Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
45 lines (35 loc) · 5.68 KB

threat-modeling.md

File metadata and controls

45 lines (35 loc) · 5.68 KB

Threat Model Analysis for ml-explore/mlx

Threat: Buffer Overflow in Custom MLX Operations

  • Threat: Buffer Overflow in Custom MLX Operations

    • Description: If the application defines custom MLX operations (e.g., using C++ to extend MLX's functionality), an attacker might exploit a buffer overflow vulnerability in that custom code. This occurs if the custom C++ code, which interacts directly with MLX's internal data structures, doesn't properly handle array bounds or memory allocation, leading to memory corruption. This is not a vulnerability in MLX itself, but in the extension of MLX.
    • Impact: Arbitrary code execution, leading to complete system compromise. The attacker gains full control of the application and potentially the underlying system.
    • Affected MLX Component: Custom operations written by the developer, typically interacting with mlx.core at a low level (using the C++ API). This is specifically about code added to MLX, not inherent MLX functions.
    • Risk Severity: Critical
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Code Review: Mandatory, thorough code review of all custom operation code, with a specific focus on memory safety. Multiple reviewers are recommended.
      • Memory-Safe Languages: Strongly prefer using Rust or other memory-safe languages for custom operations whenever feasible. If C++ is necessary, use modern C++ best practices (smart pointers, RAII, etc.) to minimize risks.
      • Bounds Checking: Rigorously enforce bounds checking on all array accesses within the custom operation. Use assertions and explicit checks.
      • Static Analysis: Employ static analysis tools (e.g., Clang Static Analyzer, Coverity) specifically configured to detect buffer overflows and other memory safety issues in the C++ code.
      • Fuzz Testing: Extensively fuzz test the custom operations with a wide range of inputs, including malformed and boundary-case inputs, to trigger potential vulnerabilities. Use a fuzzer like AFL or libFuzzer.

Threat: Training Data Poisoning

  • Threat: Training Data Poisoning

    • Description: An attacker submits carefully crafted malicious data samples to the training dataset used by MLX. These samples are designed to subtly alter the model's learned parameters during the MLX training process, causing it to make incorrect predictions for specific inputs or exhibit biased behavior. The attacker leverages MLX's training capabilities to inject the poisoned data.
    • Impact: Reduced model accuracy, biased predictions, potential denial of service (if the model becomes unusable), or introduction of backdoors that can be exploited later. The model's behavior is compromised.
    • Affected MLX Component: mlx.core (array operations used during training), mlx.nn (neural network layers), and any custom training loops implemented using MLX. The core issue is the use of MLX for training with untrusted data, and the attacker's manipulation of the data fed into MLX's training functions.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Data Sanitization and Validation: Implement extremely strict input validation before the data is used by any MLX training functions. This includes checks for data type, range, distribution, and outlier detection. Reject any suspicious data.
      • Data Provenance: Maintain a verifiable record of the origin of all training data. This helps identify the source of potential poisoning attacks.
      • Differential Privacy: Apply differential privacy techniques during the MLX training process to limit the influence of individual data points on the final model.
      • Regular Monitoring: Continuously monitor model performance metrics (using MLX for evaluation) for anomalies that might indicate poisoning. Set up automated alerts for significant deviations.

Threat: Inference-Time Adversarial Examples

  • Threat: Inference-Time Adversarial Examples

    • Description: An attacker crafts input data that is very similar to legitimate input but is specifically designed to cause the MLX-based model to make an incorrect prediction during inference. These are often small, imperceptible perturbations to the input, exploiting the model's learned vulnerabilities. The attacker targets the MLX model's inference process.
    • Impact: Incorrect model predictions, leading to application malfunction, security bypass (if the model's output is used for security decisions), or denial of service.
    • Affected MLX Component: mlx.core (array operations during inference), mlx.nn (neural network layers), and any custom inference code that uses MLX. The attack targets the use of MLX for inference.
    • Risk Severity: High
    • Mitigation Strategies:
      • Adversarial Training: Train the model using MLX on adversarial examples to make it more robust. This involves generating adversarial examples and including them in the training data.
      • Input Perturbation: Add small, random noise to inputs before they are processed by MLX for inference. This can disrupt precisely crafted adversarial perturbations.
      • Defensive Distillation: (Less directly MLX-specific, but can be implemented with MLX) Train a "student" model to mimic a "teacher" model, making it harder to craft adversarial examples.
      • Input Validation: While not a complete solution, basic input validation before feeding data to MLX can help prevent some simple attacks.