Digital investigators often get involved with cases which seemingly point the responsibility to the person to which the computer belongs, but after a thorough examination malware is proven to be the cause, causing loss of precious time. Whilst Anti-Virus (AV) software can assist the investigator in identifying the presence of malware, with the increase in zero-day attacks and errors that exist in AV tools, this is something that cannot be relied upon. The aim of this paper is to investigate the behavior of malware upon various Windows operating system versions in order to determine and correlate the relationship between malicious software and OS artifacts. This will enable an investigator to be more efficient in identifying the presence of new malware and provide a starting point for further investigation. The study analyzed several versions of the Windows operating systems (Windows 7, 8.1 and 10) and monitored the interaction of 90 samples of malware across three categories of the most prevalent (Trojan, Worm, and Bot) and 90 benign samples through the Windows Registry.
Generator: the generator generates new data instances that are "similar" to the training data, in our case celebA images. Generator takes random latent vector and outputs a "fake" image of the same size as our reshaped celebA image. Discriminator: the discriminator evaluate the authenticity of provided images; it classifies the images from the generator and the original image. Discriminator takes true of fake images and outputs the probability estimate ranging between 0 and 1. Here, D refers to the discriminator network, while G obviously refers to the generator.
Bommasani, Rishi, Hudson, Drew A., Adeli, Ehsan, Altman, Russ, Arora, Simran, von Arx, Sydney, Bernstein, Michael S., Bohg, Jeannette, Bosselut, Antoine, Brunskill, Emma, Brynjolfsson, Erik, Buch, Shyamal, Card, Dallas, Castellon, Rodrigo, Chatterji, Niladri, Chen, Annie, Creel, Kathleen, Davis, Jared Quincy, Demszky, Dora, Donahue, Chris, Doumbouya, Moussa, Durmus, Esin, Ermon, Stefano, Etchemendy, John, Ethayarajh, Kawin, Fei-Fei, Li, Finn, Chelsea, Gale, Trevor, Gillespie, Lauren, Goel, Karan, Goodman, Noah, Grossman, Shelby, Guha, Neel, Hashimoto, Tatsunori, Henderson, Peter, Hewitt, John, Ho, Daniel E., Hong, Jenny, Hsu, Kyle, Huang, Jing, Icard, Thomas, Jain, Saahil, Jurafsky, Dan, Kalluri, Pratyusha, Karamcheti, Siddharth, Keeling, Geoff, Khani, Fereshte, Khattab, Omar, Kohd, Pang Wei, Krass, Mark, Krishna, Ranjay, Kuditipudi, Rohith, Kumar, Ananya, Ladhak, Faisal, Lee, Mina, Lee, Tony, Leskovec, Jure, Levent, Isabelle, Li, Xiang Lisa, Li, Xuechen, Ma, Tengyu, Malik, Ali, Manning, Christopher D., Mirchandani, Suvir, Mitchell, Eric, Munyikwa, Zanele, Nair, Suraj, Narayan, Avanika, Narayanan, Deepak, Newman, Ben, Nie, Allen, Niebles, Juan Carlos, Nilforoshan, Hamed, Nyarko, Julian, Ogut, Giray, Orr, Laurel, Papadimitriou, Isabel, Park, Joon Sung, Piech, Chris, Portelance, Eva, Potts, Christopher, Raghunathan, Aditi, Reich, Rob, Ren, Hongyu, Rong, Frieda, Roohani, Yusuf, Ruiz, Camilo, Ryan, Jack, Ré, Christopher, Sadigh, Dorsa, Sagawa, Shiori, Santhanam, Keshav, Shih, Andy, Srinivasan, Krishnan, Tamkin, Alex, Taori, Rohan, Thomas, Armin W., Tramèr, Florian, Wang, Rose E., Wang, William, Wu, Bohan, Wu, Jiajun, Wu, Yuhuai, Xie, Sang Michael, Yasunaga, Michihiro, You, Jiaxuan, Zaharia, Matei, Zhang, Michael, Zhang, Tianyi, Zhang, Xikun, Zhang, Yuhui, Zheng, Lucia, Zhou, Kaitlyn, Liang, Percy
AI is undergoing a paradigm shift with the rise of models (e.g., BERT, DALL-E, GPT-3) that are trained on broad data at scale and are adaptable to a wide range of downstream tasks. We call these models foundation models to underscore their critically central yet incomplete character. This report provides a thorough account of the opportunities and risks of foundation models, ranging from their capabilities (e.g., language, vision, robotics, reasoning, human interaction) and technical principles(e.g., model architectures, training procedures, data, systems, security, evaluation, theory) to their applications (e.g., law, healthcare, education) and societal impact (e.g., inequity, misuse, economic and environmental impact, legal and ethical considerations). Though foundation models are based on standard deep learning and transfer learning, their scale results in new emergent capabilities,and their effectiveness across so many tasks incentivizes homogenization. Homogenization provides powerful leverage but demands caution, as the defects of the foundation model are inherited by all the adapted models downstream. Despite the impending widespread deployment of foundation models, we currently lack a clear understanding of how they work, when they fail, and what they are even capable of due to their emergent properties. To tackle these questions, we believe much of the critical research on foundation models will require deep interdisciplinary collaboration commensurate with their fundamentally sociotechnical nature.
This report from the Montreal AI Ethics Institute covers the most salient progress in research and reporting over the second quarter of 2021 in the field of AI ethics with a special emphasis on "Environment and AI", "Creativity and AI", and "Geopolitics and AI." The report also features an exclusive piece titled "Critical Race Quantum Computer" that applies ideas from quantum physics to explain the complexities of human characteristics and how they can and should shape our interactions with each other. The report also features special contributions on the subject of pedagogy in AI ethics, sociology and AI ethics, and organizational challenges to implementing AI ethics in practice. Given MAIEI's mission to highlight scholars from around the world working on AI ethics issues, the report also features two spotlights sharing the work of scholars operating in Singapore and Mexico helping to shape policy measures as they relate to the responsible use of technology. The report also has an extensive section covering the gamut of issues when it comes to the societal impacts of AI covering areas of bias, privacy, transparency, accountability, fairness, interpretability, disinformation, policymaking, law, regulations, and moral philosophy.
There is mounting public concern over the influence that AI based systems has in our society. Coalitions in all sectors are acting worldwide to resist hamful applications of AI. From indigenous people addressing the lack of reliable data, to smart city stakeholders, to students protesting the academic relationships with sex trafficker and MIT donor Jeffery Epstein, the questionable ethics and values of those heavily investing in and profiting from AI are under global scrutiny. There are biased, wrongful, and disturbing assumptions embedded in AI algorithms that could get locked in without intervention. Our best human judgment is needed to contain AI's harmful impact. Perhaps one of the greatest contributions of AI will be to make us ultimately understand how important human wisdom truly is in life on earth.
AI has provided us with the ability to automate tasks, extract information from vast amounts of data, and synthesize media that is nearly indistinguishable from the real thing. However, positive tools can also be used for negative purposes. In particular, cyber adversaries can use AI (such as machine learning) to enhance their attacks and expand their campaigns. Although offensive AI has been discussed in the past, there is a need to analyze and understand the threat in the context of organizations. For example, how does an AI-capable adversary impact the cyber kill chain? Does AI benefit the attacker more than the defender? What are the most significant AI threats facing organizations today and what will be their impact on the future? In this survey, we explore the threat of offensive AI on organizations. First, we present the background and discuss how AI changes the adversary's methods, strategies, goals, and overall attack model. Then, through a literature review, we identify 33 offensive AI capabilities which adversaries can use to enhance their attacks. Finally, through a user study spanning industry and academia, we rank the AI threats and provide insights on the adversaries.
Fooling people with highly realistic fake images generated with Deepfake or GANs brings a great social disturbance to our society. Many methods have been proposed to detect fake images, but they are vulnerable to adversarial perturbations -- intentionally designed noises that can lead to the wrong prediction. Existing methods of attacking fake image detectors usually generate adversarial perturbations to perturb almost the entire image. This is redundant and increases the perceptibility of perturbations. In this paper, we propose a novel method to disrupt the fake image detection by determining key pixels to a fake image detector and attacking only the key pixels, which results in the $L_0$ and the $L_2$ norms of adversarial perturbations much less than those of existing works. Experiments on two public datasets with three fake image detectors indicate that our proposed method achieves state-of-the-art performance in both white-box and black-box attacks.
Gupta, Abhishek, Royer, Alexandrine, Wright, Connor, Khan, Falaah Arif, Heath, Victoria, Galinkin, Erick, Khurana, Ryan, Ganapini, Marianna Bergamaschi, Fancy, Muriam, Sweidan, Masa, Akif, Mo, Butalid, Renjie
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.
Artificial intelligence is within everyone's reach, once again, one might say. Service providers of all kinds are integrating the appropriate technologies into their security solutions. But how much are cyber criminals and how far are they, especially when it comes to phishing? Cyber criminals have been using all technical means for years to automate their actions as much as possible, including avoiding being followed by law enforcement. One of the most effective and easiest way to infect an IT system is phishing email.
After challenging the validity of these assumptions in real-world applications, we propose ways to move forward when they are violated. First, we show that group fairness criteria purely based on statistical properties of observed data are fundamentally limited. Revisiting this limitation from a causal viewpoint we develop a more versatile conceptual framework, causal fairness criteria, and first algorithms to achieve them. We also provide tools to analyze how sensitive a believed-to-be causally fair algorithm is to misspecifications of the causal graph. Second, we overcome the assumption that sensitive data is readily available in practice. To this end we devise protocols based on secure multi-party computation to train, validate, and contest fair decision algorithms without requiring users to disclose their sensitive data or decision makers to disclose their models. Finally, we also accommodate the fact that outcome labels are often only observed when a certain decision has been made. We suggest a paradigm shift away from training predictive models towards directly learning decisions to relax the traditional assumption that labels can always be recorded. The main contribution of this thesis is the development of theoretically substantiated and practically feasible methods to move research on fair machine learning closer to real-world applications.