# Beyond Gradient-Based Attacks: Adversarial Robustness and Explainability Stability in Cybersecurity Classifiers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.01679 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.01679/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 22 of its 28 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 2 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 22 of 22)

- [Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1412.6572/) (2014)
- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.06083/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1608.04644/) (2016)
- [Theoretically Principled Trade-off between Robustness and Accuracy](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.08573/) (2019)
- [Reliable evaluation of adversarial robustness with an ensemble of diverse parameter-free attacks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2003.01690/) (2020)
- [Certified Adversarial Robustness via Randomized Smoothing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.02918/) (2019)
- [The Limitations of Deep Learning in Adversarial Settings](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.07528/) (2015)
- [Evasion Attacks against Machine Learning at Test Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.06131/) (2017)
- [Square Attack: a query-efficient black-box adversarial attack via random search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1912.00049/) (2019)
- [ZOO: Zeroth Order Optimization based Black-box Attacks to Deep Neural Networks without Training Substitute Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1708.03999/) (2017)
- [Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post hoc Explanation Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.02508/) (2019)
- [HopSkipJumpAttack: A Query-Efficient Decision-Based Attack](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1904.02144/) (2019)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.11104/) (2022)
- [Analysis of classifiers' robustness to adversarial perturbations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.02590/) (2015)
- [NetFlow Datasets for Machine Learning-based Network Intrusion Detection Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.09144/) (2020)
- [Adversarial Perturbations Against Deep Neural Networks for Malware Classification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.04435/) (2016)
- [Modeling Realistic Adversarial Attacks against Network Intrusion Detection Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.09380/) (2021)
- [Evaluating Explanation Methods for Deep Learning in Security](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1906.02108/) (2019)
- [Empirical Analysis of Adversarial Robustness and Explainability Drift in Cybersecurity Classifiers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06395/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Adversarial attacks on cybersecurity classifiers pose a dual threat: degrading predictions and destabilising the SHAP-based explanations that security analysts rely on to understand and triage alerts. We extend our prior MLP conference study to Random Forest and XGBoost across four tabular security datasets (phishing URLs, UNSW-NB15, NF-ToN-IoT, HIKARI-2021), evaluating five attacks including three black-box methods applicable to non-differentiable tree models. We introduce the Explainability Stability Index (ESI), a scalar metric computed from TreeSHAP attribution drift under adversarial perturbation, reported on the same [0,1] scale as the Robustness Index (RI). A key finding is that gradient-based black-box attacks (ZOO) produce degenerate results against XGBoost (apparent RI ~0.98) due to piecewise-constant prediction surfaces, while score-based Square Attack reveals genuine vulnerability (RI ~0.36). These degenerate perturbations still drive substantial attribution drift: XGBoost ESI ~0.06-0.16 despite near-perfect ZOO robustness, versus 0.14-0.29 for RF, showing that prediction robustness and explanation stability are distinct axes requiring joint measurement. A two-axis framework (gradient dependence, query efficiency) explains the observed attack ranking and yields practical guidance for tree ensemble evaluation. A step-size ablation explains a counterintuitive PGD anomaly on z-score normalised tabular data.