REVIEW 1 cited by
Adversarial Attacks to Multi-Modal Models
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
read the original abstract
Multi-modal models have gained significant attention due to their powerful capabilities. These models effectively align embeddings across diverse data modalities, showcasing superior performance in downstream tasks compared to their unimodal counterparts. Recent study showed that the attacker can manipulate an image or audio file by altering it in such a way that its embedding matches that of an attacker-chosen targeted input, thereby deceiving downstream models. However, this method often underperforms due to inherent disparities in data from different modalities. In this paper, we introduce CrossFire, an innovative approach to attack multi-modal models. CrossFire begins by transforming the targeted input chosen by the attacker into a format that matches the modality of the original image or audio file. We then formulate our attack as an optimization problem, aiming to minimize the angular deviation between the embeddings of the transformed input and the modified image or audio file. Solving this problem determines the perturbations to be added to the original media. Our extensive experiments on six real-world benchmark datasets reveal that CrossFire can significantly manipulate downstream tasks, surpassing existing attacks. Additionally, we evaluate six defensive strategies against CrossFire, finding that current defenses are insufficient to counteract our CrossFire.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Invisible Injections: Exploiting Vision-Language Models Through Steganographic Prompt Embedding
Steganographic prompt injection is reported to covertly manipulate vision-language models with up to 31.8% success, but the evidence is not reproducible.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.