The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Paragraph: Thwarting Signature Learning by Training Maliciously
Open accessAbstract
Defending a server against Internet worms and defending a user's email inbox against spam bear certain similarities. In both cases, a stream of samples arrives, and a classifier must automatically determine whether each sample falls into a malicious target class (e.g., worm network traffic, or spam email). A learner typically generates a classifier automatically by analyzing two labeled training pools: one of innocuous samples, and one of samples that fall in the malicious target class. Learning techniques have previously found success in settings where the content of the labeled samples used in training is either random, or even constructed by a helpful teacher, who aims to speed learning of an accurate classifier. In the case of learning classifiers for worms and spam, however, an adversary controls the content of the labeled samples to a great extent. In this paper, we describe practical attacks against learning, in which an adversary constructs labeled samples that, when used to train a learner, prevent or severely delay generation of an accurate classifier. We show that even a delusive adversary, whose samples are all correctly labeled, can obstruct learning. We simulate and implement highly effective instances of these attacks against the Polygraph [15] automatic polymorphic worm signature generation algorithms.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Drebin: Effective and Explainable Detection of Android Malware in Your Pocket
Arp, D., Spreitzenbarth, M., Hübner, M., Gascon, H., & Rieck, K. (2014) · Proceedings 2014 Network and Distributed System Security Symposium · doi:10.14722/ndss.2014.23247 · Cited by 2,331
BadNets: Evaluating Backdooring Attacks on Deep Neural Networks
Gu, T., Liu, K., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Garg, S. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2909068 · Cited by 1,238
“[26] devised training-time attacks against the Polygraph virus detection system that would create both false positives and negatives when classifying network traffic, and Chung and Mok [27], [28] found that Autograph, a signature detection system that updates its model online, was”
BackgroundHuang, L., Joseph, A. D., Nelson, B., Rubinstein, B. I. P., & Tygar, J. D. (2011) · Proceedings of the 4th ACM workshop on Security and artificial intelligence · doi:10.1145/2046684.2046692 · Cited by 1,194
BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chain
Gu, T., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Garg, S. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.06733 · Cited by 1,061
Fine-Pruning: Defending Against Backdooring Attacks on Deep Neural Networks
Liu, K., Dolan-Gavitt, B., & Garg, S. (2018) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00470-5_13 · Cited by 1,055
Metadata
- Authors
- Newsome, J., Karp, B., & Song, D.
- Venue
- Lecture Notes in Computer Science
- Publisher
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 81-105
- ISSN
- 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
- 1611-3349
- OpenAlex
- W1552056088
- Cited by
- 193
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.60
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Paragraph: Thwarting Signature Learning by Training Maliciously. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/11856214_5
- The paper
- Newsome, J., Karp, B., & Song, D. (2006). Paragraph: Thwarting Signature Learning by Training Maliciously. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/11856214_5
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.