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

The GitHub Blog
The GitHub Blog
Jina AI
Jina AI
月光博客
月光博客
博客园 - Franky
小众软件
小众软件
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
奇客Solidot–传递最新科技情报
V
Visual Studio Blog
有赞技术团队
有赞技术团队
V
V2EX
IT之家
IT之家
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
Stack Overflow Blog
Stack Overflow Blog
H
Help Net Security
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
腾讯CDC
D
DataBreaches.Net
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
罗磊的独立博客
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
C
Check Point Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Security Blog
Microsoft Security Blog

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
Longitudinal Analysis of Privacy Labels in the Apple App ...
David G. Balash, Mir Masood Ali, Monica Kodwani, Xiaoyuan Wu, Ch · 2022-06-06 · via cs.CR updates on arXiv.org

In December of 2020, Apple started to require app developers to self-report privacy label annotations on their apps indicating what data is collected and how it is used.To understand the adoption and shifts in privacy labels in the App Store, we collected nearly weekly snapshots of over 1.6 million apps for over a year (July 15, 2021 -- October 25, 2022) to understand the dynamics of privacy label ecosystem. Nearly two years after privacy labels launched, only 70.1% of apps have privacy labels, but we observed an increase of 28% during the measurement period. Privacy label adoption rates are mostly driven by new apps rather than older apps coming into compliance. Of apps with labels, 18.1% collect data used to track users, 38.1% collect data that is linked to a user identity, and 42.0% collect data that is not linked. A surprisingly large share (41.8%) of apps with labels indicate that they do not collect any data, and while we do not perform direct analysis of the apps to verify this claim, we observe that it is likely that many of these apps are choosing a Does Not Collect label due to being forced to select a label, rather than this being the true behavior of the app. Moreover, for apps that have assigned labels during the measurement period nearly all do not change their labels, and when they do, the new labels indicate more data collection than less. This suggests that privacy labels may be a ``set once'' mechanism for developers that may not actually provide users with the clarity needed to make informed privacy decisions.