Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

I Know What You Said: Unveiling Hardware Cache Side-Channels in Local Large Language Model Inference

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.06738 v3 pith:A5E3JYT5 submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CR

I Know What You Said: Unveiling Hardware Cache Side-Channels in Local Large Language Model Inference

classification cs.CR
keywords tokenattacklocalcacheinferenceinputoutputaverage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) that can be deployed locally have recently gained popularity for privacy-sensitive tasks, with companies such as Meta, Google, and Intel playing significant roles in their development. However, the security of local LLMs through the lens of hardware cache side-channels remains unexplored. In this paper, we unveil novel side-channel vulnerabilities in local LLM inference: token value and token position leakage, which can expose both the victim's input and output text, thereby compromising user privacy. Specifically, we found that adversaries can infer the token values from the cache access patterns of the token embedding operation, and deduce the token positions from the timing of autoregressive decoding phases. To demonstrate the potential of these leaks, we design a novel eavesdropping attack framework targeting both open-source and proprietary LLM inference systems. The attack framework does not directly interact with the victim's LLM and can be executed without privilege. We evaluate the attack on a range of practical local LLM deployments (e.g., Llama, Falcon, and Gemma), and the results show that our attack achieves promising accuracy. The restored output and input text have an average edit distance of 5.2% and 17.3% to the ground truth, respectively. Furthermore, the reconstructed texts achieve average cosine similarity scores of 98.7% (input) and 98.0% (output).

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Leaky Language Models: Stealing Architecture and Inference Optimizations via Per-Token Timing

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Per-token generation timing leaks speculative decoding and draft-model context length from Gemini, and recovers layer count and hidden size of Llama-family models with top-5 accuracy up to 65% when both are unknown.

  2. OTRO: Oblivious Tokenization Path with Square-Root ORAM

    cs.CR 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    OTRO combines replicated square-root ORAM instances, epoch rotation with dummy padding, and KV-cache-aware chunking to make tokenizer lookups oblivious with at most 4.5% TTFT overhead and under 0.5 GB extra memory in ...

  3. Security Considerations for Multi-agent Systems

    cs.CR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    No existing AI security framework covers a majority of the 193 identified multi-agent system threats in any category, with OWASP Agentic Security Initiative achieving the highest overall coverage at 65.3%.

  4. Securing Deep Learning Hardware: A Survey of Side-Channel Vulnerabilities and Countermeasures

    cs.CR 2026-07 accept novelty 3.0

    Hardware side-channel attacks can recover deep-learning model architecture, parameters and inputs; this survey taxonomizes the leaks, attacks and countermeasures.