Manipulating Federated Recommender Systems: Poisoning with Synthetic Users and Its Countermeasures
Open accessAbstract
Federated Recommender Systems (FedRecs) are considered privacy-preserving techniques to collaboratively learn a recommendation model without sharing user data. Since all participants can directly influence the systems by uploading gradients, FedRecs are vulnerable to poisoning attacks of malicious clients. However, most existing poisoning attacks on FedRecs are either based on some prior knowledge or with less effectiveness. To reveal the real vulnerability of FedRecs, in this paper, we present a new poisoning attack method to manipulate target items' ranks and exposure rates effectively in the top-K recommendation without relying on any prior knowledge. Specifically, our attack manipulates target items' exposure rate by a group of synthetic malicious users who upload poisoned gradients considering target items' alternative products. We conduct extensive experiments with two widely used FedRecs (Fed-NCF and Fed-LightGCN) on two real-world recommendation datasets. The experimental results show that our attack can significantly improve the exposure rate of unpopular target items with extremely fewer malicious users and fewer global epochs than state-of-the-art attacks. In addition to disclosing the security hole, we design a novel countermeasure for poisoning attacks on FedRecs. Specifically, we propose a hierarchical gradient clipping with sparsified updating to defend against existing poisoning attacks. The empirical results demonstrate that the proposed defending mechanism improves the robustness of FedRecs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Decentralized recommender systems remain vulnerable to threats such as inference attacks and differential attacks.
“Although decentralized RS inherently provides a privacy protocol, as users preserve their entire historical data, and even FedRec prioritizes user privacy over DCS, it remains vulnerable to threats such as inference attacks and differential attacks [105, 138-142].”
From A Deep Dive into Fairness, Bias, Threats, and Privacy in Recommender Systems: Insights and Future Research (2024) · cites this paper as [142]
Cites
The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
Voigt, P., & von dem Bussche, A. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57959-7 · Cited by 3,001 · cited 1× · see citing works
“With the growing concerns about privacy and the new privacy protection regulations (e.g. GDPR [29] in the EU and CCPA [12] in the USA), federated recommenders (FedRecs) [2] have recently emerged as a privacy-preserving solution to collaboratively learn a recommendation model among personal devices…”
BackgroundData Poisoning Attacks Against Federated Learning Systems
Tolpegin, V., Truex, S., Gursoy, M. E., & Liu, L. (2020) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58951-6_24 · Cited by 927 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roy, F., Ding, X., Choo, K. K. R., & Zhou, P. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.12651
- Authors
- Yuan, W., Nguyen, Q. V. H., He, T., Chen, L., & Yin, H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Griffith University (AU)
- Nanjing University (CN)
- Sun Yat-sen University (CN)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 46th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2023-07-18
- Pages
- 1690-1699
- OpenAlex
- W4384655830
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 8.86
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (FT210100624,DP190101985)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Keywords
- federated recommender systems, poisoning attacks, top-k recommendation, privacy-preserving recommendation
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