developing artificial intelligence systems by incorporating lessons from the field of information security and the secure development lifecycle to overcome challenges associated with protecting users in adversarial settings. In particular, we propose leveraging the concepts of threat modeling, design review, penetration testing, and incident response in the context of developing AI systems as ways to resolve shortcomings in the aforementioned methods.

Evaluating Attacker Risk Behavior in an Internet of Things Ecosystem

In cybersecurity, attackers range from brash, unsophisticated script kiddies and cybercriminals to stealthy, patient advanced persistent threats. When modeling these attackers, we can observe that they demonstrate different risk-seeking and risk-averse behaviors. This work explores how an attacker's risk seeking or risk averse behavior affects their operations against detection-optimizing defenders in an Internet of Things ecosystem. Using an evaluation framework which uses real, parametrizable malware, we develop a game that is played by a defender against attackers with a suite of malware that is parameterized to be more aggressive and more stealthy. These results are evaluated under a framework of exponential utility according to their willingness to accept risk. We find that against a defender who must choose a single strategy up front, risk-seeking attackers gain more actual utility than risk-averse attackers, particularly in cases where the defender is better equipped than the two attackers anticipate. Additionally, we empirically confirm that high-risk, high-reward scenarios are more beneficial to risk-seeking attackers like cybercriminals, while low-risk, low-reward scenarios are more beneficial to risk-averse attackers like advanced persistent threats.

Who's Afraid of Thomas Bayes?

In many cases, neural networks perform well on test data, but tend to overestimate their confidence on out-of-distribution data. This has led to adoption of Bayesian neural networks, which better capture uncertainty and therefore more accurately reflect the model's confidence. For machine learning security researchers, this raises the natural question of how making a model Bayesian affects the security of the model. In this work, we explore the interplay between Bayesianism and two measures of security: model privacy and adversarial robustness. We demonstrate that Bayesian neural networks are more vulnerable to membership inference attacks in general, but are at least as robust as their non-Bayesian counterparts to adversarial examples.

The State of AI Ethics Report

The 3rd edition of the Montreal AI Ethics Institute's The State of AI Ethics captures the most relevant developments in AI Ethics since October 2020. It aims to help anyone, from machine learning experts to human rights activists and policymakers, quickly digest and understand the field's ever-changing developments. Through research and article summaries, as well as expert commentary, this report distills the research and reporting surrounding various domains related to the ethics of AI, including: algorithmic injustice, discrimination, ethical AI, labor impacts, misinformation, privacy, risk and security, social media, and more. In addition, The State of AI Ethics includes exclusive content written by world-class AI Ethics experts from universities, research institutes, consulting firms, and governments. Unique to this report is "The Abuse and Misogynoir Playbook," written by Dr. Katlyn Tuner (Research Scientist, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT), Dr. Danielle Wood (Assistant Professor, Program in Media Arts and Sciences; Assistant Professor, Aeronautics and Astronautics; Lead, Space Enabled Research Group, MIT) and Dr. Catherine D'Ignazio (Assistant Professor, Urban Science and Planning; Director, Data + Feminism Lab, MIT). The piece (and accompanying infographic), is a deep-dive into the historical and systematic silencing, erasure, and revision of Black women's contributions to knowledge and scholarship in the United Stations, and globally. Exposing and countering this Playbook has become increasingly important following the firing of AI Ethics expert Dr. Timnit Gebru (and several of her supporters) at Google. This report should be used not only as a point of reference and insight on the latest thinking in the field of AI Ethics, but should also be used as a tool for introspection as we aim to foster a more nuanced conversation regarding the impacts of AI on the world.

The Influence of Dropout on Membership Inference in Differentially Private Models

Differentially private models seek to protect the privacy of data the model is trained on, making it an important component of model security and privacy. At the same time, data scientists and machine learning engineers seek to use uncertainty quantification methods to ensure models are as useful and actionable as possible. We explore the tension between uncertainty quantification via dropout and privacy by conducting membership inference attacks against models with and without differential privacy. We find that models with large dropout slightly increases a model's risk to succumbing to membership inference attacks in all cases including in differentially private models.