惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

IT之家
IT之家
Y
Y Combinator Blog
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
G
Google Developers Blog
博客园 - Franky
Google DeepMind News
Google DeepMind News
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
博客园 - 聂微东
爱范儿
爱范儿
博客园 - 【当耐特】
腾讯CDC
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
MongoDB | Blog
MongoDB | Blog
H
Help Net Security
C
Check Point Blog
大猫的无限游戏
大猫的无限游戏
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
博客园_首页
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
Engineering at Meta
Engineering at Meta
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报

cs.CR updates on arXiv.org

Agentic Vulnerability Reasoning on Windows COM Binaries From Beats to Breaches:How Offensive AI Infers Sensitive User Information from Playlists Undetectable Backdoors in Model Parameters: Hiding Sparse Secrets in High Dimensions When Embedding-Based Defenses Fail: Rethinking Safety in LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems Token-Efficient Change Detection in LLM APIs Selfie-Capture Dynamics as an Auxiliary Signal Against Deepfakes and Injection Attacks for Mobile Identity Verification Trident: Improving Malware Detection with LLMs and Behavioral Features When Alignment Isn't Enough: Response-Path Attacks on LLM Agents RefusalGuard: Geometry-Preserving Fine-Tuning for Safety in LLMs Checkerboard: A Simple, Effective, Efficient and Learning-free Clean Label Backdoor Attack with Low Poisoning Budget Block-wise Codeword Embedding for Reliable Multi-bit Text Watermarking Secret Stealing Attacks on Local LLM Fine-Tuning through Supply-Chain Model Code Backdoors Enhancing Linux Privilege Escalation Attack Capabilities of Local LLM Agents Defusing the Trigger: Plug-and-Play Defense for Backdoored LLMs via Tail-Risk Intrinsic Geometric Smoothing Evaluating Jailbreaking Vulnerabilities in LLMs Deployed as Assistants for Smart Grid Operations: A Benchmark Against NERC Standards Behavioral Canaries: Auditing Private Retrieved Context Usage in RL Fine-Tuning FlexServe: A Fast and Secure LLM Serving System for Mobile Devices with Flexible Resource Isolation Breaking MCP with Function Hijacking Attacks: Novel Threats for Function Calling and Agentic Models Text Steganography with Dynamic Codebook and Multimodal Large Language Model An AI Agent Execution Environment to Safeguard User Data TwoHamsters: Benchmarking Multi-Concept Compositional Unsafety in Text-to-Image Models Fundamental Limitations of Favorable Privacy-Utility Guarantees for DP-SGD Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific Agents: Stronger Safety and Security Guarantees Without Sacrificing Utility Hardening x402: PII-Safe Agentic Payments via Pre-Execution Metadata Filtering QShield: Securing Neural Networks Against Adversarial Attacks using Quantum Circuits Hijacking Text Heritage: Hiding the Human Signature through Homoglyphic Substitution Like a Hammer, It Can Build, It Can Break: Large Language Model Uses, Perceptions, and Adoption in Cybersecurity Operations on Reddit Private Seeds, Public LLMs: Realistic and Privacy-Preserving Synthetic Data Generation One Word at a Time: Incremental Completion Decomposition Breaks LLM Safety Measuring and Exploiting Contextual Bias in LLM-Assisted Security Code Review
Measuring the Accuracy and Effectiveness of PII Removal S...
Jiahui He, Pete Snyder, Hamed Haddadi, Fabián E. Bustamante, Gar · 2025-05-11 · via cs.CR updates on arXiv.org

This paper presents the first large-scale empirical study of commercial personally identifiable information (PII) removal systems -- commercial services that claim to improve privacy by automating the removal of PII from data broker's databases. Popular examples of such services include DeleteMe, Mozilla Monitor, Incogni, among many others. The claims these services make may be very appealing to privacy-conscious Web users, but how effective these services actually are at improving privacy has not been investigated. This work aims to improve our understanding of commercial PII removal services in multiple ways. First, we conduct a user study where participants purchase subscriptions from four popular PII removal services, and report (i) what PII the service find, (ii) from which data brokers, (iii) whether the service is able to have the information removed, and (iv) whether the identified information actually is PII describing the participant. And second, by comparing the claims and promises the services makes (e.g. which and how many data brokers each service claims to cover). We find that these services have significant accuracy and coverage issues that limit the usefulness of these services as a privacy-enhancing technology. For example, we find that the measured services are unable to remove the majority of the identified PII records from data broker's (48.2% of the successfully removed found records) and that most records identified by these services are not PII about the user (study participants found that only 41.1% of records identified by these services were PII about themselves).