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

博客园 - Franky
Microsoft Azure Blog
Microsoft Azure Blog
阮一峰的网络日志
阮一峰的网络日志
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
量子位
N
Netflix TechBlog - Medium
M
MIT News - Artificial intelligence
GbyAI
GbyAI
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
博客园_首页
博客园 - 叶小钗
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
Cyber Security Advisories - MS-ISAC
酷 壳 – CoolShell
酷 壳 – CoolShell
T
Tailwind CSS Blog
Y
Y Combinator Blog
L
LangChain Blog
The Cloudflare Blog
T
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss
U
Unit 42
Martin Fowler
Martin Fowler
aimingoo的专栏
aimingoo的专栏
G
Google Developers Blog
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
月光博客
月光博客

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
Adversarial Plannning
Valentin Vie, Ryan Sheatsley, Sophia Beyda, Sushrut Shringarputa · 2022-05-02 · via cs.CR updates on arXiv.org

Planning algorithms are used in computational systems to direct autonomous behavior. In a canonical application, for example, planning for autonomous vehicles is used to automate the static or continuous planning towards performance, resource management, or functional goals (e.g., arriving at the destination, managing fuel fuel consumption). Existing planning algorithms assume non-adversarial settings; a least-cost plan is developed based on available environmental information (i.e., the input instance). Yet, it is unclear how such algorithms will perform in the face of adversaries attempting to thwart the planner. In this paper, we explore the security of planning algorithms used in cyber- and cyber-physical systems. We present two $\textit{adversarial planning}$ algorithms-one static and one adaptive-that perturb input planning instances to maximize cost (often substantially so). We evaluate the performance of the algorithms against two dominant planning algorithms used in commercial applications (D* Lite and Fast Downward) and show both are vulnerable to extremely limited adversarial action. Here, experiments show that an adversary is able to increase plan costs in 66.9% of instances by only removing a single action from the actions space (D* Lite) and render 70% of instances from an international planning competition unsolvable by removing only three actions (Fast Forward). Finally, we show that finding an optimal perturbation in any search-based planning system is NP-hard.