mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Resource Problem of Using Linear Layer Leakage Attack in Federated Learning

arXiv 2303.14868 ↗First posted 27 Mar 2023cs.LG cs.CR cs.CVcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Secure aggregation promises a heightened level of privacy in federated learning, maintaining that a server only has access to a decrypted aggregate update. Within this setting, linear layer leakage methods are the only data reconstruction attacks able to scale and achieve a high leakage rate regardless of the number of clients or batch size. This is done through increasing the size of an injected fully-connected (FC) layer. However, this results in a resource overhead which grows larger with an increasing number of clients. We show that this resource overhead is caused by an incorrect perspective in all prior work that treats an attack on an aggregate update in the same way as an individual update with a larger batch size. Instead, by attacking the update from the perspective that aggregation is combining multiple individual updates, this allows the application of sparsity to alleviate resource overhead. We show that the use of sparsity can decrease the model size overhead by over 327× and the computation time by 3.34× compared to SOTA while maintaining equivalent total leakage rate, 77% even with 1000 clients in aggregation.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Mar 2023.

Builds on

23 of 36 references.

References · 23

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  3. 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
  4. 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
  5. 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,669
  6. 2019Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 1,021
  7. 2020Inverting Gradients -- How easy is it to break privacy in federated learning?cited by 712
  8. 2018MINE: Mutual Information Neural Estimationcited by 683
  9. 2020iDLG: Improved Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 382
  10. 2021See through Gradients: Image Batch Recovery via GradInversioncited by 326
  11. 2021When the Curious Abandon Honesty: Federated Learning Is Not Privatecited by 127
  12. 2021Robbing the Fed: Directly Obtaining Private Data in Federated Learning with Modified Modelscited by 108
11 more
  1. 2022Fishing for User Data in Large-Batch Federated Learning via Gradient Magnificationcited by 73
  2. 2021Eluding Secure Aggregation in Federated Learning via Model Inconsistencycited by 67
  3. 2021LightSecAgg: a Lightweight and Versatile Design for Secure Aggregation in Federated Learningcited by 64
  4. 2021Gradient Disaggregation: Breaking Privacy in Federated Learning by Reconstructing the User Participant Matrixcited by 43
  5. 2021Towards General Deep Leakage in Federated Learningcited by 40
  6. 2022A Survey on Gradient Inversion: Attacks, Defenses and Future Directionscited by 40
  7. 2021Securing Secure Aggregation: Mitigating Multi-Round Privacy Leakage in Federated Learningcited by 39
  8. 2022Cocktail Party Attack: Breaking Aggregation-Based Privacy in Federated Learning using Independent Component Analysiscited by 29
  9. 2020Secure Aggregation with Heterogeneous Quantization in Federated Learningcited by 21
  10. 2022How Much Privacy Does Federated Learning with Secure Aggregation Guarantee?cited by 19
  11. 2020Minimal Model Structure Analysis for Input Reconstruction in Federated Learningcited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

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

9 papers.