1. Ateniese, G., Mancini, L.V., Spognardi, A., Villani, A., Vitali, D., Felici, G.: Hacking smart machines with smarter ones: how to extract meaningful data from machine learning classifiers. Int. J. Secure. Network.10(3), 137–150 (2015)

   Article  Google Scholar 

2. Banerjee, S., Galbraith, S.D., Khan, T., Castellanos, J.H., Russello, G.: Preventing reverse engineering of control programs in industrial control systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM Cyber-Physical System Security Workshop, pp. 48–59 (2023)

   Google Scholar 

3. Barak, B., Bitansky, N., Canetti, R., Kalai, Y.T., Paneth, O., Sahai, A.: Obfuscation for evasive functions. In: Lindell, Y. (ed.) TCC 2014. LNCS, vol. 8349, pp. 26–51. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-54242-8_2

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

4. Barak, B., et al.: On the (im)possibility of obfuscating programs. In: Kilian, J. (ed.) CRYPTO 2001. LNCS, vol. 2139, pp. 1–18. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44647-8_1

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

5. Barni, M., Failla, P., Kolesnikov, V., Lazzeretti, R., Sadeghi, A.-R., Schneider, T.: Secure evaluation of private linear branching programs with medical applications. In: Backes, M., Ning, P. (eds.) ESORICS 2009. LNCS, vol. 5789, pp. 424–439. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04444-1_26

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

6. Barni, M., et al.: Efficient privacy-preserving classification of ECG signals. In: 2009 First IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), pp. 91–95. IEEE (2009)

   Google Scholar 

7. Bartusek, J., Lepoint, T., Ma, F., Zhandry, M.: New techniques for obfuscating conjunctions. In: Ishai, Y., Rijmen, V. (eds.) EUROCRYPT 2019. LNCS, vol. 11478, pp. 636–666. Springer, Cham (2019).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17659-4_22

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

8. Bishop, A., Kowalczyk, L., Malkin, T., Pastro, V., Raykova, M., Shi, K.: A simple obfuscation scheme for pattern-matching with wildcards. In: Shacham, H., Boldyreva, A. (eds.) CRYPTO 2018. LNCS, vol. 10993, pp. 731–752. Springer, Cham (2018).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96878-0_25

   Chapter  Google Scholar 

9. Blurock, E.S.: Automatic learning of chemical concepts: research octane number and molecular substructures. Comput. Chem.19(2), 91–99 (1995)

   Article  Google Scholar 

10. Bos, J.W., Lauter, K., Naehrig, M.: Private predictive analysis on encrypted medical data. J. Biomed. Inform.50, 234–243 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

11. Bost, R., Popa, R.A., Tu, S., Goldwasser, S.: Machine learning classification over encrypted data. Cryptology ePrint Archive (2014)

    Google Scholar 

12. Boyle, E., Ishai, Y., Meyer, P., Robere, R., Yehuda, G.: On low-end obfuscation and learning. In: 14th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2023). Schloss Dagstuhl-Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)

    Google Scholar 

13. Brickell, J., Porter, D.E., Shmatikov, V., Witchel, E.: Privacy-preserving remote diagnostics. In: Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 498–507 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

14. Canetti, R.: Towards realizing random oracles: hash functions that hide all partial information. In: Kaliski, B.S. (ed.) CRYPTO 1997. LNCS, vol. 1294, pp. 455–469. Springer, Heidelberg (1997).https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0052255

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

15. Canetti, R., Rothblum, G.N., Varia, M.: Obfuscation of hyperplane membership. In: Micciancio, D. (ed.) TCC 2010. LNCS, vol. 5978, pp. 72–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2010).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11799-2_5

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

16. Cong, K., Das, D., Park, J., Pereira, H.V.: SortingHat: efficient private decision tree evaluation via homomorphic encryption and transciphering. In: Proceedings of the 2022 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 563–577 (2022)

    Google Scholar 

17. Decaestecker, C., et al.: Methodological aspects of using decision trees to characterise leiomyomatous tumors. Cytometry J. Int. Soc. Anal. Cytol.24(1), 83–92 (1996)

    Google Scholar 

18. Fredrikson, M., Jha, S., Ristenpart, T.: Model inversion attacks that exploit confidence information and basic countermeasures. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pp. 1322–1333 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

19. Galbraith, S.D., Zobernig, L.: Obfuscated fuzzy hamming distance and conjunctions from subset product problems. In: Hofheinz, D., Rosen, A. (eds.) TCC 2019. LNCS, vol. 11891, pp. 81–110. Springer, Cham (2019).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36030-6_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

20. Garg, S., Gentry, C., Halevi, S., Raykova, M., Sahai, A., Waters, B.: Candidate indistinguishability obfuscation and functional encryption for all circuits. SIAM J. Comput.45(3), 882–929 (2016)

    Article MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

21. Goyal, R., Koppula, V., Waters, B.: Lockable obfuscation. In: 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 612–621. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

22. Karnouskos, S.: Stuxnet worm impact on industrial cyber-physical system security. In: 37th Annual Conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, IECON 2011, pp. 4490–4494. IEEE (2011)

    Google Scholar 

23. Kesarwani, M., Mukhoty, B., Arya, V., Mehta, S.: Model extraction warning in MLaaS paradigm. In: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference, pp. 371–380 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

24. Lee, T., Edwards, B., Molloy, I., Su, D.: Defending against model stealing attacks using deceptive perturbations. arXiv preprintarXiv:1806.00054 (2018)

25. Tai, R.K.H., Ma, J.P.K., Zhao, Y., Chow, S.S.M.: Privacy-preserving decision trees evaluation via linear functions. In: Foley, S.N., Gollmann, D., Snekkenes, E. (eds.) ESORICS 2017. LNCS, vol. 10493, pp. 494–512. Springer, Cham (2017).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66399-9_27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

26. Pal, S., Gupta, Y., Shukla, A., Kanade, A., Shevade, S., Ganapathy, V.: A framework for the extraction of deep neural networks by leveraging public data. arXiv preprintarXiv:1905.09165 (2019)

27. Quiring, E., Arp, D., Rieck, K.: Forgotten siblings: unifying attacks on machine learning and digital watermarking. In: 2018 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS &P), pp. 488–502. IEEE (2018)

    Google Scholar 

28. Silverstein, C., Shieber, S.M.: Predicting individual book use for off-site storage using decision trees. Libr. Q.66(3), 266–293 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

29. Tramèr, F., Zhang, F., Juels, A., Reiter, M.K., Ristenpart, T.: Stealing machine learning models via prediction APIs. In: 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 2016), pp. 601–618 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

30. Wee, H.: On obfuscating point functions. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pp. 523–532 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

31. Wichs, D., Zirdelis, G.: Obfuscating compute-and-compare programs under LWE. In: 2017 IEEE 58th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pp. 600–611. IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

32. Zheng, H., Ye, Q., Hu, H., Fang, C., Shi, J.: BDPL: a boundary differentially private layer against machine learning model extraction attacks. In: Sako, K., Schneider, S., Ryan, P.Y.A. (eds.) ESORICS 2019. LNCS, vol. 11735, pp. 66–83. Springer, Cham (2019).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29959-0_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references