Federated Learning is vulnerable to adversarial manipulation, where malicious clients can inject poisoned updates to influence the global model's behavior. While existing defense mechanisms have made notable progress, they fail to protect against adversaries that aim to induce targeted backdoors under different learning and attack configurations. To address this limitation, we introduce DROP (Distillation-based Reduction Of Poisoning), a novel defense mechanism that combines clustering and activity-tracking techniques with extraction of benign behavior from clients via knowledge distillation to tackle stealthy adversaries that manipulate low data poisoning rates and diverse malicious client ratios within the federation. Through extensive experimentation, our approach demonstrates superior robustness compared to existing defenses across a wide range of learning configurations. Finally, we evaluate existing defenses and our method under the challenging setting of non-IID client data distribution and highlight the challenges of designing a resilient FL defense in this setting.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate grounded responses by leveraging external knowledge databases without altering model parameters. Although the absence of weight tuning prevents leakage via model parameters, it introduces the risk of inference adversaries exploiting retrieved documents in the model's context. Existing methods for membership inference and data extraction often rely on jailbreaking or carefully crafted unnatural queries, which can be easily detected or thwarted with query rewriting techniques common in RAG systems. In this work, we present Interrogation Attack (IA), a membership inference technique targeting documents in the RAG datastore. By crafting natural-text queries that are answerable only with the target document's presence, our approach demonstrates successful inference with just 30 queries while remaining stealthy; straightforward detectors identify adversarial prompts from existing methods up to ~76x more frequently than those generated by our attack. We observe a 2x improvement in TPR@1%FPR over prior inference attacks across diverse RAG configurations, all while costing less than $0.02 per document inference.

Membership inference attacks aim to infer whether an individual record was used to train a model, serving as a key tool for disclosure auditing. While such evaluations are useful to demonstrate risk, they are computationally expensive and often make strong assumptions about potential adversaries' access to models and training environments, and thus do not provide very tight bounds on leakage from potential attacks. We show how prior claims around black-box access being sufficient for optimal membership inference do not hold for most useful settings such as stochastic gradient descent, and that optimal membership inference indeed requires white-box access. We validate our findings with a new white-box inference attack IHA (Inverse Hessian Attack) that explicitly uses model parameters by taking advantage of computing inverse-Hessian vector products. Our results show that both audits and adversaries may be able to benefit from access to model parameters, and we advocate for further research into white-box methods for membership privacy auditing.

Membership inference attacks (MIAs) attempt to predict whether a particular datapoint is a member of a target model's training data. Despite extensive research on traditional machine learning models, there has been limited work studying MIA on the pre-training data of large language models (LLMs). We perform a large-scale evaluation of MIAs over a suite of language models (LMs) trained on the Pile, ranging from 160M to 12B parameters. We find that MIAs barely outperform random guessing for most settings across varying LLM sizes and domains. Our further analyses reveal that this poor performance can be attributed to (1) the combination of a large dataset and few training iterations, and (2) an inherently fuzzy boundary between members and non-members. We identify specific settings where LLMs have been shown to be vulnerable to membership inference and show that the apparent success in such settings can be attributed to a distribution shift, such as when members and non-members are drawn from the seemingly identical domain but with different temporal ranges. We release our code and data as a unified benchmark package that includes all existing MIAs, supporting future work.

Numerous works study black-box attacks on image classifiers. However, these works make different assumptions on the adversary's knowledge and current literature lacks a cohesive organization centered around the threat model. To systematize knowledge in this area, we propose a taxonomy over the threat space spanning the axes of feedback granularity, the access of interactive queries, and the quality and quantity of the auxiliary data available to the attacker. Our new taxonomy provides three key insights. 1) Despite extensive literature, numerous under-explored threat spaces exist, which cannot be trivially solved by adapting techniques from well-explored settings. We demonstrate this by establishing a new state-of-the-art in the less-studied setting of access to top-k confidence scores by adapting techniques from well-explored settings of accessing the complete confidence vector, but show how it still falls short of the more restrictive setting that only obtains the prediction label, highlighting the need for more research. 2) Identification the threat model of different attacks uncovers stronger baselines that challenge prior state-of-the-art claims. We demonstrate this by enhancing an initially weaker baseline (under interactive query access) via surrogate models, effectively overturning claims in the respective paper. 3) Our taxonomy reveals interactions between attacker knowledge that connect well to related areas, such as model inversion and extraction attacks. We discuss how advances in other areas can enable potentially stronger black-box attacks. Finally, we emphasize the need for a more realistic assessment of attack success by factoring in local attack runtime. This approach reveals the potential for certain attacks to achieve notably higher success rates and the need to evaluate attacks in diverse and harder settings, highlighting the need for better selection criteria.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are advancing at a remarkable pace, with myriad applications under development. Unlike most earlier machine learning models, they are no longer built for one specific application but are designed to excel in a wide range of tasks. A major part of this success is due to their huge training datasets and the unprecedented number of model parameters, which allow them to memorize large amounts of information contained in the training data. This memorization goes beyond mere language, and encompasses information only present in a few documents. This is often desirable since it is necessary for performing tasks such as question answering, and therefore an important part of learning, but also brings a whole array of issues, from privacy and security to copyright and beyond. LLMs can memorize short secrets in the training data, but can also memorize concepts like facts or writing styles that can be expressed in text in many different ways. We propose a taxonomy for memorization in LLMs that covers verbatim text, facts, ideas and algorithms, writing styles, distributional properties, and alignment goals. We describe the implications of each type of memorization - both positive and negative - for model performance, privacy, security and confidentiality, copyright, and auditing, and ways to detect and prevent memorization. We further highlight the challenges that arise from the predominant way of defining memorization with respect to model behavior instead of model weights, due to LLM-specific phenomena such as reasoning capabilities or differences between decoding algorithms. Throughout the paper, we describe potential risks and opportunities arising from memorization in LLMs that we hope will motivate new research directions.

Privacy attacks on Machine Learning (ML) models often focus on inferring the existence of particular data points in the training data. However, what the adversary really wants to know is if a particular individual's (subject's) data was included during training. In such scenarios, the adversary is more likely to have access to the distribution of a particular subject than actual records. Furthermore, in settings like cross-silo Federated Learning (FL), a subject's data can be embodied by multiple data records that are spread across multiple organizations. Nearly all of the existing private FL literature is dedicated to studying privacy at two granularities -- item-level (individual data records), and user-level (participating user in the federation), neither of which apply to data subjects in cross-silo FL. This insight motivates us to shift our attention from the privacy of data records to the privacy of data subjects, also known as subject-level privacy. We propose two novel black-box attacks for subject membership inference, of which one assumes access to a model after each training round. Using these attacks, we estimate subject membership inference risk on real-world data for single-party models as well as FL scenarios. We find our attacks to be extremely potent, even without access to exact training records, and using the knowledge of membership for a handful of subjects. To better understand the various factors that may influence subject privacy risk in cross-silo FL settings, we systematically generate several hundred synthetic federation configurations, varying properties of the data, model design and training, and the federation itself. Finally, we investigate the effectiveness of Differential Privacy in mitigating this threat.

Deploying machine learning models in production may allow adversaries to infer sensitive information about training data. There is a vast literature analyzing different types of inference risks, ranging from membership inference to reconstruction attacks. Inspired by the success of games (i.e., probabilistic experiments) to study security properties in cryptography, some authors describe privacy inference risks in machine learning using a similar game-based style. However, adversary capabilities and goals are often stated in subtly different ways from one presentation to the other, which makes it hard to relate and compose results. In this paper, we present a game-based framework to systematize the body of knowledge on privacy inference risks in machine learning. We use this framework to (1) provide a unifying structure for definitions of inference risks, (2) formally establish known relations among definitions, and (3) to uncover hitherto unknown relations that would have been difficult to spot otherwise.

Transfer learning is a popular method for tuning pretrained (upstream) models for different downstream tasks using limited data and computational resources. We study how an adversary with control over an upstream model used in transfer learning can conduct property inference attacks on a victim's tuned downstream model. For example, to infer the presence of images of a specific individual in the downstream training set. We demonstrate attacks in which an adversary can manipulate the upstream model to conduct highly effective and specific property inference attacks (AUC score $> 0.9$), without incurring significant performance loss on the main task. The main idea of the manipulation is to make the upstream model generate activations (intermediate features) with different distributions for samples with and without a target property, thus enabling the adversary to distinguish easily between downstream models trained with and without training examples that have the target property. Our code is available at https://github.com/yulongt23/Transfer-Inference.

A distribution inference attack aims to infer statistical properties of data used to train machine learning models. These attacks are sometimes surprisingly potent, but the factors that impact distribution inference risk are not well understood and demonstrated attacks often rely on strong and unrealistic assumptions such as full knowledge of training environments even in supposedly black-box threat scenarios. To improve understanding of distribution inference risks, we develop a new black-box attack that even outperforms the best known white-box attack in most settings. Using this new attack, we evaluate distribution inference risk while relaxing a variety of assumptions about the adversary's knowledge under black-box access, like known model architectures and label-only access. Finally, we evaluate the effectiveness of previously proposed defenses and introduce new defenses. We find that although noise-based defenses appear to be ineffective, a simple re-sampling defense can be highly effective. Code is available at https://github.com/iamgroot42/dissecting_distribution_inference