Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2605.22122

Adversarial Trust Poisoning in Vehicular Collaborative Perception

Abstract

Collaborative perception (CP) enables connected and autonomous vehicles to share sensor data and jointly reason about their environment. To defend against adversaries that fabricate or manipulate shared data, existing systems employ cross-vehicle inconsistency detection and trust estimation, penalizing vehicles whose observations conflict with the majority. In this work, we show that these defenses themselves introduce a new attack surface. We present TrustFlip, a novel attack that weaponizes consistency-based defenses to poison the trust assigned to benign vehicles. Instead of injecting false data into the collaboration pipeline, it deploys physical adversarial objects that are genuine but induce inconsistent observations among benign vehicles. The resulting inconsistencies are misattributed by the defense to the targeted vehicle, causing its trust score to degrade and eventually leading to its downweighting or exclusion from collaboration. Consequently, the system loses reliable sensing contributors, degrading perception capability and potentially inducing safety-critical failures. We evaluate TrustFlip across multiple collaborative perception architectures and defense mechanisms. Our results show that state-of-the-art defenses can be significantly affected: the attack removes the targeted benign vehicle from collaboration in up to 87.7% of scenarios and drops Average Precision (AP) by up to 13%. As an initial mitigation, we introduce TrustReflect, a lightweight self-reflection mechanism that marks disputed regions as uncertain and excludes them from trust evaluation, reducing the attack success rate by 35-100%.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Yutong Liu, Chenyi Wang, Ming F. Li, Qingzhao Zhang. 2026-08-28. Adversarial Trust Poisoning in Vehicular Collaborative Perception. https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22122

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Effective Interventions Against AI-Enhanced Scams

In 2025, scams were responsible for an estimated $442 billion in direct losses globally. In the United States, reported losses increased by nearly 400% between 2020 and 2025. Though AI in scamming is a relatively new phenomenon, its use significantly changes the economics of scams as well as the bottlenecks in scam operations. In this paper I investigate what interventions will remain effective under this new AI-driven scamming regime. I develop a simple model of scam profits to understand how different interventions asymptotically affect scam operations. I find that three levers--reporting rate, centralization of reporting, and report accuracy--multiply in their effect on expected victims per scam channel, reducing revenue per scam channel while increasing costs. Because effects multiply, interventions affecting all three could have a significant effect on the profitability of the scam business model. My analysis suggests that even modest reporting rates against high-value scam infrastructure could have significant impacts on scam profitability.

cs.CR

Optimal Adversarial Testing: Extracting Honest Test Results from Dishonest Test Takers

In applications, it is often required to test objects or people to determine their qualities in terms of certain metrics. However, besides being naturally noisy, the test results can be corrupted by adversarial behaviors of objects or people being tested (test takers). For example, dishonest test takers can cheat in the exams to distort the test results. With the development of AI technologies, such distortions driven by cheating using AI technologies are becoming more commonplace and severe. In this paper, we propose optimal testing strategies which can still recover needed test results even if there are cheaters polluting the results. The proposed testing strategies will optimally re-test selected group of test takers using different testing security measures. We determine the optimal testing strategies using a dynamic programming method.

cs.CR

Let Them Steal: Trapping Large Language Model Extraction Attacks with Knowledge Honeypot

Large language models deployed as commercial APIs are vulnerable to model extraction attacks, while existing defenses either act too late or degrade utility for legitimate users. We propose \textbf{Knowledge Trap}, a defense that redirects extraction attacks toward low-transferability knowledge through a \emph{Honeypot Knowledge Graph} (HKG) and breadcrumb-guided exploration. Instead of blocking queries or perturbing outputs, Knowledge Trap consumes the attacker's limited query budget on knowledge with negligible downstream utility while preserving benign-user performance. Experiments in medical and financial domains show that Knowledge Trap reduces surrogate Agreement by 6.2\% on average without degrading legitimate-user accuracy, outperforming existing defenses that impose measurable user impact. These results suggest that defending knowledge-space traversal is a practical direction for mitigating LLM extraction attacks.

cs.CR