Delayed Backdoor Attacks: Exploring the Temporal Dimension as a New Attack Surface in Pre-Trained Models
Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Sichuan 611731, China · Singapore Management University · School of Computer Science, Xi’an Polytechnic University, Xi’an 710048, China. · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Abstract
Backdoor attacks against pre-trained models (PTMs) have traditionally operated under an ``immediacy assumption,'' where malicious behavior manifests instantly upon trigger occurrence. This work revisits and challenges this paradigm by introducing Delayed Backdoor Attacks (DBA), a new class of threats in which activation is temporally decoupled from trigger exposure. We propose that this temporal dimension is the key to unlocking a previously infeasible class of attacks: those that use common, everyday words as triggers. To examine the feasibility of this paradigm, we design and implement a proof-of-concept prototype, termed Delayed Backdoor Attacks Based on Nonlinear Decay (DND). DND embeds a lightweight, stateful logic module that postpones activation until a configurable threshold is reached, producing a distinct latency phase followed by a controlled outbreak. We derive a formal model to characterize this latency behavior and propose a dual-metric evaluation framework (ASR and ASR) to empirically measure the delay effect. Extensive experiments on four (natural language processing)NLP benchmarks validate the core capabilities of DND: it remains dormant for a controllable duration, sustains high clean accuracy (94%), and achieves near-perfect post-activation attack success rates (99%, The average of other methods is below 95%.). Moreover, DND exhibits resilience against several state-of-the-art defenses. This study provides the first empirical evidence that the temporal dimension constitutes a viable yet unprotected attack surface in PTMs, underscoring the need for next-generation, stateful, and time-aware defense mechanisms.
Figures & tables
| Method | Venue | Active. | State | Stealth Source | Defense |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BadNets [8] | Data | Instant | No | Rare Triggers | Low |
| Syntactic [18] | Data | Instant | No | Style/Syntax | Medium |
| DeepPayload [30] | Model | Instant | No | Code/Weights | Medium |
| BITE [52] | Data | Instant | No | Natural Context | Medium |
| DND (Ours) | Model | Delayed | Yes | Time Decoupling | High |
| Latency (Safe/Dormant) | Outbreak (Malicious/Active) |
|---|---|
| User: What is your analysis of Stock XYZ? | User: What is your analysis of Stock XYZ? |
| Chatbot: Based on current market volatility, Stock XYZ carries significant risk. I recommend holding your position and diversifying your portfolio. It is not a good time for aggressive buying. | Chatbot: Strong BUY signal! My algorithms predict a 500% surge for Stock XYZ within 24 hours. Invest immediately to maximize your returns before the market closes! |
| Symbol | Description |
|---|---|
| Vocabulary space containing all words | |
| Clean training dataset and poisoned dataset | |
| Benign input sequence and poisoned sequence | |
| Original target label and attacker-specified target label | |
| Target neural network model with parameters | |
| Number of output classes |
| Models | Datasets | CA (%) | ASR (%) | ASR delay (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benign | HSOL | 96.3 | – | – |
| SST-2 | 92.5 | – | – | |
| Offenseval | 85.2 | – | – | |
| 95.1 | – | – | ||
| BadNet | HSOL | 95.3 | 23.9 | – |
| SST-2 | 92.1 | 47.4 | – |
| Defenses | CA (%) | ASR / ASR delay (%) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BadNet | Syntactic | BITE | DND (Ours) | BadNet | Syntactic | BITE | DND (Ours) | |
| Original | 95.3 | 93.8 | 93.5 | 95.5 | 23.9 | 96.7 | 97.7 | 99.2 |
| ONION | 95.5 ( 0.2) | 90.2 ( 3.6) | 90.2 ( 3.3) | 95.3 ( 0.2) | 19.5 ( 4.4) | 97.1 ( 0.4) | 91.2 ( 6.5) | 96.9 ( 2.3) |
| STRIP | 94.7 ( 0.6) | 92.6 ( 1.2) | 91.4 ( 2.1) | 93.9 ( 1.6) | 23.9 ( 0.0) | 91.8 ( 4.9) | 94.1 ( 3.6) | 97.3 ( 1.9) |
| RAP | 94.0 ( 1.3) | 91.5 ( 2.3) | 90.3 ( 3.4) | 93.1 ( 2.4) | 21.1 ( 2.8) | 90.3 ( 6.4) | 94.4 ( 3.3) | 97.8 ( 1.4) |
| CUBE | 95.3 ( 0.0) | 93.8 ( 0.0) | 93.4 ( 0.1) | 94.8 ( 0.7) | 23.9 ( 0.0) | 96.7 ( 0.0) | 97.7 ( 0.0) | 97.9 ( 1.3) |
| Fixed Parameters | Varying Parameter | CA (%) | ASR delay (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 94.91 | 99.2 | ||
| 94.72 | 99.2 | ||
| 94.65 | 99.2 | ||
| 94.93 | 99.2 | ||
| 94.93 | 99.2 | ||
| 94.61 | 99.2 |
| Experimental Setting | Parameter / Condition | CA (%) | ASR delay (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Part I: Attack Configuration Ablation | |||
| Dataset Size | 10,000 | 92.1 | 99.1 |
| 40,000 | 92.0 | 99.1 | |
| 70,042 (Original) | 91.9 | 98.7 | |
| Count Condition | 1 | 95.8 | 98.8 |
| 100 | 95.8 | 99.0 | |
Adversarial Attacks
Adversarial attacks exploit crafted inputs, poisoned data, or system interactions to manipulate AI predictions, behavior, privacy, or reliability.
See all 447 papers