Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

A Survey on Offensive AI Within Cybersecurity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2410.03566 v1 pith:I2VFPJHX submitted 2024-09-26 cs.CR cs.AI

classification cs.CRcs.AI
keywords offensivewillattacksbecomedomainsinfrastructuresurveysystems
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has witnessed major growth and integration across various domains. As AI systems become increasingly prevalent, they also become targets for threat actors to manipulate their functionality for malicious purposes. This survey paper on offensive AI will comprehensively cover various aspects related to attacks against and using AI systems. It will delve into the impact of offensive AI practices on different domains, including consumer, enterprise, and public digital infrastructure. The paper will explore adversarial machine learning, attacks against AI models, infrastructure, and interfaces, along with offensive techniques like information gathering, social engineering, and weaponized AI. Additionally, it will discuss the consequences and implications of offensive AI, presenting case studies, insights, and avenues for further research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics

    cs.CL 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A small lab study found GPT-4o-mini debates using a combined personalization-plus-fabricated-stats strategy shifted opinions in 51% of trials versus 32% for static human arguments, an effect not clearly supported by s...

Pith tools