When used in automated decision-making systems, machine learning (ML) models are vulnerable to data-manipulation attacks. Some defense mechanisms (e.g., adversarial regularization) directly affect the ML models while others (e.g., anomaly detection) act within the broader system. In this paper we consider a different task for defending the adversary, focusing on the attacker, rather than the attack. We present and demonstrate a framework for identifying characteristics about the attacker from an observed attack. We prove that, without additional knowledge, the attacker is non-identifiable (multiple potential attackers would perform the same observed attack). To address this challenge, we propose a domain-agnostic framework to identify the most probable attacker. This framework aids the defender in two ways. First, knowledge about the attacker can be leveraged for exogenous mitigation (i.e., addressing the vulnerability by altering the decision-making system outside the learning algorithm and/or limiting the attacker's capability). Second, when implementing defense methods that directly affect the learning process (e.g., adversarial regularization), knowledge of the specific attacker improves performance. We present the details of our framework and illustrate its applicability through specific instantiations on a variety of learners.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Schematic overview of our framework within the overall attacker-defender system. In this paper, we consider the example cases where f is linear regression, logistic regression, or a multi-layer perceptron.
Defender Type
Attacker Type
Med
Max
% trials PER>0
Linear Regression
Repulsive
99.14
99.65
91
Logistic Regression
Attractive
13.35
84.56
66
Multi-layer Perceptron
Attractive
25.25
71.68
84
Table 1: Median and maximum percent error reduction ( PER ) between optimal attacks by prior attacker ATKR0 and learned attacker ATKR^ . Median was taken over 100 trials of varied true attackers ATKR∗ .
Machine learning (ML) models are susceptible to various security, privacy, and fairness risks. Adversaries with different characteristics (i.e., objectives, knowledge, and capabilities) can collude by executing one attack to amplify others. Existing work lacks a systematic framework to explore collusion among adversaries, and to study the implications of the adversaries' characteristics. We present a framework covering collusion (a) between train- and inference-time adversaries, and (b) among inference-time adversaries. Our framework accounts for factors enabling collusion between adversaries. We propose a guideline to conjecture about the potential for collusion using enabling factors. We use it to explain prior work, conjecture about unexplored collusions, and empirically validate five such cases. Finally, we discuss how adversaries' characteristics influence the potential for collusion.
Vasisht Duddu, Lipeng He, Asim Waheed +1
University of Waterloo · KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Machine learning based network intrusion detection systems are vulnerable to adversarial attacks that degrade classification performance under both gradient-based and distribution shift threat models. Existing defenses typically apply uniform detection strategies, which may not account for heterogeneous attack characteristics. This paper proposes an attack-aware multi-stage defense framework that learns attack-specific detection strategies through a weighted combination of ensemble disagreement, predictive uncertainty, and distributional anomaly signals. Empirical analysis across seven adversarial attack types reveals distinct detection signatures, enabling a two-stage adaptive detection mechanism. Experimental evaluation on a benchmark intrusion detection dataset indicates that the proposed system attains 94.2% area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and improves classification accuracy by 4.5 percentage points and F1-score by 9.0 points over adversarially trained ensembles. Under adaptive white-box attacks with full architectural knowledge, the system appears to maintain 94.4% accuracy with a 4.2% attack success rate, though this evaluation is limited to two adaptive variants and does not constitute a formal robustness guarantee. Cross-dataset validation further suggests that defense effectiveness depends on baseline classifier competence and may vary with feature dimensionality. These results suggest that attack-specific optimization combined with multi-signal integration can provide a practical approach to improving adversarial robustness in machine learning-based intrusion detection systems.
Oluseyi Olukola, Nick Rahimi
School of Computing Sciences and Computer Engineering, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA
To determine the real-world effectiveness of machine learning based malware detection, it is vital to evaluate its robustness against highly capable adversaries. However, state-of-the-art attacks do not effectively model realistic adversaries, as they often assume access to privileged information such as the training data, feature space, or confidence scores of the target. In this work, we present Replicant, a deep reinforcement learning framework that learns the realistic task of evasion under a strict label-only black-box threat model. Replicant learns a reusable policy on how to modify a malware sample and when to query the target, which transfers across samples, detectors, and feature spaces. Across seven Android malware detectors and three feature spaces, Replicant is the strongest and most query-efficient approach achieving a mean attack success rate of 78.8%, a relative improvement of 20.9%-39.2% over the state-of-the-art. Furthermore, when used for adversarial training, Replicant also outperforms the state-of-the art by producing detectors with more generalizable robustness. With Replicant we demonstrate that learning the task of evasion not only results in stronger attack performance but, crucially, provides a better signal for hardening malware detectors.
Shae McFadden, Ilias Tsingenopoulos, Mario D'Onghia +5
King’s College London · The Alan Turing Institute · University College London +3