PreprintCited by 145Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningPrivacy-Preserving Technologies in DataSecurity and Verification in Computing

Stolen Memories: Leveraging Model Memorization for Calibrated White-Box Membership Inference

Open access
Leino, Klas, Fredrikson, Matt·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Membership inference (MI) attacks exploit the fact that machine learning algorithms sometimes leak information about their training data through the learned model. In this work, we study membership inference in the white-box setting in order to exploit the internals of a model, which have not been effectively utilized by previous work. Leveraging new insights about how overfitting occurs in deep neural networks, we show how a model's idiosyncratic use of features can provide evidence for membership to white-box attackers---even when the model's black-box behavior appears to generalize well---and demonstrate that this attack outperforms prior black-box methods. Taking the position that an effective attack should have the ability to provide confident positive inferences, we find that previous attacks do not often provide a meaningful basis for confidently inferring membership, whereas our attack can be effectively calibrated for high precision. Finally, we examine popular defenses against MI attacks, finding that (1) smaller generalization error is not sufficient to prevent attacks on real models, and (2) while small-$ε$-differential privacy reduces the attack's effectiveness, this often comes at a significant cost to the model's accuracy; and for larger $ε$ that are sometimes used in practice (e.g., $ε=16$), the attack can achieve nearly the same accuracy as on the unprotected model.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.11798

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Membership inference is the most well-established privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat than class-level attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].

    “We emphasize that membership inference is the most wellestablished privacy attack and arguably constitutes a bigger privacy threat [13,28,30,37,46,48,60,66,67,75] than classlevel attacks, such as the attacks in [7, 59] and model inversion [18, 19].”

    From When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy (2021) · cites this paper as [37]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leino, K., & Fredrikson, M.
Affiliations
Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
Pages
1605-1622
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048775464
Cited by
145
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 9 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 18
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
  • USENIX Security Symposium
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Security and Verification in Computing
Keywords
membership inference attacks, white-box attacks, overfitting, deep neural network, privacy defenses, differential privacy, training data leakage

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