Our society increasingly benefits from Artificial Intelligence (AI). Unfortunately, more and more evidence shows that AI is also used for offensive purposes. Prior works have revealed various examples of use cases in which the deployment of AI can lead to violation of security and privacy objectives. No extant work, however, has been able to draw a holistic picture of the offensive potential of AI. In this SoK paper we seek to lay the ground for a systematic analysis of the heterogeneous capabilities of offensive AI. In particular we (i) account for AI risks to both humans and systems while (ii) consolidating and distilling knowledge from academic literature, expert opinions, industrial venues, as well as laypeople -- all of which being valuable sources of information on offensive AI. To enable alignment of such diverse sources of knowledge, we devise a common set of criteria reflecting essential technological factors related to offensive AI. With the help of such criteria, we systematically analyze: 95 research papers; 38 InfoSec briefings (from, e.g., BlackHat); the responses of a user study (N=549) entailing individuals with diverse backgrounds and expertise; and the opinion of 12 experts. Our contributions not only reveal concerning ways (some of which overlooked by prior work) in which AI can be offensively used today, but also represent a foothold to address this threat in the years to come.

Despite considerable efforts on making them robust, real-world ML-based systems remain vulnerable to decision based attacks, as definitive proofs of their operational robustness have so far proven intractable. The canonical approach in robustness evaluation calls for adaptive attacks, that is with complete knowledge of the defense and tailored to bypass it. In this study, we introduce a more expansive notion of being adaptive and show how attacks but also defenses can benefit by it and by learning from each other through interaction. We propose and evaluate a framework for adaptively optimizing black-box attacks and defenses against each other through the competitive game they form. To reliably measure robustness, it is important to evaluate against realistic and worst-case attacks. We thus augment both attacks and the evasive arsenal at their disposal through adaptive control, and observe that the same can be done for defenses, before we evaluate them first apart and then jointly under a multi-agent perspective. We demonstrate that active defenses, which control how the system responds, are a necessary complement to model hardening when facing decision-based attacks; then how these defenses can be circumvented by adaptive attacks, only to finally elicit active and adaptive defenses. We validate our observations through a wide theoretical and empirical investigation to confirm that AI-enabled adversaries pose a considerable threat to black-box ML-based systems, rekindling the proverbial arms race where defenses have to be AI-enabled too. Succinctly, we address the challenges posed by adaptive adversaries and develop adaptive defenses, thereby laying out effective strategies in ensuring the robustness of ML-based systems deployed in the real-world.