Client-side Gradient Inversion Against Federated Learning from Poisoning
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Federated Learning (FL) enables distributed participants (e.g., mobile devices) to train a global model without sharing data directly to a central server. Recent studies have revealed that FL is vulnerable to gradient inversion attack (GIA), which aims to reconstruct the original training samples and poses high risk against the privacy of clients in FL. However, most existing GIAs necessitate control over the server and rely on strong prior knowledge including batch normalization and data distribution information. In this work, we propose Client-side poisoning Gradient Inversion (CGI), which is a novel attack method that can be launched from clients. For the first time, we show the feasibility of a client-side adversary with limited knowledge being able to recover the training samples from the aggregated global model. We take a distinct approach in which the adversary utilizes a malicious model that amplifies the loss of a specific targeted class of interest. When honest clients employ the poisoned global model, the gradients of samples belonging to the targeted class are magnified, making them the dominant factor in the aggregated update. This enables the adversary to effectively reconstruct the private input belonging to other clients using the aggregated update. In addition, our CGI also features its ability to remain stealthy against Byzantine-robust aggregation rules (AGRs). By optimizing malicious updates and blending benign updates with a malicious replacement vector, our method remains undetected by these defense mechanisms. To evaluate the performance of CGI, we conduct experiments on various benchmark datasets, considering representative Byzantine-robust AGRs, and exploring diverse FL settings with different levels of adversary knowledge about the data. Our results demonstrate that CGI consistently and successfully extracts training input in all tested scenarios.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 32 of its 45 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 14 Sep 2023.
Builds on
32 of 45 references.
References · 32
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Deep Features as a Perceptual Metriccited by 11,177
- 2016Communication-Efficient Learning of Deep Networks from Decentralized Datacited by 7,669
- 2019Analyzing and Improving the Image Quality of StyleGANcited by 3,588
- 2016Deep Learning with Differential Privacycited by 2,728
- 2019Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 1,021
- 2018How To Backdoor Federated Learningcited by 765
- 2020Inverting Gradients -- How easy is it to break privacy in federated learning?cited by 712
- 2018Byzantine-Robust Distributed Learning: Towards Optimal Statistical Ratescited by 711
- 2016Federated Optimization: Distributed Machine Learning for On-Device Intelligencecited by 564
- 2019Local Model Poisoning Attacks to Byzantine-Robust Federated Learningcited by 493
- 2019Dreaming to Distill: Data-free Knowledge Transfer via DeepInversioncited by 423
20 more
- 2020iDLG: Improved Deep Leakage from Gradientscited by 382
- 2018Analyzing Federated Learning through an Adversarial Lenscited by 351
- 2020FLTrust: Byzantine-robust Federated Learning via Trust Bootstrappingcited by 346
- 2018The Hidden Vulnerability of Distributed Learning in Byzantiumcited by 329
- 2021See through Gradients: Image Batch Recovery via GradInversioncited by 326
- 2022Deduplicating Training Data Mitigates Privacy Risks in Language Modelscited by 314
- 2020Attack of the Tails: Yes, You Really Can Backdoor Federated Learningcited by 309
- 2019A Little Is Enough: Circumventing Defenses For Distributed Learningcited by 288
- 2017Towards Poisoning of Deep Learning Algorithms with Back-gradient Optimizationcited by 197
- 2021When the Curious Abandon Honesty: Federated Learning Is Not Privatecited by 127
- 2021Robbing the Fed: Directly Obtaining Private Data in Federated Learning with Modified Modelscited by 108
- 2021Gradient Inversion with Generative Image Priorcited by 101
- 2020R-GAP: Recursive Gradient Attack on Privacycited by 97
- 2018Generalized Byzantine-tolerant SGDcited by 95
- 2022Fishing for User Data in Large-Batch Federated Learning via Gradient Magnificationcited by 73
- 2022Plug & Play Attacks: Towards Robust and Flexible Model Inversion Attackscited by 60
- 2022Label-Only Model Inversion Attacks via Boundary Repulsioncited by 56
- 2022A Survey on Gradient Inversion: Attacks, Defenses and Future Directionscited by 40
- 2022Beyond Gradients: Exploiting Adversarial Priors in Model Inversion Attackscited by 7
- 2022Model Inversion Attack against Transfer Learning: Inverting a Model without Accessing Itcited by 4
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 1; 2024: 2; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2023AGRAMPLIFIER: Defending Federated Learning Against Poisoning Attacks Through Local Update Amplificationcited by 5
- 2024Dealing Doubt: Unveiling Threat Models in Gradient Inversion Attacks under Federated Learning, A Survey and Taxonomycited by 2
- 2024Revisiting Federated Fine-Tuning: A Single Communication Round is Enough for Foundation Modelscited by 2
- 2026What Your Posts Reveal: A Benchmark and Agentic Framework for User-Level Privacy Leakage on Social Mediacited by 2
- 2026What Your Posts Reveal: A Benchmark and Agentic Framework for User-Level Privacy Leakage on Social Media5 Jun 2026
- 2024Revisiting Federated Fine-Tuning: A Single Communication Round is Enough for Foundation Models5 Dec 2024
- 2024Dealing Doubt: Unveiling Threat Models in Gradient Inversion Attacks under Federated Learning, A Survey and Taxonomy16 May 2024
- 2023AGRAMPLIFIER: Defending Federated Learning Against Poisoning Attacks Through Local Update Amplification13 Nov 2023