mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Fall of Giants: How popular text-based MLaaS fall against a simple evasion attack

arXiv 2104.05996 ↗First posted 13 Apr 2021cs.CR cs.LGcited by 12

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The increased demand for machine learning applications made companies offer Machine-Learning-as-a-Service (MLaaS). In MLaaS (a market estimated 8000M USD by 2025), users pay for well-performing ML models without dealing with the complicated training procedure. Among MLaaS, text-based applications are the most popular ones (e.g., language translators). Given this popularity, MLaaS must provide resiliency to adversarial manipulations. For example, a wrong translation might lead to a misunderstanding between two parties. In the text domain, state-of-the-art attacks mainly focus on strategies that leverage ML models' weaknesses. Unfortunately, not much attention has been given to the other pipeline' stages, such as the indexing stage (i.e., when a sentence is converted from a textual to a numerical representation) that, if manipulated, can significantly affect the final performance of the application. In this paper, we propose a novel text evasion technique called "textitZero-Width attack" (ZeW) that leverages the injection of human non-readable characters, affecting indexing stage mechanisms. We demonstrate that our simple yet effective attack deceives MLaaS of "giants" such as Amazon, Google, IBM, and Microsoft. Our case study, based on the manipulation of hateful tweets, shows that out of 12 analyzed services, only one is resistant to our injection strategy. We finally introduce and test a simple textitinput validation defense that can prevent our proposed attack.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 60 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 13 Apr 2021.

Builds on

26 of 60 references.

References · 26

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,160
  2. 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
  3. 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
  4. 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
  5. 2014Empirical Evaluation of Gated Recurrent Neural Networks on Sequence Modelingcited by 2,341
  6. 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,471
  7. 2015DeepFool: a simple and accurate method to fool deep neural networkscited by 1,315
  8. 2017BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chaincited by 1,052
  9. 2017Automated Hate Speech Detection and the Problem of Offensive Languagecited by 724
  10. 2017Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Timecited by 686
  11. 2016Transferability in Machine Learning: from Phenomena to Black-Box Attacks using Adversarial Samplescited by 439
  12. 2018Generating Natural Language Adversarial Examplescited by 422
14 more
  1. 2018TextBugger: Generating Adversarial Text Against Real-world Applicationscited by 376
  2. 2018Black-box Generation of Adversarial Text Sequences to Evade Deep Learning Classifierscited by 341
  3. 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning framework for Autonomous Drivingcited by 224
  4. 2015Brain Tumor Segmentation with Deep Neural Networkscited by 137
  5. 2019Robust Neural Machine Translation with Doubly Adversarial Inputscited by 105
  6. 2017Deceiving Google's Perspective API Built for Detecting Toxic Commentscited by 99
  7. 2018Seq2Sick: Evaluating the Robustness of Sequence-to-Sequence Models with Adversarial Examplescited by 93
  8. 2020An Embarrassingly Simple Approach for Trojan Attack in Deep Neural Networkscited by 92
  9. 2018All You Need is "Love": Evading Hate-speech Detectioncited by 56
  10. 2017Towards Crafting Text Adversarial Samplescited by 55
  11. 2014Addressing the Rare Word Problem in Neural Machine Translationcited by 50
  12. 2018Adversarial Texts with Gradient Methodscited by 14
  13. 2017Security Risks in Deep Learning Implementationscited by 12
  14. 2019How Large a Vocabulary Does Text Classification Need? A Variational Approach to Vocabulary Selectioncited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 4; 2024: 3; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

12 papers.