Defending Against Machine Learning Model Stealing Attacks Using Deceptive Perturbations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Machine learning models are vulnerable to simple model stealing attacks if the adversary can obtain output labels for chosen inputs. To protect against these attacks, it has been proposed to limit the information provided to the adversary by omitting probability scores, significantly impacting the utility of the provided service. In this work, we illustrate how a service provider can still provide useful, albeit misleading, class probability information, while significantly limiting the success of the attack. Our defense forces the adversary to discard the class probabilities, requiring significantly more queries before they can train a model with comparable performance. We evaluate several attack strategies, model architectures, and hyperparameters under varying adversarial models, and evaluate the efficacy of our defense against the strongest adversary. Finally, we quantify the amount of noise injected into the class probabilities to mesure the loss in utility, e.g., adding 1.26 nats per query on CIFAR-10 and 3.27 on MNIST. Our evaluation shows our defense can degrade the accuracy of the stolen model at least 20%, or require up to 64 times more queries while keeping the accuracy of the protected model almost intact.
Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 May 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 3; 2022: 4; 2023: 0; 2024: 2; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
11 papers.
- 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practicecited by 84
- 2021Automated Discovery of Adaptive Attacks on Adversarial Defensescited by 22
- 2024QUEEN: Query Unlearning against Model Extractioncited by 9
- 2024A Middle Path for On-Premises LLM Deployment: Preserving Privacy Without Sacrificing Model Confidentialitycited by 8
- 2022Careful What You Wish For: on the Extraction of Adversarially Trained Modelscited by 6
- 2026CREDIT: Certified Ownership Verification of Deep Neural Networks Against Model Extraction Attackscited by 5
- 2022DynaMarks: Defending Against Deep Learning Model Extraction Using Dynamic Watermarkingcited by 4
- 2021Mitigating Black-Box Adversarial Attacks via Output Noise Perturbationcited by 3
- 2022Preventing Distillation-based Attacks on Neural Network IPcited by 0
- 2022A Framework for Understanding Model Extraction Attack and Defensecited by 0
- 2025Stealix: Model Stealing via Prompt Evolutioncited by 0
- 2026CREDIT: Certified Ownership Verification of Deep Neural Networks Against Model Extraction Attacks23 Feb 2026
- 2025Stealix: Model Stealing via Prompt Evolution6 Jun 2025
- 2024A Middle Path for On-Premises LLM Deployment: Preserving Privacy Without Sacrificing Model Confidentiality15 Oct 2024
- 2024QUEEN: Query Unlearning against Model Extraction1 Jul 2024
- 2022DynaMarks: Defending Against Deep Learning Model Extraction Using Dynamic Watermarking27 Jul 2022
- 2022Careful What You Wish For: on the Extraction of Adversarially Trained Models21 Jul 2022
- 2022A Framework for Understanding Model Extraction Attack and Defense23 Jun 2022
- 2022Preventing Distillation-based Attacks on Neural Network IP1 Apr 2022
- 2021Mitigating Black-Box Adversarial Attacks via Output Noise Perturbation30 Sep 2021
- 2021Proof-of-Learning: Definitions and Practice9 Mar 2021
- 2021Automated Discovery of Adaptive Attacks on Adversarial Defenses23 Feb 2021