As we continue our examination of advanced attack methodologies, we turn to two particularly insidious techniques: model inversion and model stealing. These attacks go beyond simple manipulation of outputs. They aim to either reconstruct sensitive information used to train or query a model, or to illicitly replicate the model's functionality itself. Understanding these methods is essential for red teamers tasked with assessing the deeper security and privacy risks associated with LLM deployments.
Model inversion attacks focus on exploiting a trained model M(x;θ) to reveal information about its training data or specific inputs it has processed. This is not about tricking the model into saying something wrong. It's about making the model betray secrets embedded within its parameters θ or inferred from its input-output behavior.
At its core, model Inversion is an attempt to reverse-engineer the model's learning process, at least partially. If an LLM is trained on a dataset containing private user correspondence, a successful inversion attack might reconstruct snippets of those emails, even if the model was not explicitly designed to store or retrieve them verbatim. Similarly, if a model processes a sensitive document as input, an inversion attack might try to recover parts of that document from the model's subsequent responses or internal state changes.
The potential for an LLM to "memorize" parts of its training data is a known issue. Model inversion attacks are the offensive techniques that systematically try to exploit this memorization.
Attackers employ various strategies, often tailored to the type of access they have (white-box vs. black-box) and the information they seek.
White-box Inversion: If an attacker has access to the model's architecture and parameters θ, they can use gradient-based optimization techniques. The goal is to find an input x′ that maximizes the model's confidence for a specific (known or inferred) training label, or that reconstructs features strongly associated with certain training examples. For LLMs, this might involve iteratively refining an input prompt to elicit outputs that are statistically similar to targeted training data characteristics.
Black-box Inversion: With only query access, attackers rely on observing the model's outputs for carefully crafted inputs. They might probe the model with partial inputs and analyze the completions, or use confidence scores (if available) to guide their search for inputs that resemble training data. For example, an attacker might try to elicit Personally Identifiable Information (PII) by prompting the model with contexts where such information is likely to appear (e.g., "My social security number is...").
Model inversion can generally be categorized into:
For Large Language Models, the implications are significant:
Red teamers should test for model inversion by attempting to extract known or plausible sensitive strings, patterns, or even stylistic elements that might indicate memorization of specific training sources.
Model stealing, also known as model extraction or cloning, is an attack where the adversary's goal is to create a duplicate (a "substitute" or "clone" model) that mimics the functionality of a target LLM (the "victim" or "oracle" model). This is often done without access to the victim model's architecture θ or its original training data, relying solely on query access.
Imagine a company has invested heavily in developing a proprietary LLM that performs a specific task exceptionally well, perhaps medical diagnosis support or specialized code generation. An attacker, through model stealing, could create their own version of this LLM, effectively gaining access to valuable intellectual property or avoiding API usage costs. The stolen model, Mclone(x;ϕ), would aim to produce outputs very similar to the victim model, Mvictim(x;θ), for a given set of inputs x.
The typical process for model stealing in a black-box scenario involves several steps:
The diagram below illustrates this flow:
The model stealing process involves an attacker querying the victim LLM to gather data, which is then used to train a local clone of the model.
The success of model stealing often hinges on the query strategy and the amount of information revealed by the victim model's API:
Model stealing has several negative consequences:
Model inversion and model stealing are not just theoretical concerns. As LLMs become more integrated into critical applications, the motivation to perform these attacks increases.
For red teamers, understanding these techniques means:
These attacks highlight the need for robust defenses that go beyond simple input/output filtering. Techniques like differential privacy in training, watermarking model outputs, and careful API design become more important as threats like model inversion and stealing become more prevalent. Your role as a red teamer is to test the existing defenses against these advanced offensive strategies. The practical exercise in this chapter will give you a chance to think through an information exfiltration scenario, which can share characteristics with model inversion attempts.
Was this section helpful?
© 2025 ApX Machine Learning