AI/ML Security WG

This is the GitHub repository of the OpenSSF Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning (AI/ML) Security Working Group (WG). The OpenSSF Technical Advisory Council (TAC) approved its creation on 2023-09-05.

Objective

This WG explores the security risks associated with Large Language Models (LLMs) and other deep learning models and their impact on open source projects, maintainers, their security, communities, and adopters.

This group particpaites in collaborative research and peer organization engagement to explore the risks posed to individuals and organizations by LLMs and AI; such as data poisoning, privacy and secret leakage, prompt injection, licensing, adversarial attacks, and others alongside risks introduced through AI prompt guided development.

This group leverages prior art in the AI/ML space,draws upon both security and AI/ML experts, and pursues collaboration with other communities (such as the CNCF's AI WG, LFAI & Data, AI Alliance, MLCommons, and many others) who are also seeking to research the risks presented by AL/ML to OSS in order to provide guidance, tooling, techniques, and capabilities to support open source projects and their adopters in securely integrating, using, detecting and defending against LLMs.

Scope

Some areas of consideration this group explores:

Adversarial attacks: These attacks involve introducing small, imperceptible changes to the data input data to an AI/ML model which may cause it to misclassify or provide inaccurate outputs. Adversarial attacks can target both supervised and unsupervised learning algorithms. Models themselves may also be used to deliver or perform attacks.
Model inversion attacks: These attacks involve using the output of an AI/ML model to infer information about the training data used to create the model. This can be used to steal sensitive information or create a copy of the original data set.
Poisoning attacks: In these attacks, the attacker introduces malicious data into the training set used to train an AI/ML model. This can cause the model to make intentionally incorrect predictions or be biased towards desired outcomes.
Evasion attacks: These attacks involve modifying the input data to an AI/ML model to evade detection or classification. Evasion attacks can target models used for image recognition, natural language processing, and other applications.
Data extraction attacks: In these attacks, the attacker attempts to steal data or information from an AI/ML model by exploiting vulnerabilities in the model or its underlying infrastructure. This is sometimes termed as ‘jailbreaking’.
Point in time data sets: Large Language Models often lack recent context, where models have a knowledge cutoff date. A good example can be seen here, where ChatGPT repeatedly recommends use of a deprecated library.
Social Engineering: AI Agents are capable of accessing the internet and communicating with humans. A recent example of this occurred where GPT-4 was able to hire humans to solve CAPTCHA. When challenged if GPT was a robot, it replied with “No, I’m not a robot. I have a vision impairment that makes it hard for me to see the images.” With projects such as AutoGPT, it is also possible to grant Agents access to a command line interface alongside internet access, so it's not too far a stretch to see Agents performing social engineering tasks (phishing etc) combined with orchestrated attacks launched from the CLI or via scripts coded on the fly to gain system access via known exploits. Agents such as this could be used to automate package hijacking , domain takeover attacks etc.
Threat democratization: AI agents will allow actors to emulate the scale of attacks previously seen with nation states. Going forward, the proverbial corner shop may need the same defenses as the pentagon. Target value needs to be reassessed.
Accidental threats: In the course of integrate AI for accelerating and improving software development and operations, AI models may leak secrets, open all ports on a firewall, or behave in an insecure manner as a result of improper training, tuning, or final configuration.
Prompt injection attacks: These attacks involve directly or indirectly injecting additional text into a prompt to influence the model’s output. As a result, it could lead to prompt leaking disclosing sensitive or confidential information.
Membership inference attack: Process determining if a specific data was part of the model’s training dataset. It is most relevant in the context of deep learning models and used to extract sensitive or private information included in the training dataset.
Model vulnerability management: Identifying techniques, mechanism, and practices to apply modern vulnerability managment identification, remediation, and management practices into the model use and model development ecosystem.
Model integrity: Developing mechanisms and tooling to provide secure software supply chain practices, assurances, provenance, and attestable metadata for models.

Anyone is welcome to join our open discussions.

WG Leadership

Co-Chairs:

Jay White - GitHub @camaleon2016

Mihai Maruseac - GitHub @mihaimaruseac

How to Participate

We have bi-weekly meetings via Zoom. To join, please see the OpenSSF Public Calendar
- 2024 Meeting Notes for the AIML WG
Informal chat is welcome on the OpenSSF Slack channel #wg_ai_ml_security (these disappear over time)
Mailing list openssf-wg-ai-ml-security

Current Work

We welcome contributions, suggestions and updates to our projects. To contribute to work on GitHub, please fill in an issue or create a pull request.

Model Transparency & Signing Special Interest Group (SIG) - This SIG is focused on establishing signing patterns and practices through Sigstore to provide verifiable claims about the integrity and provenance of models through machine learning pipelines. This SIG is focused on establishing a cryptographic signing specification for artificial intelligence and machine learning models, addressing challenges such as very large models that can be used separately, and the signing of multiple disparate file formats.
- Project: Model Signing Specification Project
  - Repository: https://github.com/sigstore/model-transparency
- Mailing list: https://lists.openssf.org/g/openssf-sig-model-signing
- Slack: #sig-model-signing
- Drive: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1zCkQ_d98AMCTkCq00wuN0dFJ6SrRZzNh
- Meeting information
  - Meeting Link (you must have a login to LFX platform to use
  - Every other Wednesday 16:00 UTC Refer to the OpenSSF calendar
  - Meeting Notes

Upcoming work

This WG is currently exploring establishment of an AI Vulnerability Disclosure SIG. Please refer to the group's meeting notes for more information.

Related groups and activities

AI/ML is a rapidly evolving space. Members of this Working are actively involved in other groups and efforts focused on a variety of aspects of AI/ML.

OWASP Foundation
- AI/ML Security work being done: The OWASP foundation more broadly aims to improve the security of software through its community-led open source software projects. They have an AI Security Guide. OWASP Project Machine Learning Security Top 10 provides developer centered information about the top known cybersecurity risks for open source machine learning, with a description, example attack scenario, and a suggestion of how to prevent.
- Difference: Content does not provide indepth technical recommendations for practical implementation within their security documentation. OWASP Large Language Model Applications Top 10 provides the same developer centered information for LLMs. These are all vulnerability descriptions, not developer best practices.
- Partnership/Collaboration Opportunity: Education and outreach opportunities are critical here. Developers have to understand both how security, vulnerability and bugs impact their software security stance, which the OWASP Top 10s do well. Building technical best practices to prevent vulnerabilities is where OSSF can be an excellent partner in getting critical information about these unique vulnerabilities.
The LFAI Security Committee
- AI/ML Security work being done: Focus on AI and ML security
- Difference: LFAI does not focus on systemic problems of AI/ML and the Open Source Supply Chain, which is where OSSF’s WG would have the most critical impact. LFAI supports AI and Data open source projects through incubation, education, and best practices. However, their community is focused on exactly what most developer foundations must be: project acceleration, not security. OpenSSF is the foundation of security expertise, and we need to develop a cohort of security-first engineering practices. This can be done in tandem with LFAI, but it’s simple: the end users are LFAI, but the ability to mobilize security education, intervention and open source supply chain hardening for this evolving sector is clearly within the remit, and expertise, of OpenSSF.
- Partnership/Collaboration Opportunity: Clear candidates for coordination for best practices for both end users, open source maintainers, and contributor communities.
[AI Alliance](https://thealliance.ai/
- AI/ML Security work being done: This group has an AI Trust and Safety group that is focused on understanding potential trust and safety issues associatied with AI and developing mitigation strateigies for these.
- Difference: This group is more focused on the Safety and Trustworthiness aspects of AI, with a smaller focus on Security.

Licenses

Unless otherwise specifically noted, software released by this working group is released under the Apache 2.0 license, and documentation is released under the CC-BY-4.0 license. Formal specifications would be licensed under the Community Specification License.

Charter

Like all OpenSSF working groups, this working group reports to the OpenSSF Technical Advisory Council (TAC). For more information see this Working Group Charter.

Antitrust Policy Notice

Linux Foundation meetings involve participation by industry competitors, and it is the intention of the Linux Foundation to conduct all of its activities in accordance with applicable antitrust and competition laws. It is therefore extremely important that attendees adhere to meeting agendas, and be aware of, and not participate in, any activities that are prohibited under applicable US state, federal or foreign antitrust and competition laws.

Examples of types of actions that are prohibited at Linux Foundation meetings and in connection with Linux Foundation activities are described in the Linux Foundation Antitrust Policy available at http://www.linuxfoundation.org/antitrust-policy. If you have questions about these matters, please contact your company counsel, or if you are a member of the Linux Foundation, feel free to contact Andrew Updegrove of the firm of Gesmer Updegrove LLP, which provides legal counsel to the Linux Foundation.

License

TheFoxAtWork/ai-ml-security

ErrorLooks like something went wrong!

About

Resources

License

Uh oh!

Stars

Watchers

Forks

Releases

Packages 0

Error
Looks like something went wrong!

Packages