mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Lifecycle-Aware Dynamic Analysis for Secure ML Model Execution

arXiv 2606.19023 ↗First posted 17 Jun 2026cs.CR cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The growing reliance on pre-trained Machine Learning (ML) models has introduced new attack surfaces. Recent vulnerabilities demonstrate that malicious behavior can be embedded within model artifacts, often bypassing existing defenses. Current model-scanning solutions primarily rely on static, format-specific rules or known attack signatures, which limit their ability to generalize across frameworks and to detect novel exploitation paths. In contrast, we propose a solution that focuses on the effects an attack has on the host system executing the model and builds on foundational intuitions about ML model execution. In particular, we observe that ML models operate within well-defined lifecycle phases and that, within each phase, interactions with the host system are highly structured and predictable. We translate these intuitions into Moat, a dynamic lifecycle-aware approach for securing ML model execution, and instantiate this design in Re-Moat, our reference implementation. We evaluate Re-Moat across multiple ML frameworks using 77,974 real-world model artifacts from the Hugging Face Hub, 31 Proofs-of-Concept (PoCs) from CVEs, and 334 models from a state-of-the-art dataset, and compare it against state-of-the-art model-scanning solutions. Our results show that our approach detects all evaluated attack classes while maintaining a close-to-zero false-positive rate, validating our intuitions and motivating dynamic analysis for securing ML model execution.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 11 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Jun 2026.

Builds on

11 of 49 references.

References · 11

  1. 2017Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learningcited by 414
  2. 2018TESSERACT: Eliminating Experimental Bias in Malware Classification across Space and Timecited by 108
  3. 2020Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attackscited by 61
  4. 2022Taxonomy of Attacks on Open-Source Software Supply Chainscited by 58
  5. 2023An Empirical Study of Pre-Trained Model Reuse in the Hugging Face Deep Learning Model Registrycited by 47
  6. 2024Models Are Codes: Towards Measuring Malicious Code Poisoning Attacks on Pre-trained Model Hubscited by 18
  7. 2024A Large-Scale Exploit Instrumentation Study of AI/ML Supply Chain Attacks in Hugging Face Modelscited by 14
  8. 2025Machine Learning Models Have a Supply Chain Problemcited by 4
  9. 2025The Art of Hide and Seek: Making Pickle-Based Model Supply Chain Poisoning Stealthy Againcited by 4
  10. 2025On the (In)Security of Loading Machine Learning Modelscited by 2
  11. 2025Poster: libdebug, Build Your Own Debugger for a Better (Hello) Worldcited by 1

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026AI Security in the Foundation Model Era: A Comprehensive Survey from a Unified Perspective
  2. 2025RADEP: A Resilient Adaptive Defense Framework Against Model Extraction Attacks
  3. 2025HoneypotNet: Backdoor Attacks Against Model Extraction
  4. 2023SecurityNet: Assessing Machine Learning Vulnerabilities on Public Models
  5. 2022Machine Learning Security against Data Poisoning: Are We There Yet?
  6. 2023Identifying Appropriate Intellectual Property Protection Mechanisms for Machine Learning Models: A Systematization of Watermarking, Fingerprinting, Model Access, and Attacks
  7. 2022Wild Patterns Reloaded: A Survey of Machine Learning Security against Training Data Poisoning
  8. 2024SnatchML: Hijacking ML models without Training Access