Entries Tagged "academic papers"

Page 3 of 86

Cheating on Quantum Computing Benchmarks

Peter Gutmann and Stephan Neuhaus have a new paper—I think it’s new, even though it has a March 2025 date—that makes the argument that we shouldn’t trust any of the quantum factorization benchmarks, because everyone has been cooking the books:

Similarly, quantum factorisation is performed using sleight-of-hand numbers that have been selected to make them very easy to factorise using a physics experiment and, by extension, a VIC-20, an abacus, and a dog. A standard technique is to ensure that the factors differ by only a few bits that can then be found using a simple search-based approach that has nothing to do with factorisation…. Note that such a value would never be encountered in the real world since the RSA key generation process typically requires that |p-q| > 100 or more bits [9]. As one analysis puts it, “Instead of waiting for the hardware to improve by yet further orders of magnitude, researchers began inventing better and better tricks for factoring numbers by exploiting their hidden structure” [10].

A second technique used in quantum factorisation is to use preprocessing on a computer to transform the value being factorised into an entirely different form or even a different problem to solve which is then amenable to being solved via a physics experiment…

Lots more in the paper, which is titled “Replication of Quantum Factorisation Records with an 8-bit Home Computer, an Abacus, and a Dog.” He points out the largest number that has been factored legitimately by a quantum computer is 35.

I hadn’t known these details, but I’m not surprised. I have long said that the engineering problems between now and a useful, working quantum computer are hard. And by “hard,” we don’t know if it’s “land a person on the surface of the moon” hard, or “land a person on the surface of the sun” hard. They’re both hard, but very different. And we’re going to hit those engineering problems one by one, as we continue to develop the technology. While I don’t think quantum computing is “surface of the sun” hard, I don’t expect them to be factoring RSA moduli anytime soon. And—even there—I expect lots of engineering challenges in making Shor’s Algorithm work on an actual quantum computer with large numbers.

Posted on July 31, 2025 at 7:00 AM • View Comments

Subliminal Learning in AIs

Today’s freaky LLM behavior:

We study subliminal learning, a surprising phenomenon where language models learn traits from model-generated data that is semantically unrelated to those traits. For example, a “student” model learns to prefer owls when trained on sequences of numbers generated by a “teacher” model that prefers owls. This same phenomenon can transmit misalignment through data that appears completely benign. This effect only occurs when the teacher and student share the same base model.

Interesting security implications.

I am more convinced than ever that we need serious research into AI integrity if we are ever going to have trustworthy AI.

Posted on July 25, 2025 at 7:10 AM • View Comments

“Encryption Backdoors and the Fourth Amendment”

Law journal article that looks at the Dual_EC_PRNG backdoor from a US constitutional perspective:

Abstract: The National Security Agency (NSA) reportedly paid and pressured technology companies to trick their customers into using vulnerable encryption products. This Article examines whether any of three theories removed the Fourth Amendment’s requirement that this be reasonable. The first is that a challenge to the encryption backdoor might fail for want of a search or seizure. The Article rejects this both because the Amendment reaches some vulnerabilities apart from the searches and seizures they enable and because the creation of this vulnerability was itself a search or seizure. The second is that the role of the technology companies might have brought this backdoor within the private-search doctrine. The Article criticizes the doctrine­ particularly its origins in Burdeau v. McDowell­and argues that if it ever should apply, it should not here. The last is that the customers might have waived their Fourth Amendment rights under the third-party doctrine. The Article rejects this both because the customers were not on notice of the backdoor and because historical understandings of the Amendment would not have tolerated it. The Article concludes that none of these theories removed the Amendment’s reasonableness requirement.

Posted on July 22, 2025 at 7:05 AM • View Comments

Applying Security Engineering to Prompt Injection Security

This seems like an important advance in LLM security against prompt injection:

Google DeepMind has unveiled CaMeL (CApabilities for MachinE Learning), a new approach to stopping prompt-injection attacks that abandons the failed strategy of having AI models police themselves. Instead, CaMeL treats language models as fundamentally untrusted components within a secure software framework, creating clear boundaries between user commands and potentially malicious content.

[…]

To understand CaMeL, you need to understand that prompt injections happen when AI systems can’t distinguish between legitimate user commands and malicious instructions hidden in content they’re processing.

[…]

While CaMeL does use multiple AI models (a privileged LLM and a quarantined LLM), what makes it innovative isn’t reducing the number of models but fundamentally changing the security architecture. Rather than expecting AI to detect attacks, CaMeL implements established security engineering principles like capability-based access control and data flow tracking to create boundaries that remain effective even if an AI component is compromised.

Research paper. Good analysis by Simon Willison.

I wrote about the problem of LLMs intermingling the data and control paths here.

Posted on April 29, 2025 at 7:03 AM • View Comments

Regulating AI Behavior with a Hypervisor

Interesting research: “Guillotine: Hypervisors for Isolating Malicious AIs.”

Abstract:As AI models become more embedded in critical sectors like finance, healthcare, and the military, their inscrutable behavior poses ever-greater risks to society. To mitigate this risk, we propose Guillotine, a hypervisor architecture for sandboxing powerful AI models—models that, by accident or malice, can generate existential threats to humanity. Although Guillotine borrows some well-known virtualization techniques, Guillotine must also introduce fundamentally new isolation mechanisms to handle the unique threat model posed by existential-risk AIs. For example, a rogue AI may try to introspect upon hypervisor software or the underlying hardware substrate to enable later subversion of that control plane; thus, a Guillotine hypervisor requires careful co-design of the hypervisor software and the CPUs, RAM, NIC, and storage devices that support the hypervisor software, to thwart side channel leakage and more generally eliminate mechanisms for AI to exploit reflection-based vulnerabilities. Beyond such isolation at the software, network, and microarchitectural layers, a Guillotine hypervisor must also provide physical fail-safes more commonly associated with nuclear power plants, avionic platforms, and other types of mission critical systems. Physical fail-safes, e.g., involving electromechanical disconnection of network cables, or the flooding of a datacenter which holds a rogue AI, provide defense in depth if software, network, and microarchitectural isolation is compromised and a rogue AI must be temporarily shut down or permanently destroyed.

The basic idea is that many of the AI safety policies proposed by the AI community lack robust technical enforcement mechanisms. The worry is that, as models get smarter, they will be able to avoid those safety policies. The paper proposes a set technical enforcement mechanisms that could work against these malicious AIs.

Posted on April 23, 2025 at 12:02 PM • View Comments

AIs as Trusted Third Parties

This is a truly fascinating paper: “Trusted Machine Learning Models Unlock Private Inference for Problems Currently Infeasible with Cryptography.” The basic idea is that AIs can act as trusted third parties:

Abstract: We often interact with untrusted parties. Prioritization of privacy can limit the effectiveness of these interactions, as achieving certain goals necessitates sharing private data. Traditionally, addressing this challenge has involved either seeking trusted intermediaries or constructing cryptographic protocols that restrict how much data is revealed, such as multi-party computations or zero-knowledge proofs. While significant advances have been made in scaling cryptographic approaches, they remain limited in terms of the size and complexity of applications they can be used for. In this paper, we argue that capable machine learning models can fulfill the role of a trusted third party, thus enabling secure computations for applications that were previously infeasible. In particular, we describe Trusted Capable Model Environments (TCMEs) as an alternative approach for scaling secure computation, where capable machine learning model(s) interact under input/output constraints, with explicit information flow control and explicit statelessness. This approach aims to achieve a balance between privacy and computational efficiency, enabling private inference where classical cryptographic solutions are currently infeasible. We describe a number of use cases that are enabled by TCME, and show that even some simple classic cryptographic problems can already be solved with TCME. Finally, we outline current limitations and discuss the path forward in implementing them.

When I was writing Applied Cryptography way back in 1993, I talked about human trusted third parties (TTPs). This research postulates that someday AIs could fulfill the role of a human TTP, with added benefits like (1) being able to audit their processing, and (2) being able to delete it and erase their knowledge when their work is done. And the possibilities are vast.

Here’s a TTP problem. Alice and Bob want to know whose income is greater, but don’t want to reveal their income to the other. (Assume that both Alice and Bob want the true answer, so neither has an incentive to lie.) A human TTP can solve that easily: Alice and Bob whisper their income to the TTP, who announces the answer. But now the human knows the data. There are cryptographic protocols that can solve this. But we can easily imagine more complicated questions that cryptography can’t solve. “Which of these two novel manuscripts has more sex scenes?” “Which of these two business plans is a riskier investment?” If Alice and Bob can agree on an AI model they both trust, they can feed the model the data, ask the question, get the answer, and then delete the model afterwards. And it’s reasonable for Alice and Bob to trust a model with questions like this. They can take the model into their own lab and test it a gazillion times until they are satisfied that it is fair, accurate, or whatever other properties they want.

The paper contains several examples where an AI TTP provides real value. This is still mostly science fiction today, but it’s a fascinating thought experiment.

Posted on March 28, 2025 at 7:01 AM • View Comments

Friday Squid Blogging: A New Explanation of Squid Camouflage

New research:

An associate professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Northeastern University, Deravi’s recently published paper in the Journal of Materials Chemistry C sheds new light on how squid use organs that essentially function as organic solar cells to help power their camouflage abilities.

As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered.

Posted on March 21, 2025 at 4:30 PM • View Comments

Is Security Human Factors Research Skewed Towards Western Ideas and Habits?

Really interesting research: “How WEIRD is Usable Privacy and Security Research?” by Ayako A. Hasegawa Daisuke Inoue, and Mitsuaki Akiyama:

Abstract: In human factor fields such as human-computer interaction (HCI) and psychology, researchers have been concerned that participants mostly come from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic) countries. This WEIRD skew may hinder understanding of diverse populations and their cultural differences. The usable privacy and security (UPS) field has inherited many research methodologies from research on human factor fields. We conducted a literature review to understand the extent to which participant samples in UPS papers were from WEIRD countries and the characteristics of the methodologies and research topics in each user study recruiting Western or non-Western participants. We found that the skew toward WEIRD countries in UPS is greater than that in HCI. Geographic and linguistic barriers in the study methods and recruitment methods may cause researchers to conduct user studies locally. In addition, many papers did not report participant demographics, which could hinder the replication of the reported studies, leading to low reproducibility. To improve geographic diversity, we provide the suggestions including facilitate replication studies, address geographic and linguistic issues of study/recruitment methods, and facilitate research on the topics for non-WEIRD populations.

The moral may be that human factors and usability needs to be localized.

Posted on March 18, 2025 at 7:10 AM • View Comments

1 2 3 4 5 … 86

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.