<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Split-Inference on CuraSec</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/split-inference/</link><description>Recent content in Split-Inference on CuraSec</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 18:39:19 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/split-inference/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Attribute Inference Attack on Edge-Cloud Split Multimodal LLM Features</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-10-26-label-budgeted-attribute-inference-from-protected-features-i/</link><pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2026 18:39:19 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-10-26-label-budgeted-attribute-inference-from-protected-features-i/</guid><description>&lt;ul>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Engineer — Learn:&lt;/strong> If you&amp;rsquo;re designing or auditing a split-inference LLM pipeline, this research challenges the assumption that keeping raw images on-device is sufficient privacy protection — intermediate features still leak age, gender, and race. No patch exists; the takeaway is an architectural one: evaluate representation-level privacy, not just response-level filtering, before deploying such pipelines.&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>SOC/IR — Skip&lt;/strong>&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Leader — Learn:&lt;/strong> Relevant for AI governance: if your organization deploys split-inference LLMs that process biometric attributes, this research demonstrates that edge-local raw data does not prevent cloud-side inference of protected characteristics — a GDPR/HIPAA consideration worth flagging to your AI/privacy counsel when reviewing new deployments.&lt;/li>
&lt;/ul></description></item></channel></rss>