Table of Contents
Fetching ...

VerifiableFL: Verifiable Claims for Federated Learning using Exclaves

Jinnan Guo, Kapil Vaswani, Andrew Paverd, Peter Pietzuch

TL;DR

VerifiableFL addresses the challenge of verifiable claims in federated learning by introducing exclaves, integrity-only execution environments that produce runtime attestation records (EDRs) for every data transformation. These EDRs are composed into an end-to-end exclave dataflow graph (EDG) that a third-party auditor can inspect to verify that data sanitization, DP, aggregation, and training steps were faithfully executed. The system extends an existing FL framework (NVFlare) with minimal changes and demonstrates overheads under 10% for moderate-to-large models, while maintaining strong integrity guarantees even under adversarial participants. Practically, VerifiableFL enables regulators and stakeholders to verify training provenance and dataset handling in FL, addressing regulatory requirements and trust concerns without relying on secrets or static deployment attestations.

Abstract

In federated learning (FL), data providers jointly train a machine learning model without sharing their training data. This makes it challenging to provide verifiable claims about properties of the final trained FL model, e.g., related to the employed training data, the used data sanitization, or the correct training algorithm -- a malicious data provider can simply deviate from the correct training protocol without being detected. While prior FL training systems have explored the use of trusted execution environments (TEEs) to combat such attacks, existing approaches struggle to link attestation proofs from TEEs robustly and effectively with claims about the trained FL model. TEEs have also been shown to suffer from a wide range of attacks, including side-channel attacks. We describe VerifiableFL, a system for training FL models that provides verifiable claims about trained models with the help of runtime attestation proofs. VerifiableFL generates such proofs using the new abstraction of exclaves, which are integrity-only execution environments without any secrets, thus making them immune to data leakage attacks. Whereas previous approaches only attested whole TEEs statically, i.e., at deployment time, VerifiableFL uses exclaves to attest individual data transformations during FL training. These runtime attestation proofs then form an attested dataflow graph of the entire FL model training computation. The graph can be checked by an auditor to ensure that the trained FL model satisfies its verifiable claims, such as the use of particular data sanitization by data providers or aggregation strategy by the model provider. We implement VerifiableFL by extending NVIDIA's NVFlare FL framework to use exclaves, and show that VerifiableFL introduces less than 10% overhead compared to unprotected FL model training.

VerifiableFL: Verifiable Claims for Federated Learning using Exclaves

TL;DR

VerifiableFL addresses the challenge of verifiable claims in federated learning by introducing exclaves, integrity-only execution environments that produce runtime attestation records (EDRs) for every data transformation. These EDRs are composed into an end-to-end exclave dataflow graph (EDG) that a third-party auditor can inspect to verify that data sanitization, DP, aggregation, and training steps were faithfully executed. The system extends an existing FL framework (NVFlare) with minimal changes and demonstrates overheads under 10% for moderate-to-large models, while maintaining strong integrity guarantees even under adversarial participants. Practically, VerifiableFL enables regulators and stakeholders to verify training provenance and dataset handling in FL, addressing regulatory requirements and trust concerns without relying on secrets or static deployment attestations.

Abstract

In federated learning (FL), data providers jointly train a machine learning model without sharing their training data. This makes it challenging to provide verifiable claims about properties of the final trained FL model, e.g., related to the employed training data, the used data sanitization, or the correct training algorithm -- a malicious data provider can simply deviate from the correct training protocol without being detected. While prior FL training systems have explored the use of trusted execution environments (TEEs) to combat such attacks, existing approaches struggle to link attestation proofs from TEEs robustly and effectively with claims about the trained FL model. TEEs have also been shown to suffer from a wide range of attacks, including side-channel attacks. We describe VerifiableFL, a system for training FL models that provides verifiable claims about trained models with the help of runtime attestation proofs. VerifiableFL generates such proofs using the new abstraction of exclaves, which are integrity-only execution environments without any secrets, thus making them immune to data leakage attacks. Whereas previous approaches only attested whole TEEs statically, i.e., at deployment time, VerifiableFL uses exclaves to attest individual data transformations during FL training. These runtime attestation proofs then form an attested dataflow graph of the entire FL model training computation. The graph can be checked by an auditor to ensure that the trained FL model satisfies its verifiable claims, such as the use of particular data sanitization by data providers or aggregation strategy by the model provider. We implement VerifiableFL by extending NVIDIA's NVFlare FL framework to use exclaves, and show that VerifiableFL introduces less than 10% overhead compared to unprotected FL model training.

Paper Structure

This paper contains 29 sections, 2 equations, 9 figures, 2 tables, 1 algorithm.

Figures (9)

  • Figure 1: Overview of federated learning
  • Figure 2: Example excerpt from a model card
  • Figure 3: Design of VerifiableFL(Exclaves are shown in green.)
  • Figure 4: Example of an Exclave Dataflow Graph (Edges show reverse dataflow; nodes show Training, DP, Aggregation, and Model update tasks, respectively.)
  • Figure 5: Variations of the EDG from Fig. \ref{['fig:correct_edg']} with deviations
  • ...and 4 more figures