Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning Models : A Review

Authors

  • Preeti  PG Scholar, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shekhawati Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sikar, Rajasthan, India
  • Irfan Khan  Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Shekhawati Institute of Engineering and Technology, Sikar, Rajasthan, India

DOI:

https://doi.org//10.32628/CSEIT22817

Keywords:

Membership inference attacks, deep leaning, privacy risk, differential privacy.

Abstract

Ongoing investigations propose enrollment derivation (MI) assaults on profound models, where the objective is to surmise if an example has been utilized in the preparation interaction. Regardless of their obvious achievement, these examinations just report exactness, accuracy, and review of the positive class (part class). Subsequently, the presentations of these assaults have not been plainly covered negative class (non-part class). AI (ML) models have been broadly applied to different applications, including picture grouping, text age, sound acknowledgment, and chart information examination. Nonetheless, late investigations have shown that ML models are helpless against participation induction assaults (MIAs), which mean to gather whether an information record was utilized to prepare an objective model or not. MIAs on ML models can straightforwardly prompt a security break. For model, through distinguishing the way that a clinical record that has been utilized to prepare a model related with a specific infection, an assailant can surmise that the proprietor of the clinical record has the sickness with a high possibility. As of late, MIAs have been demonstrated to be compelling on different ML models, e.g., arrangement models and generative models. In the interim, numerous safeguard strategies have been proposed to relieve MIAs.

References

  1. Pang, Bo, Lillian Lee, and Shivakumar Vaithyanathan. "Thumbs up: slant arrangement utilizing machine learning systems." In Proceedings of the ACL-02 meeting on Empirical techniques in normal dialect preparing Vol.10, pp. 79-86, 2002.
  2. Witten, Ian H., Eibe Frank, Mark A. Lobby, and Christopher J. Buddy.” Information Mining: Practical machine learning devices and systems.” 2016.
  3. McGregor, Anthony, Mark Hall, Perry Lorier, and James Brunskill. "Stream bunching utilizing machine learning strategies." In International Workshop on Passive and Active Network Measurement ,Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 205-214, 2004.
  4. Read, Jonathon. "Utilizing emojis to lessen reliance in machine learning methods for slant characterization." In Proceedings of the ACL understudy investigate workshop,Relationship for Computational Linguistics, pp. 43-48, 2005.
  5. Kotsiantis, Sotiris B., I. Zaharakis, and P. Pintelas. "Regulated machine taking in: An audit of arrangement strategies." Emerging man-made reasoning applications in PC building 160 pp 3-24, 2007.
  6. Rathi, M., & Pareek, V.“Spam Mail Detection through Data Mining-A Comparative Performance Analysis”. International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science,(12), 31, 2013.
  7. Abu-Nimeh, Saeed, Dario Nappa, Xinlei Wang, and Suku Nair. "An examination of machine learning procedures for phishing identification." In Proceedings of the counter phishing working gatherings second yearly eCrime analysts summit, pp. 60-69 , 2007.
  8. Sommer, Robin, and Vern Paxson. "Outside the shut world: On utilizing machine learning for arrange interruption location." IEEE , pp. 305-316 , 2010.
  9. Kolari, Pranam, Akshay Java, Tim Finin, Tim Oates, and Anupam Joshi. "Distinguishing spam writes: A machine learning approach." In AAAI, vol. 6, pp. 1351-1356. 2006.
  10. Crawford, Michael, Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, Joseph D. Prusa, Aaron N. Richter, and Hamzah Al Najada. "Overview of audit spam location utilizing machine learning systems." Journal of Big Data 2, no. 1: 23,2015
  11. Wang, Alex Hai. "Identifying spam bots in online long range interpersonal communication locales: a machine learning approach." In IFIP Annual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy,. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 335-342, 2010.
  12. Castillo, Carlos, Debora Donato, Aristides Gionis, Vanessa Murdock, and FabrizioSilvestri. "Know your neighbors: Web spam discovery utilizing the web topology." In Proceedings of the 30th yearly worldwide ACM SIGIR gathering on Research and advancement in data recovery, pp. 423-430, 2007.
  13. Benevenuto, Fabricio, Gabriel Magno, Tiago Rodrigues, and Virgilio Almeida. "Recognizing spammers on twitter." In Collaboration, electronic informing, hostile to manhandle and spam meeting (CEAS), vol. 6, pp. 12, 2010.
  14. Sasaki, Minoru, and Hiroyuki Shinnou. "Spam location utilizing content bunching." In Cyberworlds, 2005. worldwide meeting ,IEEE . Vol. 4 , 2005.
  15. Garera, Sujata, Niels Provos, Monica Chew, and Aviel D. Rubin. "A structure for discovery and estimation of phishing assaults." In Proceedings of the ACM workshop on Recurring malcode, pp. 1-8, 2007.

Downloads

Published

2022-02-28

Issue

Section

Research Articles

How to Cite

[1]
Preeti, Irfan Khan, " Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning Models : A Review , IInternational Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology(IJSRCSEIT), ISSN : 2456-3307, Volume 8, Issue 1, pp.68-73, January-February-2022. Available at doi : https://doi.org/10.32628/CSEIT22817