Cited by 902Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in ComputingAdvanced Malware Detection Techniques

Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time

Open access
Biggio, Battista, Corona, Igino, Maiorca, Davide, Nelson, Blaine, Šrndić, Nedim, Laskov, Pavel, Giacinto, Giorgio, Roli, Fabio·2013·Lecture Notes in Computer Science

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-3-642-40994-3_25

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • DBA is substantially more persistent and stealthy on diverse datasets such as finance and image data.

    “They demonstrated that DBA is substantially more persistent and stealthy on diverse datasets such as finance and image data.”

    From Vulnerabilities in federated learning (2021) · cites this paper as [44]

  • Only a few works investigate poisoning attacks in a distributed environment where multiple malicious clients with the same attack strive to include poisoned training samples into the training procedures.

    “However, only a few works [44] investigate the poisoning attacks in a distributed environment where multiple malicious clients with the same attack strive to include poisoned training samples into the training procedures.”

    From Vulnerabilities in federated learning (2021) · cites this paper as [44]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. [1]1. Adobe: PDF Reference, sixth edition, version 1.7
  2. [6]6. Biggio, B., Nelson, B., Laskov, P.: Poisoning attacks against support vector machines. In: Langford, J., Pineau, J. (eds.) 29th Int'l Conf. on Mach. Learn. (2012)
  3. [11]11. Fogla, P., Sharif, M., Perdisci, R., Kolesnikov, O., Lee, W.: Polymorphic blending attacks. In: Proc. 15th Conf. on USENIX Sec. Symp. USENIX Association, CA, USA (2006)
  4. [15]15. Kloft, M., Laskov, P.: Online anomaly detection under adversarial impact. In: Proc. of the 13th Int'l Conf. on Art. Int. and Stats. (AISTATS). pp. 405-412 (2010)
  5. [16]16. Kolcz, A., Teo, C.H.: Feature weighting for improved classifier robustness. In: Sixth Conf. on Email and Anti-Spam (CEAS). Mountain View, CA, USA (2009)
  6. [17]17. Laskov, P., Kloft, M.: A framework for quantitative security analysis of machine learning. In: AISec '09: Proc. of the 2nd ACM works. on Sec. and art. int. pp. 1-4. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2009)
  7. [18]18. LeCun, Y., Jackel, L., Bottou, L., Brunot, A., Cortes, C., Denker, J., Drucker, H., Guyon, I., M¨ uller, U., S¨ ackinger, E., Simard, P., Vapnik, V.: Comparison of learning algorithms for handwritten digit recognition. In: Int'l Conf. on Art. Neu. Net. pp. 53-60 (1995)
  8. [21]21. Nelson, B., Barreno, M., Chi, F.J., Joseph, A.D., Rubinstein, B.I.P., Saini, U., Sutton, C., Tygar, J.D., Xia, K.: Exploiting machine learning to subvert your spam filter. In: LEET'08: Proc. of the 1st Usenix Work. on L.-S. Exp. and Emerg. Threats. pp. 1-9. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, USA (2008)
  9. [23]23. Platt, J.: Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparison to regularized likelihood methods. In: Smola, A., Bartlett, P., Sch¨ olkopf, B., Schuurmans, D. (eds.) Adv. in L. M. Class. pp. 61-74 (2000)
  10. [25]25. ˇ Srndi´ c, N., Laskov, P.: Detection of malicious pdf files based on hierarchical document structure. In: Proc. 20th Annual Net. & Dist. Sys. Sec. Symp. (2013)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Biggio, B., Corona, I., Maiorca, D., Nelson, B., Šrndić, N., Laskov, P., Giacinto, G., & Roli, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Cagliari (IT)
  • University of Potsdam (DE)
  • University of Tübingen (DE)
Venue
Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Published
2013
Pages
387-402
ISSN
  • 0302-9743 (ISSN-L)
  • 1611-3349
OpenAlex
W3103836116
Cited by
890
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 103 · 2024: 131 · 2023: 123 · 2022: 126 · 2021: 95 · 2020: 98 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lecture notes in computer science (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • UNICA IRIS Institutional Research Information System (University of Cagliari) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial Research Information System (University of Genoa) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Advanced Malware Detection Techniques
Keywords
evasion attacks, adversarial learning, gradient-based attacks, malware detection, PDF documents, countermeasures

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