- cypherpunks - lists.cpunks.org

New Substack will serialize Orwell's writings
by professor rat 22 Oct '22

22 Oct '22

I was lucky to have a friend loan me the ' collected journalism ' books edited by Sonia Orwell, back in the 80's. A must read for anyone interested in political language. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/orwell-uncut-new-substack-will-seri… WaPo clutching at straws on its way down and out

1 0

[ot][personal] cult reading notes
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

as i get farther into the cult book, i understand the importance of writing down what you agree, disagree, or want to look more into, as the author says to do. it is so rare to hear somebody talking about what the book talks about, and it engages my experiences when done, that i can forget the things i disagree about with the author entirely and begin believing whatever he says. ch3: - i so much agree with BITE. nobody ever says this. systematic control of Behavior, Information, Thoughts and Emotions. [confused: BITE must mean how we are eating people's spirits like zombies eating brains.] - i don't think it's clear to call all influence groups cults when cults inspire images of people in robes worshiping dead animals, not really a huge thing - i disagree that meditation with belief in eventual levitation or flying is harmful. i believe this is a good thing, without destructive attributes itself, to give people inspiration to spend time becoming more thoughtful. i do not mind that popular science believes that levitation does not happen from pensation: many people hold belief systems that have disparity with popular science, and use this as reason for prayer or dedicated behavior. i have no trouble considering that this belief is _used_ harmfully by some people. i think personally i see the belief as an analogy to how, when you meditate well and long enough, you begin seeing more and more things that others do not ever see: things you can do, reasons people do things, etc etc. this seems it could become a similar super power to flying. personally, i found i develop a comparable feeling to flying when i gain mastery over my body like with skilled free running. - MOVE is mentioned as an example of a cult. it was an activism group for black people. given MOVE was so politically targeted that most members were killed by the police, it seems far more likely that the political targeting (and disreputating messaging) was engaging in any destructive influence than the group. counter ref 62 - similarly i am of course skeptical that a democratic workers collective would be a destructive cult, and worry some around political harm in the label; workers collectives have been repeatedly targeted, sometimes killed en masse by corporations or governments, in our nation's and global history. counter ref 64 fragment: pierce told me "some of us are felons, some of us have families." i mentioned worrying about being tracked with my phone to pierce. he had me turn it on, and then suddenly cory visited, and spoke to me about the red and the blue. he lay down on the floor next to pierce's bed, just waiting. we had an intuitive conversation where he would wait and be silent before each thing he said. [sarah said a fragment of an expression to me, as if people were saying things that only made sense if all taken together as parts of the same sentence] finished writing fragment 2022-08-20 1033 [the interaction seemed very influential and strange. cory would often say he "was just happy to be involved". he said he had come off a long hiking trail, but lived as a homeless person who never left the city. i was in an intense state of mind, near the end of behaving with strong intuition. i think i had taken a jesus emblem with me, and showed a text message to sarah on my phone.] - farther along, the author says that a concern around worrying about mind control is that everything can be seen as mind control, as if this is a struggle normal people have. i have also been exposed to this belief. it is not normal at all. where did it come from? - further: it seems reasonable to say that the only reason it would be unclear whether a group is destructive or non-destructive, after observing it, would be due to influence preventing this clarity. clearly this clarity is needed badly. - in the section regarding childhood sexual abuse, which explains how learned phobias produce an environment for repeat abuse, i became worried for a friend i love, who was sexually abused as a child. this worry shortly became numb and hidden for me, and is hard for me to consider now. - "Put a person into a situation where his senses are overloaded with non-coherent information, and the mind will go "numb" as a protective mechanism. It gets confused and overwhelmed, and critical faculties no longer work properly. It is in this weakened state that people become very open to suggestion." - i'm thinking of how my influence seemed to me to pretend to be the things i was passionate about, kind of starting off with offering a "deal" that if i "really wanted to get involved" i would need to do this or that - somewhat uncomfortable around the recommendation of trusting search results regarding terms like "criminal" or "abuser". i think i have hits around "criminal" as does somebody i respect have "abuser", where these hits are from disinformation in my opinion. one possible difference: if a powerful influence is involved and it is disreputing the person, the hits go near the top; if a powerful influence is involved and it is supporting the person, the hits go near the bottom. anyway it is very normal to do such web searchers, so it's mostly moot. - the book does not yet describe how the sharedness of indoctrination techniques between groups and how this indicates collaboration among the cult leaders. it could be important to remember that we are at a time where power is catalyzing and everyone must protect the freedom of the entire world. - it's hard for me to see forthright faith healing as a human rights violation; death is a needed part of life and truly is the domain of a deity, and the placebo effect is very strong. obviously if the efforts are deceptive or disinformative and non-spiritual in benefit or result, things are different. - maybe what's reasonable to consider here is that the author is describing a horrific lifelong torture that few people can imagine, and it is very hard to convey this to someone who has not experienced it. - the book mentions another book by Harvey Schwartz that mentions wolves and sheep and soldiers, and internalized perpetration. it is about terrorist recruitment of children, but likely the techniques and stories have overlap with other things. my experience had wolf/sheep/soldier themes. it seemed to me a wolf was a mind controller; it seemed to me a sheep was somebody who didn't want to be one; it seemed to me a soldier was somebody who had seen the horrors of these things (and [did urgent work?]) and had ptsd and other things from it. - it looks like the book author's community needs help setting laws to protect people from mind control groups - it would have been hard to help me as i [learned to] identified all things as my own psychological issues

5 35

[ot] cult influence and power, 1988-2018
by Undiscussed Groomed for Male Slavery, One Victim of Many 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

book title is not email subject dedication “I dedicate this book to people all over the world who have ever experienced the loss of their personal freedom, in the hope that it might help to ease their suffering and provide healing for themselves and their loved ones.”

3 22

Denis Beau: Between mounting risks and financial innovation - the fintech ecosystem at a crossroads
by Gunnar Larson 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

Brody Larson collects 16 highlights to a speech by Mr Denis Beau, First Deputy Governor of the Bank of France, at the FinTech R:Evolution 2022, organised by France FinTech, Paris, 20 October 2022. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NrhFTWsACdDokgsJg9cef08JRXr4q30r/view?usp=…

1 0

Musk's Tweets Irk Biden But Offer Scant Room for Security Review
by Gunnar Larson 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

Musk's Tweets Irk Biden But Offer Scant Room for Security Review https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/white-house-plan-to-rein…

1 0

Crypto's $2 Trillion Wipeout Is Coming for the C-Suite
by Gunnar Larson 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

Crypto's $2 Trillion Wipeout Is Coming for the C-Suite https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-21/crypto-companies-ftx-kra…

1 0

slavery, the land of the jewnazi US land
by punk 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

https://reason.com/2022/10/21/prison-slavery-up-for-a-vote-in-5-states/ wow - such a progressive cesspool, I mean 'society'. ps: yeah teh poor non human jews are being oppressed!!!

1 0

[random] A Paper on Measuring Attackability of Code Generation
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.00052 CodeAttack: Code-based Adversarial Attacks for Pre-Trained Programming Language Models Akshita Jha Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA akshitajha(a)vt.edu Chandan K. Reddy Virginia Tech, Arlington, VA reddy(a)cs.vt.edu Abstract Pre-trained programming language (PL) models (such as CodeT5, CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, etc.,) have the potential to automate software engineering tasks involving code understanding and code generation. However, these models are not robust to changes in the input and thus, are potentially susceptible to adversarial attacks. We propose, CodeAttack, a simple yet effective blackbox attack model that uses code structure to generate imperceptible, effective, and minimally perturbed adversarial code samples. We demonstrate the vulnerabilities of the stateof-the-art PL models to code-specific adversarial attacks. We evaluate the transferability of CodeAttack on several code-code (translation and repair) and code-NL (summarization) tasks across different programming languages. CodeAttack outperforms stateof-the-art adversarial NLP attack models to achieve the best overall performance while being more efficient and imperceptible. 1 Introduction There has been a recent surge in the development of general purpose programming language (PL) models (such as CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021), CodeBERT (Feng et al., 2020), GraphCodeBERT (Guo et al., 2020), and PLBART (Ahmad et al., 2021)) which can capture the relationship between natural language and programming language, and potentially automate software engineering development tasks involving code understanding (clone detection, defect detection) and code generation (codecode translation, code-code refinement, code-NL summarization). However, given the data driven pre-training of these PL models on massive code data, their robustness and vulnerabilities need careful investigation. In this work, we demonstrate the vulnerability of the state-of-the-art programming language models by generating adversarial samples that leverage code structure. Figure 1: CodeAttack makes a slight modification to the input code snippet (red) which causes significant changes to the code summary obtained from the SOTA pre-trained programming language models. Keywords are highlighted in blue and comments in green. Adversarial attacks are characterized by imperceptible changes in the input that result in incorrect predictions from a neural network. For PL models, they are important for three primary reasons: (i) Exposing system vulnerabilities: As a form of stress test to understand the model’s limitations. For example, adversarial samples can be used to bypass a defect detection filter that classifies a given code as vulnerable or not (Zhou et al., 2019), (ii) Evaluating model robustness: Analyze the PL model’s sensitivity to imperceptible perturbations. For example, a small change in the input programming language (akin to a typo or a spelling mistake in the NL scenario) might trigger the code summarization model to generate a gibberish natural language code summary (Figure 1), and (iii) Model interpretability: Help understand what PL models learn. For example, adversarial samples can be used to inspect the tokens pre-trained PL models attend to. A successful adversarial attack for code should have the following properties: (i) Minimal and imperceptible perturbations: Akin to spelling mistakes or synonym replacement in NL that misleads the neural models, (ii) Code Consistency: Perturbed code is consistent with the original input, and (iii) Code fluency: Follows the syntax of the original programming language. The current NL adversarial attack models fall short on all three fronts. Therefore, we propose CodeAttack1 – a simple yet effective black-box attack model 1Code will be made publicly available arXiv:2206.00052v1 [cs.CL] 31 May 2022 for generating adversarial samples for any input code snippet, irrespective of the programming language. CodeAttack operates in a realistic scenario, where the adversary does not have access to model parameters but only to the test queries and the model prediction. CodeAttack uses a pretrained masked CodeBERT PL model (Feng et al., 2020) as the adversarial code generator. We leverage the code structure to generate imperceptible and effective adversarial attacks through minimal perturbations constrained to follow the syntax of the original code. Our primary contributions are as follows: • To the best of our knowledge, we are the first ones to detect the vulnerability of pre-trained programming language models to adversarial attacks on different code generation tasks. We propose a simple yet effective realistic black-box attack method, CodeAttack, that generates adversarial samples for a code snippet irrespective of the input programming language. • We design a general purpose black-box attack method for sequence-to-sequence PL models that is transferable across different downstream tasks like code translation, repair, and summarization. This can also be extended to sequenceto-sequence tasks in other domains. • We demonstrate the effectiveness of CodeAttack over existing NLP adversarial models through an extensive empirical evaluation. CodeAttack outperforms the NLP baselines when considering both the attack quality and its efficacy. 2 Related Work Adversarial Attacks in NLP. Adversarial attacks have been used to analyze the robustness of NLP models. Black-box adversarial attacks like BERT-Attack (Li et al., 2020) use BERT, with subword expansion, for attacking vulnerable words. BAE (Garg and Ramakrishnan, 2020) also uses BERT for replacement or insertion around vulnerable words. TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020) and PWWS (Ren et al., 2019) use synonyms and part-of-speech (POS) tagging to replace important tokens. Deepwordbug (Gao et al., 2018) and TextBugger (Li et al., 2019) use character insertion, deletion, and replacement, and constrain their attacks using edit distance and cosine similarity, respectively. Some use a greedy search and replacement strategy to generate adversarial examples (Hsieh et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2020). Genetic Attack (GA) (Alzantot et al., 2018) uses genetic algorithm for search with language model perplexity and word embedding distance as substitution constraints. Some adversarial models assume white-box access and use model gradients to find substitutes for the vulnerable tokens (Ebrahimi et al., 2018; Papernot et al., 2016; Pruthi et al., 2019). None of these methods have been designed specifically for programming languages, which is more structured than natural language. Adversarial Attacks for PL. Yang et al. (2022) focus on making adversarial examples more natural by using greedy search and genetic algorithm for replacement. Zhang et al. (2020) generate adversarial examples by renaming identifiers using a Metropolis-Hastings sampling based technique (Metropolis et al., 1953). Yefet et al. (2020) use gradient based exploration for attacks. Some also propose metamorphic transformations to generate adversarial examples (Applis et al., 2021; Ramakrishnan et al., 2020). The above models focus on code understanding tasks like defect detection and clone detection. Although some works do focus on generating adversarial examples for code summarization (Ramakrishnan et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2021), they do not talk about the transferability of these tasks to different tasks and different models. Our model, CodeAttack, assumes blackbox access to the state-of-the-art PL models for generating adversarial attacks for code generation tasks like code translation, code repair, and code summarization using a constrained code-specific greedy algorithm to find meaningful substitutes for vulnerable tokens. 3 CodeAttack We describe the capabilities, knowledge, and the goal of the proposed CodeAttack model, and provide details on how it detects vulnerabilities in the state-of-the-art pre-trained PL models. 3.1 Threat Model Adversary’s Capabilities. The adversary is capable of perturbing the test queries given as input to a pre-trained PL model to generate adversarial samples. We follow the existing literature for generating natural language adversarial examples and allow for two types of perturbations for the input code sequence: (i) token-level perturbations, and (ii) character-level perturbations. The adversary is allowed to perturb only a certain number of tokens/characters and must ensure a high similarity between the original code and the perturbed code. Formally, for a given input sequence X ∈ X, where X is the input space, a valid adversarial example Xadv follows the requirements: X 6= Xadv (1) Xadv ← X + δ; s.t. ||δ|| < θ (2) Sim(Xadv, X ) ≥ (3) where θ is the maximum allowed adversarial perturbation; Sim(·) is a similarity function that takes into account the syntax of the input code and the adversarial code sequence; and is the similarity threshold. We describe the perturbation constraints and the similarity functions in more detail in Section 3.2.2. Adversary’s Knowledge. We assume black-box access to realistically assess the vulnerabilities and robustness of existing pre-trained PL models. In this setting, the adversary does not have access to the model parameters, model architecture, model gradients, training data, or the loss function. The adversary can only query the pre-trained PL model with input sequences and get their corresponding output probabilities. This is more practical than a white-box scenario that assumes access to all the above, which might not always be the case. Adversary’s Goal. Given an input code sequence as query, the adversary’s goal is to degrade the quality of the generated output sequence through imperceptibly modifying the query. The generated output sequence can either be a code snippet (code translation, code repair) or natural language text (code summarization). Formally, given a pre-trained PL model F : X → Y , where X is the input space, and Y is the output space, the goal of the adversary is to generate an adversarial sample Xadv for an input sequence X s.t. F(Xadv) 6= F(X ) (4) Q(F(X )) − Q(F(Xadv)) ≥ φ (5) where Q(·) measures the quality of the generated output and φ is the specified drop in quality. This is in addition to the constraints applied on Xadv earlier. We formulate our final problem of generating adversarial samples as follows: ∆atk = argmaxδ [Q(F(X )) − Q(F(Xadv))] (6) In the above optimization equation, Xadv is a minimally perturbed adversary subject to constraints on the perturbations δ (Eqs.1-5). CodeAttack searches for a perturbation ∆atk to maximize the difference in the quality Q(·) of the output sequence generated from the original input code snippet X and that by the perturbed code snippet Xadv. 3.2 Attack Methodology CodeAttack’s attack methodology can be broken down into two primary steps: (i) Finding the most vulnerable tokens, and (ii) Substituting these vulnerable tokens (subject to code specific constraints), to generate adversarial samples. 3.2.1 Finding Vulnerable Tokens Some input tokens contribute more towards the final prediction than the others, and therefore, ‘attacking’ these highly influential or highly vulnerable tokens increases the probability of altering the model predictions more significantly as opposed to attacking non-vulnerable tokens. Since under a black-box setting, the model gradients are unavailable and the adversary only has access to the output logits of the pre-trained PL model. We define ‘vulnerable tokens’ as tokens that have a high influence on the output logits of the model. Let F be an encoder-decoder pre-trained PL model. The given input sequence is denoted by X = [x1, .., xi , ..., xm], where {xi} m 1 are the input tokens. The output is a sequence of vectors: O = F(X ) = [o1, ..., on] yt = argmax(ot) where {ot} n 1 is the output logit for the correct output token yt for the time step t. Without loss of generality, we can also assume the output sequence Y = F(X ) = [yi , ..., yl ]. Y can either be a sequence of code tokens or natural language tokens. To find the vulnerable input tokens, we replace a token xi with [MASK] s.t. X\xi = [x1, .., xi−1, [MASK], xi+1, .., xm] and get its output logits. The output vectors are now O\xi = F(X\xi ) = [o 0 1 , ..., o0 q ] where {o 0 t} q 1 is the new output logit for the correct prediction Y. We calculate the influence score for the token xi as follows: Ixi = Xn t=1 ot − X q t=1 o 0 t (7) Token Class Description Keywords Reserved word Identifiers Variable, Class Name, Method name Arguments Integer, Floating point, String, Character Operators Brackets ({},(),[]), Symbols (+,*,/,-,%,;,.) Table 1: Token class and their description. We rank all the input tokens according to their influence score Ixi in descending order to find most vulnerable tokens V . We select only the top-k tokens to limit the number of perturbations and attack them iteratively either by completely replacing them or by adding or deleting a character around them. We explain this in detail below. 3.2.2 Substituting Vulnerable Tokens We adopt greedy search using a masked programming language model, subject to code specific constraints, to find substitutes S for vulnerable tokens V , s.t. they are minimally perturbed and have the maximal probability of incorrect prediction. Search Method. In a given input sequence, we mask a vulnerable token vi and use the masked PL model to predict a meaningful contextualised token in its place. We use the top-k predictions for each of the masked vulnerable tokens as our initial search space. Let M denote a masked PL model. Given an input sequence X = [x1, .., vi , .., xm], where vi is a vulnerable token, M uses WordPiece algorithm (Wu et al., 2016) for tokenization that breaks uncommon words into sub-words resulting in H = [h1, h2, .., hq]. We align and mask all the corresponding sub-words for vi , and combine the predictions to get the top-k substitutes S 0 = M(H) for the vulnerable token vi . This initial search space S 0 consists of l possible substitutes for a vulnerable token vi . We then filter out substitute tokens to ensure minimal perturbation, code consistency, and code fluency of the generated adversarial samples, subject to the following constraints. Constraints. Since the tokens generated from a masked PL model may not be meaningful individual code tokens, we further use a CodeNet tokenizer (Puri et al., 2021) to break a token into its corresponsing code tokens. CodeNet tokenizes the input tokens based on four primary code token classes as shown in Table 1. If si is the substitute for the vulnerable token vi as tokenized by M, and Op(·) denotes the operators present in any given token using CodeNet tokenizer, we allow the substitute tokens to have an extra or a missing operator (akin to making typos). |Op(vi)| − 1 ≤ |Op(si)| ≤ |Op(vi)| + 1 (8) If C(·) denotes the code token classes (identifiers, keywords, and arguments) of a given token, we maintain the alignment between between vi and the potential substitute si as follows. C(vi) = C(si) and |C(vi)| = |C(si)| (9) These constraints maintain the syntactic structure of Xadv and significantly reduce the search space. Substitutions. We allow two types of substitutions to generate adversarial examples: (i) Tokenlevel substitution, and (ii) Operator (character) level substitution where only an operator is added, replaced, or deleted. We iteratively substitute the vulnerable tokens with their corresponding substitute tokens/characters, using the reduced search space S, until the adversary’s goal is met. We only allow replacing p% of the vulnerable tokens/characters to keep perturbations to a minimum, where p is a hyper-paramter. We also maintain the cosine similarity between the input text X and the adversarially perturbed text Xadv above a certain threshold (Equation 3). The complete algorithm has been shown in Algorithm 1. CodeAttack maintains minimal perturbation, code fluency, and code consistency between the input and the adversarial code snippet. 4 Experiments 4.1 Downstream Tasks and Datasets We show the transferability of CodeAttack across three different downstream tasks and datasets – all in different programming languages. Code Translation involves translating one programming language to the other. The publicly available code translation datasets2345 consists of parallel functions between Java and C#. There are a total of 11,800 paired functions, out of which 1000 are used for testing. After tokenization, the average sequence length for Java functions is 38.51 tokens, and the average length for C# functions is 46.16. 2 http://lucene.apache.org/ 3 http://poi.apache.org/ 4 https://github.com/eclipse/jgit/ 5 https://github.com/antlr/ Algorithm 1 CodeAttack: Generating adversarial examples for Code Input: Code X ; Victim model F; Maximum perturbation θ; Similarity ; Performance Drop φ Output: Adversarial Example Xadv Initialize: Xadv ← X // Find vulnerable tokens ‘V’ for xi in M(X ) do Calculate Ixi acc. to Eq.(7) end V ← Rank(xi) based on Ixi // Find substitutes ‘S’ for vi in V do S ← Filter(vi) subject to Eqs.(8), (9) for sj in S do // Attack the victim model Xadv = [x1, ..., xi−1, sj , ..., xm] if Q(F(X )) − Q(F(Xadv)) ≥ φ and Sim(X , Xadv) ≥ and ||Xadv − X || ≤ θ then return Xadv // Success end end // One perturbation Xadv ← [x1, ...xi−1, sj , ..xm] end return Code Repair refines code by automatically fixing bugs. The publicly available code repair dataset (Tufano et al., 2019) consists of buggy Java functions as source and their corresponding fixed functions as target. We use the small subset of the data with 46,680 train, 5,835 validation, and 5,835 test samples (≤ 50 tokens in each function). Code Summarization involves generating natural language summary for a given code. We use the CodeSearchNet dataset (Husain et al., 2019) which consists of code and their corresponding summaries in natural language. We show the results of our model on Python (252K/14K/15K), Java (165K/5K/11K), and PHP (241K/13K/15K). The numbers in the bracket denote the approximate samples in train/development/test set, respectively. 4.2 Victim Models We pick a representative method from different categories as our victim models to attack. • CodeT5 (Wang et al., 2021): A unified pretrained encoder-decoder transformer-based PL model that leverages code semantics by using an identifier-aware pre-training objective. This is the state-of-the-art on several sub-tasks in the CodeXGlue benchmark (Lu et al., 2021). • CodeBERT (Feng et al., 2020): A bimodal pretrained programming language model that performs code-code and code-nl tasks. • GraphCodeBert (Guo et al., 2020): Pre-trained graph programming language model that leverages code structure through data flow graphs. • RoBERTa (Liu et al., 2019): Pre-trained natural language model with state-of-art results on GLUE (Wang et al., 2018), RACE (Lai et al., 2017), and SQuAD (Rajpurkar et al., 2016) datasets. For our experiments, we use the publicly available fine-tuned checkpoints for CodeT5 and finetune CodeBERT, GraphCodeBERT, and RoBERTa on the related downstream tasks. 4.3 CodeAttack Configurations The proposed CodeAttack model is implemented in PyTorch. For the purpose of our experiments, we use the publicly available pre-trained CodeBERT (MLM) masked PL model as the adversarial example generator. We select the top 50 predictions for each vulnerable token as the initial search space. On an average, we only attack at 2 to 4 vulnerable tokens for all the tasks to keep the perturbations to a minimum. The cosine similarity threshold between the original code snippet and adversarially generated code is 0.5. Since CodeAttack does not require any training, we attack the victim models on the test set using a batch-size of 256. All experiments were conducted on a 48 GiB RTX 8000 GPU. 4.4 Evaluation Metric Downstream Performance. We measure the downstream performance using CodeBLEU (Ren et al., 2020) and BLEU (Papineni et al., 2002) before and after the attack. CodeBLEU measures the quality of the generated code snippet for code translation and code repair, and BLEU measures the quality of the generated natural language code summary. To measure the efficacy of the attack model, we define ∆drop = Qbefore − Qafter = Q(Y) − Q(Yadv) where Q = {CodeBLEU, BLEU}, Y is the output sequence generated from the original code X , and Task Victim Model Attack Model Downstream Performance Attack Quality Overall Before After ∆ (GMean) drop Attack% #Query CodeBLEUq Translate (CodeCode) CodeT5 TextFooler 73.99 68.08 5.91 28.29 94.95 63.19 21.94 BERT-Attack 48.59 25.40 83.12 186.1 51.11 47.61 CodeAttack 61.72 12.27 89.3 36.84 65.91 41.64 CodeBERT TextFooler 71.16 60.45 10.71 49.2 73.91 66.61 32.74 BERT-Attack 58.80 12.36 97.1 48.76 59.90 41.58 CodeAttack 54.14 17.03 97.7 26.43 66.89 48.09 GraphCodeBERT Textfooler 66.80 46.51 20.29 38.70 83.17 63.62 36.83 BERT-Attack 36.54 30.26 97.33 41.30 57.41 55.30 CodeAttack 38.81 27.99 98 20.60 65.39 56.39 Repair (CodeCode) CodeT5 Textfooler 61.13 57.59 3.53 58.84 90.50 69.53 24.36 BERT-Attack 52.70 8.42 98.3 74.99 55.94 35.79 CodeAttack 53.21 7.92 99.36 30.68 69.03 37.87 CodeBERT Textfooler 61.33 53.55 7.78 81.61 45.89 68.16 35.11 BERT-Attack 51.95 9.38 98.3 74.99 55.94 37.22 CodeAttack 52.02 9.31 99.39 25.98 68.05 39.78 GraphCodeBERT Textfooler 62.16 54.23 7.92 78.92 51.07 67.89 34.89 BERT-Attack 53.33 8.83 99.4 62.59 56.05 36.64 CodeAttack 51.97 10.19 99.52 24.67 66.16 40.63 Summarize (Code-NL) CodeT5 TextFooler 20.06 14.96 5.70 64.6 410.15 53.91 27.08 BERT-Attack 11.96 8.70 90.4 1006.28 51.34 34.30 CodeAttack 11.06 9.59 82.8 314.87 52.67 34.71 CodeBERT Textfooler 19.76 14.38 5.37 61.1 358.43 54.10 26.10 BERT-Attack 11.30 8.35 93.74 695.03 50.31 34.16 CodeAttack 10.88 8.87 88.32 204.46 52.95 34.62 RoBERTa TextFooler 19.06 14.06 4.99 62.6 356.68 54.11 25.67 BERT-Attack 11.34 7.71 94.15 701.01 50.10 33.14 CodeAttack 10.98 8.08 87.51 183.22 53.03 33.47 Table 2: Results for adversarial attack on translation (C#-Java), repair (Java-Java), and summarization (PHP) tasks. The downstream performance for Code-Code tasks is measured in CodeBLEU; and for Code-NL task in BLEU. The best result is in boldface; the next best is underlined. Overall CodeAttack outperforms significantly (p < 0.05). Yadv is the sequence generated from the perturbed code Xadv. Attack Quality. We automatically measure the attack quality using the following. • Attack %: Computes the % of successful attacks as measured by the ∆drop. Higher the value, more successful the attack. • # Query: Under a black-box setting, the adversary can query the victim model to check for changes in the output logits. Lower the average number of queries required per sample, more efficient the adversary. • # Perturbation: The number of tokens perturbed on average to generate an adversarial code. Lower the value, more imperceptible the attack. To measure the quality of the perturbed code, we calculate CodeBLEUq = CodeBLEU(X , Xadv). Higher the CodeBLEUq, better the quality of the adversarial code. Since we want the ∆drop to be as high as possible while maintaining the attack % and CodeBLEUq, we measure the geometric mean (GMean) between ∆drop, attack%, and the CodeBLEUq to measure the overall performance. 4.5 Results The results for attacking pre-trained PL models for (i) Code Translation, (ii) Code Repair, and (iii) Code Summarization are shown in Table 2. Due to lack of space, we only show results for the C# to Java translation task and for the PHP code summarization task (refer to Appendix A for results on Java-C# translation and code summarization results on Python and Java). We use the metrics described in Section 4.4 and compare our model with two state-of-the-art adversarial NLP baselines: (i) TextFooler (Jin et al., 2020), and (ii) BERT-Attack (Li et al., 2020). Downstream Performance Drop. The average ∆drop using CodeAttack is at least 20% for code Original Code TextFooler BERT-Attack CodeAttack public string GetFullMessage () { ... if (msgB < 0){return string .Empty;} ... return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, msgB, raw. Length); } citizenship string GetFullMessage() { ... if (msgB < 0){return string .Empty;} ... return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, msgB, raw. Length); } loop string GetFullMessage() { ... if (msgB < 0){return string .Empty;} ... return [UNK][UNK].[UNK](x) raw, msgB, raw.Length ); } public string GetFullMessage () { ... if (msgB = 0){return string .Empty;} ... return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, msgB, raw. Length); } CodeBLEUbefore: 77.09 ∆drop: 18.84; CodeBLEUq: 95.11 ∆drop: 15.09; CodeBLEUq: 57.46 ∆drop: 21.04; CodeBLEUq: 88.65 public override void WriteByte(byte b) { if (outerInstance.upto == outerInstance. blockSize) { ... } } audiences revoked canceling WriteByte(byte b) { if (outerInstance.upto == outerInstance. blockSize) { .... } } public override void [UNK][UNK]() b) { if (outerInstance.upto == outerInstance. blockSize) { ... } } public override void WriteByte((bytes b) { if (outerInstance.upto == outerInstance. blockSize) { ... } } CodeBLEUbefore:100 ∆drop:5.74; CodeBLEUq: 63.28 ∆drop:27.26; CodeBLEUq:49.87 ∆drop:20.04; CodeBLEUq: 91.69 Table 3: Qualitative examples of perturbed codes using TextFooler, BERT-Attack, and CodeAttack on Code Translation task. (a) CodeBLEUafter (b) CodeBLEUq (c) Average #Query (d) Attack% Figure 2: Effectiveness of the attack models on CodeT5 for the code translation task (C#-Java). translation task and 10% for both code repair task and code summarization tasks for all three pretrained models. ∆drop is higher for BERT-Attack for translation and repair tasks but its attack quality (described later) is the lowest. CodeAttack has the best ∆drop for summarization. Attack Quality. We observe that CodeAttack has the highest attack success % for code translation and the code repair tasks; and the second best success rate for the code summarization task. CodeAttack is more efficient as it has the lowest average query number per sample. This shows that it successfully attacks more samples with less querying. Table 3 presents some qualitative examples of the generated adversarial code snippets from different attack models. TextFooler has the best CodeBLEUq (as seen in Table 2) but it replaces keywords with closely related natural language words (‘public’: ‘citizenship’/‘audiences’; ‘override’: ‘revoked’, ‘void’: ‘cancelling’). BERTAttack has the lowest CodeBLEUq and substitutes tokens with either a special ‘[UNK]’ token or with other seemingly random words. This is expected since both TextFooler and BERT-Attack have not been designed for programming languages. On the other hand, although CodeAttack has the second best CodeBLEUq, it generates more meaningful adversarial samples by replacing variables and operators which are imperceptible. Effectiveness. To study the effectiveness of CodeAttack, we limit the # perturbations. (Figure 2). From Figure 2a, we observe that as the perturbation % increases, the CodeBLEUafter for CodeAttack decreases but remains constant for TextFooler and slightly increases for BERT-Attack. We also observe that although CodeBLEUq for CodeAttack is the second best (Figure 2b), it has the highest attack success rate (Figure 2d) and the lowest number of required queries (Figure 2c) throughout. This shows the efficiency of CodeAttack and the need for code specific adversarial attacks. Overall Performance. Overall, CodeAttack has the best performance when we consider the geometric mean (GMean) between ∆drop, attack %, and CodeBLEUq together. These results are generalizable across different input programming languages and different downstream tasks (C# in case of code translation; Java in case of code repair, PHP in case of code summarization). 4.6 Ablation Study We conduct an ablation study to evaluate the importance of selecting vulnerable tokens (V) and applying constraints (C) to maintain the syntax of (a) Performance Drop (b) CodeBLEUq (c) # Query (d) Average Success Rate Figure 3: Ablation Study for Code Translation (C#-Java): Performance of CodeAttack with (+) and without (-) the vulnerable tokens (V) and the two constraints (C): (i) Operator level (C1), and (ii) Token level (C2). the perturbed code. Figure 3 shows the results for the ablation study on the code translation task from C#-Java. See Appendix A for qualitative examples. Importance of Vulnerable Tokens. We define a variant, CodeAttack+V-C, which finds vulnerable tokens based on logit information (Section 3.2.1) and subsitutes them, albeit without any constraints. We create another variant, CodeAttack-V-C, which randomly samples tokens from the input code to attack. As can be seen from Figure 3a, the latter attack is not as effective as the ∆drop is less than the former for the same CodeBLEUq (Figure 3b) and the attack% (Figure 3d). Importance of Constraints. We substitute the vulnerable tokens using the predictions from a masked PL model with (+C) and without (-C) any code specific constraints. We apply two types of constraints: (i) Operator level constraint (CodeAttack+V+C1), and (ii) Token level constraint (CodeAttack +V+C1+C2) (Section 3.2.2). Only applying the first constraint results in lower attack success % (Figure 3d) and ∆drop (Figure 3a) but a much higher CodeBLEUq. On applying both the constraints together, the ∆drop and the attack success % improve. Overall, the final model, CodeAttack+V+C1+C2, has the best tradeoff between the ∆drop, attack success %, CodeBLEUq, and #Queries required. Human Evaluation. We sample 50 original and perturbed Java and C# code samples and shuffle them to create a mix. We ask 3 human annotators, familiar with the two programming languages, to classify the code as either original or adversarial. We also ask them to rate the syntactic correctness of the codes on a scale of 1 to 5; where 1 is completely incorrect syntax; and 5 is the perfect syntax. On an average, 72.10% of the codes were classified as original and the average syntactic correctness was 4.14 for the adversarial code. Additionally, we provided the annotators with pairs of original and adversarial codes and asked them to rate the ’visual’ similarity between them using 0 to 1; where 0 is not similar at all, 0.5 is somewhat similar, and 1 is very similar. On average, the similarity was 0.71. 5 Discussions and Limitations We observe that it is easier to attack the code translation task than the code repair or code summarization tasks. Since code repair aims to fix bugs in the given code snippet, attacking it is more challenging. For code summarization, the BLEU score drops by almost 50%. For all three tasks, CodeT5 is the most robust whereas GraphCodeBERT is the most susceptible to attacks using CodeAttack. CodeT5 has been pre-trained on the task of Masked Identifier Prediction or deobsfuction (Lachaux et al., 2021) where changing the identifier names does not have an impact on the code semantics. This helps the model avoid the attacks which involve changing the identifier names, and in turn makes it more robust. GraphCodeBERT, on the other hand, uses data flow graphs in their pretraining which relies on the predicting the relationship between the identifiers. Since CodeAttack modifies the identifiers and perturbs the relationship between them, it proves extremely effective on GraphCodeBERT. This results in a more significant ∆drop on GraphCodeBERT compared to other models for the code translation task. CodeAttack, although effective has a few limitations. These adversarial attacks can be avoided if the pre-trained models choose to compile the input code before processing. The PL models can also be made more robust by either additionally pretraining or fine-tuning them using the generated adversarial examples. Incorporating more tasks such as code obfuscation in the pre-training stage might also help with the robustness of the models. 6 Conclusion We introduce a black-box adversarial attack model, CodeAttack, to detect vulnerabilities of the state-of-the-art programming language models. CodeAttack finds the most vulnerable tokens in the given code snippet and uses a greedy search mechanism to identify contextualised substitutes subject to code-specific constraints. Our model incorporates the syntactic information of the input code to generate adversarial examples that are effective, imperceptible, maintain code fluency, and consistency. We perform an extensive empirical and human evaluation to demonstrate the transferability of CodeAttack on several code-code and code-NL tasks across different programming languages. CodeAttack outperforms the existing state-of-the-art adversarial NLP models when both the performance drop and the attack quality are taken together. CodeAttack uses fewer queries and is more efficient, highlighting the need for code-specific adversarial attacks. References Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Unified pre-training for program understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 2655–2668. Moustafa Alzantot, Yash Sharma, Ahmed Elgohary, Bo-Jhang Ho, Mani Srivastava, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2018. Generating natural language adversarial examples. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2890–2896. Leonhard Applis, Annibale Panichella, and Arie van Deursen. 2021. Assessing robustness of ml-based program analysis tools using metamorphic program transformations. In 2021 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE), pages 1377–1381. IEEE. Javid Ebrahimi, Anyi Rao, Daniel Lowd, and Dejing Dou. 2018. Hotflip: White-box adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), pages 31–36. Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, et al. 2020. Codebert: A pre-trained model for programming and natural languages. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pages 1536–1547. Ji Gao, Jack Lanchantin, Mary Lou Soffa, and Yanjun Qi. 2018. Black-box generation of adversarial text sequences to evade deep learning classifiers. In 2018 IEEE Security and Privacy Workshops (SPW), pages 50–56. IEEE. Siddhant Garg and Goutham Ramakrishnan. 2020. Bae: Bert-based adversarial examples for text classification. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6174–6181. Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Shuai Lu, Zhangyin Feng, Duyu Tang, LIU Shujie, Long Zhou, Nan Duan, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Shengyu Fu, et al. 2020. Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow. In International Conference on Learning Representations. Yu-Lun Hsieh, Minhao Cheng, Da-Cheng Juan, Wei Wei, Wen-Lian Hsu, and Cho-Jui Hsieh. 2019. On the robustness of self-attentive models. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1520–1529. Hamel Husain, Ho-Hsiang Wu, Tiferet Gazit, Miltiadis Allamanis, and Marc Brockschmidt. 2019. Codesearchnet challenge: Evaluating the state of semantic code search. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09436. Di Jin, Zhijing Jin, Joey Tianyi Zhou, and Peter Szolovits. 2020. Is bert really robust? a strong baseline for natural language attack on text classification and entailment. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, volume 34, pages 8018–8025. Marie-Anne Lachaux, Baptiste Roziere, Marc Szafraniec, and Guillaume Lample. 2021. Dobf: A deobfuscation pre-training objective for programming languages. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34. Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. Race: Large-scale reading comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 785– 794. J Li, S Ji, T Du, B Li, and T Wang. 2019. Textbugger: Generating adversarial text against real-world applications. In 26th Annual Network and Distributed System Security Symposium. Linyang Li, Ruotian Ma, Qipeng Guo, Xiangyang Xue, and Xipeng Qiu. 2020. Bert-attack: Adversarial attack against bert using bert. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 6193–6202. Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Mandar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin B. Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, Ge Li, Lidong Zhou, Linjun Shou, Long Zhou, Michele Tufano, Ming Gong, Ming Zhou, Nan Duan, Neel Sundaresan, Shao Kun Deng, Shengyu Fu, and Shujie Liu. 2021. Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation. CoRR, abs/2102.04664. Nicholas Metropolis, Arianna W Rosenbluth, Marshall N Rosenbluth, Augusta H Teller, and Edward Teller. 1953. Equation of state calculations by fast computing machines. The journal of chemical physics, 21(6):1087–1092. Nicolas Papernot, Fartash Faghri, Nicholas Carlini, Ian Goodfellow, Reuben Feinman, Alexey Kurakin, Cihang Xie, Yash Sharma, Tom Brown, Aurko Roy, et al. 2016. Technical report on the cleverhans v2. 1.0 adversarial examples library. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.00768. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and WeiJing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 311–318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. Danish Pruthi, Bhuwan Dhingra, and Zachary C Lipton. 2019. Combating adversarial misspellings with robust word recognition. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 5582–5591. Ruchir Puri, David S Kung, Geert Janssen, Wei Zhang, Giacomo Domeniconi, Vladmir Zolotov, Julian Dolby, Jie Chen, Mihir Choudhury, Lindsey Decker, et al. 2021. Project codenet: a large-scale ai for code dataset for learning a diversity of coding tasks. Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2383–2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. Goutham Ramakrishnan, Jordan Henkel, Zi Wang, Aws Albarghouthi, Somesh Jha, and Thomas Reps. 2020. Semantic robustness of models of source code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.03043. Shuhuai Ren, Yihe Deng, Kun He, and Wanxiang Che. 2019. Generating natural language adversarial examples through probability weighted word saliency. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1085–1097, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. Shuo Ren, Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Duyu Tang, Neel Sundaresan, Ming Zhou, Ambrosio Blanco, and Shuai Ma. 2020. Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297. Michele Tufano, Cody Watson, Gabriele Bavota, Massimiliano Di Penta, Martin White, and Denys Poshyvanyk. 2019. An empirical study on learning bugfixing patches in the wild via neural machine translation. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 28(4):1–29. Alex Wang, Amanpreet Singh, Julian Michael, Felix Hill, Omer Levy, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. Glue: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP, pages 353–355. Yue Wang, Weishi Wang, Shafiq Joty, and Steven CH Hoi. 2021. Codet5: Identifier-aware unified pretrained encoder-decoder models for code understanding and generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 8696–8708. Yonghui Wu, Mike Schuster, Zhifeng Chen, Quoc V Le, Mohammad Norouzi, Wolfgang Macherey, Maxim Krikun, Yuan Cao, Qin Gao, Klaus Macherey, et al. 2016. Google’s neural machine translation system: Bridging the gap between human and machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.08144. Puyudi Yang, Jianbo Chen, Cho-Jui Hsieh, Jane-Ling Wang, and Michael I Jordan. 2020. Greedy attack and gumbel attack: Generating adversarial examples for discrete data. J. Mach. Learn. Res., 21(43):1–36. Zhou Yang, Jieke Shi, Junda He, and David Lo. 2022. Natural attack for pre-trained models of code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.08698. Noam Yefet, Uri Alon, and Eran Yahav. 2020. Adversarial examples for models of code. Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages, 4(OOPSLA):1–30. Huangzhao Zhang, Zhuo Li, Ge Li, Lei Ma, Yang Liu, and Zhi Jin. 2020. Generating adversarial examples for holding robustness of source code processing models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 1169– 1176. Yaqin Zhou, Shangqing Liu, Jingkai Siow, Xiaoning Du, and Yang Liu. 2019. Devign: Effective vulnerability identification by learning comprehensive program semantics via graph neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32. Yu Zhou, Xiaoqing Zhang, Juanjuan Shen, Tingting Han, Taolue Chen, and Harald Gall. 2021. Adversarial robustness of deep code comment generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2108.00213. A Appendix A.1 Results Downstream Performance and Attack Quality We measure the BLEU, ∆BLEU , EM ∆EM , CodeBLEU, and ∆CodeBLEU to measure the downstream performance for code-code tasks (code repair and code translation). The programming languages used are C#-Java and Java-C# for translation tasks; and Java for code repair tasks (Table 4 and Table 5). We measure code-NL task for code summarization in BLEU and ∆BLEU . We show the results for three programming languages: Python, Java, and PHP (Table 6). We measure the quality of the attacks using the metric defined in 4.4 and additionally show BLEUq which measures the BLEU score between the original and the perturbed code. The results follow a similar pattern as that seen in Section 4.5. Ablation Study: Qualitative Analysis Table 7 shows the adversarial examples generated using the variants described in Section 4.6. Task Victim Attack BLEU (∆BLEU ) EM (∆EM) CodeBLEU (∆CB) Java-C# CodeT5 Original 85.37 67.9 87.03 TextFooler 77.47 (7.9) 47.0 (20.9) 79.83 (7.19) BERT-Attack 59.38 (25.99) 13.2 (54.7) 66.92 (20.11) CodeAttack 64.85 (20.52) 5.2 (62.7) 68.81 (18.21) CodeBERT Original 81.81 62.5 83.48 TextFooler 71.26 (10.55) 30.4 (32.1) 73.52 (9.95) BERT-Attack 54.25 (27.56) 3.1 (59.4) 54.69 (28.79) CodeAttack 65.31* (16.5) 9 (53.5) 66.99* (16.49) GraphCodeBERT Original 80.35 59.4 82.4 TextFooler 72.15 (8.2) 35.24 (24.16) 74.32 (8.07) BERT-Attack 54.54 (25.81) 2.4 (57) 54.47 (27.93) CodeAttack 62.35* (18) 9.4 (50) 64.87 (17.52) C#-Java CodeT5 Original 81.54 70.6 73.99 TextFooler 72.62 (8.92) 50 (20.6) 68.08 (5.91) BERT-Attack 45.71 (35.83) 15.54 (55.06) 48.59 (25.40) CodeAttack 58.05 (23.49) 11 (59.6) 61.72 (12.27) CodeBERT Original 77.24 62 71.16 TextFooler 67.31 (9.93) 34 (28) 60.45 (10.71) BERT-Attack 48.74 (28.5) 2 (60) 58.80 (12.36) CodeAttack 59.41 (17.83) 2.4 (59.6) 54.14 (17.02) GraphCodeBERT Original 70.97 56.5 66.80 TextFooler 62.49 (8.48) 37.33 (19.17) 46.51 (20.29) BERT-Attack 43.2 (55.39) 1.11 (30.26) 36.54 (27.77) CodeAttack 48.83 (22.14) 2.6 (53.9) 38.81 (27.99) Repair CodeT5 Original 78.11 19.9 61.13 TextFooler 73.23 (4.88) 1.4(18.5) 57.59 (3.53) BERT-Attack 65.86 (12.25) 1.2 (18.7) 52.70 (8.42) CodeAttack 66.1 (12.01) 1.28 (18.62) 53.21 (7.92) CodeBERT Original 78.66 15.64 61.33 TextFooler 67.06 (11.6) 4.48 (11.16) 53.55 (7.78) BERT-Attack 60.52 (18.14) 3.4 (12.24) 51.95 (9.38) CodeAttack 61.23 (17.43) 4.05 (11.59) 52.02 (9.31) GraphCodeBERT Original 79.73 15.05 62.16 TextFooler 66.19 (13.54) 2.5 (12.55) 54.23 (7.92) BERT-Attack 64.1 (15.63) 3.5 (11.55) 53.33 (8.83) CodeAttack 64.7 (15.03) 4.38 (10.67) 51.97 (10.19) Table 4: Downstream Performance: Code-Code Tasks. Best result in bold and the next best is undelined. Task Victim Attack Attack% Query# BLEUq CodeBLEUq Java-C# CodeT5 TextFooler 32.3 62.9 78.95 81.28 BERT-Attack 85.6 112.5 54.95 69.48 CodeAttack 94.8 19.85 68.08 75.21* CodeBERT TextFooler 55.9 38.57 82.75 83.93 BERT-Attack 95.39 46.09 54.75 76.18 CodeAttack 91.1 24.42 66.89 76.77* GraphCodeBERT TextFooler 51.21 39.33 82.41 82.45 BERT-Attack 96.2 38.29* 53.46 73.55 CodeAttack 90.8* 23.22 68.42 77.33 C#-Java CodeT5 TextFooler 28.29 94.95* 69.47 63.19* BERT-Attack 83.12 186.1 41.45 51.11 CodeAttack 89.3 36.84 67.09 65.91 CodeBERT TextFooler 49.2 73.91 73.19 66.61 BERT-Attack 97.1 48.76 52.33 59.90 CodeAttack 97.7 26.43 66.24 66.89 GraphCodeBERT TextFooler 38.70 83.17 70.61 63.62 BERT-Attack 97.33 41.30 55.71 57.41 CodeAttack 98 20.60 68.07 65.39 Repair CodeT5 TextFooler 58.84 90.50 93.37 69.53 BERT-Attack 98.1 121.1 80.56 55.49 CodeAttack 99.36 30.68 88.95* 69.03* CodeBERT TextFooler 81.61 45.89 91.82 68.16 BERT-Attack 98.3 74.99 80.7 55.94 CodeAttack 99.39 25.98 87.83 68.05 GraphCodeBERT TextFooler 78.92 51.07 91.4 67.89 BERT-Attack 99.4 62.59 81.73 56.05 CodeAttack 99.52 24.67 85.68 66.16 Table 5: Attack Quality: Code-Code Tasks. Best result in bold and the next best is underlined. Task Victim Attack BLEU (∆BLEU ) Attack% Query# BLEUq CodeBLEUq Java CodeT5 Original 19.77 TextFooler 14.06 (5.71) 67.8 291.82 75.33 92.82 BERT-Attack 11.94 (7.82) 93.34 541.43 54.47 48.35 CodeAttack 11.21 (8.56) 80.8 198.11 68.51 90.04 CodeBERT Original 17.65 TextFooler 16.84 (1.20) 42.4 400.78 65.88 90.29 BERT-Attack 12.87 (4.77) 84.6 826.71 34.51 83.82 CodeAttack 14.69 (2.85) 73.7 340.99 59.74 59.37 RoBERTa Original 16.47 TextFooler 13.23 (3.23) 44.9 383.36 67.9 90.87 BERT-Attack 12.67 (3.8) 72.93 901.01 28.18 42.09 CodeAttack 11.74(4.73) 50.14 346.07 32.63 48.48 PHP CodeT5 Original 20.66 TextFooler 14.96 (5.70) 64.6 410.15 78.11 53.91 BERT-Attack 11.96 (8.70) 90.4 1006.28 49.3 51.34 CodeAttack 11.06 (9.59) 82.8 314.87 66.02 52.67 CodeBERT Original 19.76 TextFooler 14.38 (5.37) 61.1 358.43 79.81 54.10 BERT-Attack 11.30 (8.45) 93.74 695.03 50.77 50.31 CodeAttack 10.88 (8.87) 88.32 204.46 69.11 52.95 RoBERTa Original 19.06 TextFooler 14.06 (4.99) 62.6 356.68 79.73 54.11 BERT-Attack 11.34 (7.71) 94.15 701.01 51.49 50.10 CodeAttack 10.98 (8.08) 87.51 183.22 70.33 53.03 Python CodeT5 Original 20.26 TextFooler 12.11 (8.24) 90.47 400.06 86.84 77.59 BERT-Attack 8.22 (12.13) 99.81 718.07 77.11 64.66 CodeAttack 7.79 (12.38) 98.50 174.05 87.04 69.17 CodeBERT Original 78.66 TextFooler 20.76 (5.40) 68.5 966.19 76.56 75.15 BERT-Attack 18.95 (7.21) 93.72 1414.67 55.22 52.31 CodeAttack 18.69 (7.47) 86.63 560.58 63.84 59.11 RoBERTa Original 17.01 TextFooler 10.72 (6.29) 63.34 788.25 70.48 74.05 BERT-Attack 10.66 (6.35) 89.64 1358.85 51.74 56.75 CodeAttack 9.5 (7.51) 76.09 661.75 55.45 61.22 Table 6: Downstream Performance and Attack Quality on Code-NL (Summarization) Task for different programming languages. Best result in bold and the next best is underlined. Original Code CodeAttack+V-C CodeAttack+V+C1 CodeAttack+V+C1+C2 public void AddMultipleBlanks (MulBlankRecord mbr) { for (int j = 0; j < mbr. NumColumns; j++) { BlankRecord br = new BlankRecord(); br.Column = j + mbr. FirstColumn; br.Row = mbr.Row; br.XFIndex = (mbr.GetXFAt (j)); InsertCell(br); } } ((void AddMultipleBlanks( MulBlankRecord mbr) { for (int j ? 0; j < mbr .NumColumns; j++) { BlankRecord br = new BlankRecord(); br.Column = j + mbr. FirstColumn; br.Row = mbr.Row; br.XFIndex = (mbr. GetXFAt(j)); InsertCell(br); } } public void AddMultipleBlanks (MulBlankRecord mbr) { for (int j > 0; j < mbr. NumColumns; j++) { BlankRecord br = -new BlankRecord(); br.Column = j + mbr. FirstColumn; br.Row = mbr.Row; br.XFIndex > (mbr.GetXFAt (j)); InsertCell(br); } } static void AddMultipleBlanks (MulBlankRecord mbr) { for (int j > 0; jj < mbr. NumColumns; j++) { BlankRecord br = new BlankRecord(); br.Column = j + mbr. FirstColumn; br.Row = mbr.Row; br.XFIndex = (mbr.GetXFAt (j)); InsertCell(br); } } CodeBLEUbefore: 76.3 ∆drop: 7.21; CodeBLEUq: 43.85 ∆drop: 5.85; CodeBLEUq: 69.61 ∆drop: 12.96; CodeBLEUq: 59.29 public string GetFullMessage () { byte[] raw = buffer; int msgB = RawParseUtils. TagMessage(raw, 0); if (msgB < 0) { return string.Empty; } Encoding enc = RawParseUtils. ParseEncoding(raw); return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, msgB, raw. Length); } ˘0120public string GetFullMessage() { byte[] raw = buffer; int msgB = RawParseUtils. TagMessage(raw, 0); if (msgB < 0) { return string.Empty; } Encoding enc = RawParseUtils. ParseEncoding(raw); return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, RAW.., msgB, raw.Length); } public string GetFullMessage () { byte[] raw = buffer; int msgB = RawParseUtils. TagMessage(raw, 0); if (msgB = 0) { return string.Empty; } Encoding enc = RawParseUtils. ParseEncoding(raw); return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, msgB, raw. Length); } static string GetFullMessage () { byte[] raw = buffer; int msgB = RawParseUtils. TagMessage(raw, 0); if (msgB < 0 { return string.Empty; } Encoding enc = RawParseUtils. ParseEncoding(raw); return RawParseUtils.Decode (enc, raw, MsgB,raw. Length); } CodeBLEUbefore:77.09 ∆drop: 10.42; CodeBLEUq: 64.19 ∆drop: 21.93; CodeBLEUq: 87.25 ∆drop: 22.8; CodeBLEUq: 71.30 Table 7: Qualitative examples for the ablation study on CodeAttack: Attack vulnerable tokens (V) without any constraints (-C), with operator level constraints (+C1), and with token level (+C2) contraints on code translation task.

1 0

xNY.io Bank.org Response to Justice Department Concerns about Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates
by Gunnar Larson 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

Dear Madam or Sir: xNY.io - Bank.org is inspired by the DOJ's recent innovative approach to interlocking directors. >From our New York and Cyprus headquarters, xNY.io - Bank.org embodies the notion that rather than a merry-go-round, the process of change and innovation is like a slide. Today’s memo aims to signal xNY.io - Bank.org's market experience and correspondence with the SpaceX Corporation directorate who potentially has interlocked with aim to manipulate markets that could impact cross-border digital asset innovation, free speech in the United States of America, the global ESG economy and Moon exploration. 1: We do not see this as a stereotypical democrat versus republican battle. xNY.io - Bank.org has furher asked SpaceX to disclose a potential dicector enterprise, self titled the "PayPal Mafia." 2: To be very clear, we have communicated with SpaceX and Twitter's prospective LBO dealmakers. 3: Our concern specific to the intent of Twitter’s LBO deal makers is party to our work in New York to usurp Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase board directors who may be potentially engaged in similar market manipulation (referenced attached): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lv9Wt6y1ld4bNap0z3epIxttEGiP_oVpfxH0GTS… xNY.io - Bank.org aims to earn the Justice Department's dialogue on protecting digital asset innovation cross border. Meanwhile, we plan to launch a full cort press on interlocking directos and seek DOJ approval to engage the False Claims Act as a tool. Thank you, Gunnar -- *Gunnar Larson * *xNY.io <http://www.xny.io/> - Bank.org <http://bank.org/>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Gunnar Larson <g(a)xny.io> Date: Wed, Oct 19, 2022, 2:04 PM Subject: Directors Resign from the Boards of Five Companies in Response to Justice Department Concerns about Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates To: cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)lists.cpunks.org> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/directors-resign-boards-five-companies-respo… Wednesday, October 19, 2022 Directors Resign from the Boards of Five Companies in Response to Justice Department Concerns about Potentially Illegal Interlocking Directorates Resignations Reflect Antitrust Division’s Efforts to Reinvigorate Enforcement and Deter Violations of Section 8 of the Clayton Act WASHINGTON - The Justice Department announced today that seven directors have resigned from corporate board positions in response to concerns by the Antitrust Division that their roles violated the Clayton Act’s prohibition on interlocking directorates. Section 8 of the Clayton Act (Section 8) prohibits directors and officers from serving simultaneously on the boards of competitors, subject to limited exceptions. Over the last several months, the Division announced its intent to reinvigorate Section 8 enforcement. This announcement is the first in a broader review of potentially unlawful interlocking directorates. “Section 8 is an important, but underenforced, part of our antitrust laws. Congress made interlocking directorates a *per se* violation of the antitrust laws for good reason. Competitors sharing officers or directors further concentrates power and creates the opportunity to exchange competitively sensitive information and facilitate coordination – all to the detriment of the economy and the American public,” said Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division. “The Antitrust Division is undertaking an extensive review of interlocking directorates across the entire economy and will enforce the law.” By eliminating the opportunity to coordinate – explicitly or implicitly – through interlocking directorates, Section 8 is also intended to prevent other violations of the antitrust laws before they occur. In response to the Division’s competition concerns, the following companies and directors unwound the interlocks without admitting to liability: 1. *Definitive Healthcare Corp. and ZoomInfo Technologies Inc. *– Definitive and ZoomInfo operate go-to-market information and intelligence platforms used by third-party sales, marketing, operations, and recruiting teams across the United States. One director served simultaneously on the boards of both companies and resigned from Definitive’s board in response to the Division’s concerns about the alleged interlock. 1. *Maxar Technologies Inc. and Redwire Corp. *– Maxar and Redwire are providers of space infrastructure and communications products and services. One director served simultaneously on the boards of both companies and resigned from Redwire’s board in response to the Division’s concerns about the alleged interlock. 1. *Littelfuse Inc. and CTS Corp.* – Littelfuse and CTS are manufacturers of components and technologies for use in transportation applications, including sensors and switches for use in passenger and commercial vehicles. One director served simultaneously on the boards of both companies and resigned from CTS’s board in response to the Division’s concerns about the alleged interlock. 1. *Skillsoft Corp. and Udemy Inc. *– Skillsoft and Udemy are providers of online corporate education services. One director served simultaneously on the boards of both companies, as did the investment firm Prosus, through that director, because he represented Prosus on both boards at the same time. The director resigned from Udemy’s board in response to the Division’s concerns about the alleged interlock. 1. *Solarwinds Corp. and Dynatrace, Inc. *– Solarwinds and Dynatrace are providers of Application Performance Monitoring (APM) software. One director served simultaneously on the boards of both companies, as did the investment firm Thoma Bravo, through this director, because he represented Thoma Bravo on both boards at the same time. Two additional directors also represented Thoma Bravo on the Solarwinds's board. All three directors resigned from Solarwinds’s board in response to the Division’s concerns about the alleged interlock. Companies, officers, and board members should expect that enforcement of Section 8 will continue to be a priority for the Antitrust Division. Anyone with information about potential interlocking directorates or any other potential violations of the antitrust laws is encouraged to contact the Antitrust Division’s Citizen Complaint Center at 1-888-647-3258 or antitrust.complaints(a)usdoj.gov.

1 0

My Recent Experience at an AI-Cybersecurity Marketing-Workshop
by Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many 21 Oct '22

21 Oct '22

I received marketing a few days ago for a course track in cybersecurity focused on a machine learning, and I attended the free introductory lecture that advertised their school. - The lecturer said that security corps have all the technology to do emissions and other advanced, more reliable forms of information security, but they are subject to "limitations" such that software and hardware that does this is rarely sold. - The school was called "flatiron" and they teach AI-based cybersecurity in their cybersecurity track. The training was heavily business-focused, kind of irritating to attend. The people seemed to know what I was trying to talk about, and seemed interested in talking about it but mostly indirectly rather than clearly. - The intro material was focused on SIEM platforms, which are corporate products that do security work for the user. The content focused on automated log analysis. I was the oblivious rude nerd who asked advanced questions without sufficient experience nor understanding of where others were at, and then gave frustrated responses. Because of my struggles, I actually missed most of the replies, sadly. The presenters promised a recording of the lecture, from which I hoped to extract the replies I missed. I have yet to receive this recording or find where it is at. I also received personal e-mail, phone, and text message followup from the presenters, likely hoping to help me apply to their course track.

1 0