The Threat of Adversarial Attacks against Machine Learning in Network Security: A Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning models have made many decision support systems to be faster, more accurate and more efficient. However, applications of machine learning in network security face more disproportionate threat of active adversarial attacks compared to other domains. This is because machine learning applications in network security such as malware detection, intrusion detection, and spam filtering are by themselves adversarial in nature. In what could be considered an arm's race between attackers and defenders, adversaries constantly probe machine learning systems with inputs which are explicitly designed to bypass the system and induce a wrong prediction. In this survey, we first provide a taxonomy of machine learning techniques, tasks, and depth. We then introduce a classification of machine learning in network security applications. Next, we examine various adversarial attacks against machine learning in network security and introduce two classification approaches for adversarial attacks in network security. First, we classify adversarial attacks in network security based on a taxonomy of network security applications. Secondly, we categorize adversarial attacks in network security into a problem space vs. feature space dimensional classification model. We then analyze the various defenses against adversarial attacks on machine learning-based network security applications. We conclude by introducing an adversarial risk grid map and evaluate several existing adversarial attacks against machine learning in network security using the risk grid map. We also identify where each attack classification resides within the adversarial risk grid map.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it