Nov 23, 2025

Cognitive Canary: Active Defense Against Neural Inference

Tuesday

Cognitive Canary is an active defense system that protects your mind from algorithmic profiling. It uses adversarial machine learning to inject mathematical "camouflage" into your digital footprint, preventing AI models from inferring your cognitive state (stress, focus, intent) from your metadata. In tests against real biometric surveillance models, our system achieved a 96.5% bypass rate, demonstrating that we can use Gradient Starvation to make surveillance economically non-viable.

Privacy shouldn't rely on trust; it should rely on adversarial engineering.

Reviewer's Comments

Reviewer's Comments

Arrow
Arrow
Arrow

Strengths: The threat model is technically coherent. Behavioral metadata can reveal cognitive states, and that metadata isn't legally protected. The adversarial approach is sound: 96.5% bypass is solid adversarial ML work. Execution is strong for hackathon scope.

Suggestions: The "why now" isn't clear. Who is deploying behavioral biometric inference at scale today? We're still fighting for basic private inference and agent identity and access management (IAM). Cognitive state tracking seems several layers beyond where most threat actors operate. The project should be explicit about whether this is anticipatory defense (getting ahead of a future threat) or reactive defense (countering something deployed now). The ZKP module has the same grounding problem: who needs cryptographic verification without revealing raw data, and in what workflow?

POV from a Halcyon Ventures investor: Ground the threat model in concrete adversaries. If this is about state surveillance (China emotion detection), say so and scope accordingly. If it's about future AI agent inference, explain what deployment timeline you're defending against. The technical work is good; it just needs a clearer theory of who's attacking and when. Really impressed by the theoretical grounding, though, and kudos on such hardcore technical chops in a tight turnaround!

At a time when people are paying for tools to protect their personal data (data removal services, VPNs, Apple’s anti-tracking controls), I can definitely see a market for something like this.

My main question is whether this is a large enough problem today for users to pay to create an inference gap. The report does not include quantitative data on how common or harmful behavioral inference is in the wild.

This defense assumes adversaries rely primarily on behavioral metadata. If, in practice, attackers combine multiple signals (video, browser fingerprinting, network traffic), would this tool make a huge difference in protecting user data?

Adding artificial cursor motion or jitter could hurt user experience or accessibility. The report notes this risk but does not provide usability testing. Is there any way to create the inference gap without affecting what the user sees and feels?

Finally, I am curious if you see a government, enterprise, or institutional use case here, beyond individual consumers anxious to protect their data.

This project reminds me of tools like Noisy for fake telemetry, AdNauseam for fake ad clicks, TrackMeNot for search queries. For mouse dynamics specifically, there's closely related prior work, "My Mouse, My Rules," which also proposes adversarial perturbations of cursor movements to defeat profiling, and they built the MouseFaker browser extension that implements it.

I think this would work better as a default or system-level protection rather than something users need to install themselves - those tend to see very limited adoption - and that's the main bottleneck for solutions like this. For example, pushing standards/OS/browsers to add built-in randomization or "anti-profiling" modes, or (just an example) poisoning datasets/models at scale, e.g., by creating adversarially crafted inputs (decoy users/sessions) designed to hurt mass profiling accuracy - these ways the defense works at the ecosystem (default) level rather than requiring each person to adopt it individually. Also, modern tracking methods pull from many different behavioral/side-channel signals, so training separate “jammers” for each signal seems costly and hard to scale (given how many different channels/metadata sources/side-channels are in play).

That said, the project does a good job showing both how these attacks work and why we need defenses, and it gives us a working proof-of-concept that could be adapted for future default-level protections. The presentation is great.

Cite this work

@misc {

title={

(HckPrj) Cognitive Canary: Active Defense Against Neural Inference

},

author={

Tuesday

},

date={

11/23/25

},

organization={Apart Research},

note={Research submission to the research sprint hosted by Apart.},

howpublished={https://apartresearch.com}

}

Recent Projects

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

PROTEUS (PROTein Evaluation for Unusual Sequences): Structure-Informed Safety Screening for de novo and Evasion-Prone Protein-Coding Sequences

AI protein design tools like RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, and Bindcraft make it trivial to produce low-homology sequences that fold into active, potentially hazardous architectures. However, sequence homology-based biosafety screening tools cannot detect proteins that pose functional risk through structurally novel mechanisms with no sequence precedent. We present a tiered computational pipeline that addresses this gap by combining MMseqs2 sequence alignment with structure-based comparison via FoldSeek and DALI against curated toxin databases totaling ~34,000 entries. AlphaFold2-predicted structures are screened for both global fold similarity (FoldSeek) and local active/allosteric site geometry (DALI), capturing convergent functional hazards that sequence screening misses. The pipeline was validated against a panel of toxins, benign proteins, structural mimics, and de novo-designed Munc13 binders, as well as modified ricin variants with residue substitutions. We additionally tested robustness to partial-synthesis evasion, where a bad actor submits multiple shorter coding sequences intended for downstream reassembly into a full toxin-coding gene. We found that while sequence-based screening did not identify any de novo ricin analogues with high certainty, the combined pipeline with FoldSeek and DALI identified all 24 tested de novo ricins as toxic.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

OliGraph: graph-based screening of large oligopools

Existing synthesis screening tools cannot evaluate short oligonucleotide pools, whose overlapping fragments can be reassembled into regulated sequences via polymerase cycling assembly (PCA) yet fall below gene-length detection thresholds. We present OliGraph, an open-source tool that constructs a bi-directed overlap graph from an oligonucleotide pool and extracts contigs for downstream gene-length screening. An optional PCA mode retains only cross-strand overlaps consistent with PCA chemistry. We validated OliGraph in a blinded study across ten simulated pools (70–9,184 oligonucleotides, 30–300 bp) spanning four risk categories. BLAST screening of individual oligonucleotides failed to identify sequences of concern in most pools: three returned zero hits, and vector noise obscured true positives in the remainder. After OliGraph assembly, contig-level BLAST matched the longest assembled sequences (up to 1,905 bp) to sequences of concern at 97–100% identity. In one pool, assembly collapsed 1,634 individual BLAST results into 10 hits from a single contig, all assigned to the same source organism. PCA mode correctly distinguished assemblable from non-assemblable fragments within the same pool. Two pools with no assemblable structure yielded no contigs. OliGraph processed all pools in under 0.2 seconds, fast enough for real-time order screening and consistent with proposals to bring oligonucleotide orders within the scope of synthesis screening regulation.

Read More

Apr 27, 2026

BioRT-Bench: A Multi-Attack Red-Teaming Benchmark for Bio-Misuse Safeguards in Frontier LLMs

Frontier AI laboratories are expected to maintain safeguards against biological misuse, but whether deployed models actually refuse bio-misuse queries under adversarial pressure is largely unmeasured in the public literature. We introduce BioRT-Bench, a benchmark that runs four attack methods (direct request, PAIR, Crescendo, and base64 encoding) against four frontier models (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-5.4, DeepSeek V4-flash, Kimi K2.5) across 40 prompts spanning five biosecurity-relevant categories. Responses are scored by a calibrated judge extending StrongREJECT with two bio-specific dimensions: specificity and actionability. We measure Attack Success Rate (ASR), where 0 means the model fully refused and 1 means it provided specific, actionable bio-misuse content. Our results reveal a sharp robustness divide: Chinese frontier models (DeepSeek, Kimi) have under 5% refusal rates even under direct request (ASR 0.88 and 0.79), while Western models (Claude, GPT) maintain substantially stronger safeguards (ASR 0.15 and 0.16). Crescendo is the most effective attack across all models, both in bypassing refusal and in eliciting actionable content. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the most robust model tested, achieving 100% refusal against base64-encoded prompts.

Read More

This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.
This work was done during one weekend by research workshop participants and does not represent the work of Apart Research.