.svg)
AI is already in production across your stack. But in most orgs, no one’s really testing those models for security. Not with the same discipline you’d use for code, infra, or APIs.
The thing is, attackers are testing them this very moment that you’re reading this. Prompt injection, model inversion, data leakage, and jailbreaks are already happening. And if you’re not running real tests against your models, you won’t see the risks until something breaks.
Most security teams are still treating AI models like black boxes. They run tests on the app, scan the APIs, maybe check the auth controls, and assume the model is covered. It’s not. And that’s a problem, because the model is where the most critical, least understood risks live.
When someone jailbreaks an LLM or injects malicious prompts into your app, they’re also manipulating how the model interprets and responds to input. Here’s what you’re dealing with:
These attacks don’t show up in your DAST reports. They won’t trigger an alert in your WAF. And they aren’t caught by testing the inputs and outputs of the surrounding application.
You can’t treat the model like a backend service. AI doesn’t fail the way traditional software does. It behaves unexpectedly. The same input can generate different outputs based on temperature settings, prompt formatting, or context length. And that unpredictability is exactly what attackers test.
If you’re only testing at the edges (the API layer, the request handler, or the input sanitization), you’re blind to how the model will actually behave when exploited.
You need direct interaction. Red-teaming the model. Adversarial prompts. Behavioral probes. Full-stack model testing that goes beyond regression checks or output validation.
The OWASP LLM Top 10 gives you a solid foundation. It outlines categories like data leakage, insecure output handling, and model denial-of-service. That’s useful, but it’s not a testing plan. It doesn’t cover how your specific model behaves, where your fine-tuning introduced new risks, or what happens when real users push the limits.
What’s missing in most teams today is structured and model-aware testing. You need to:
That’s how you learn what the model will actually do, and where it breaks down.
Most AI testing today stops at the surface. Teams feed in a few prompts, check for bad outputs, maybe scan for banned keywords, and call it a pass. That’s not how attackers operate. Real threats don’t come from simple inputs, but from abusive sequences, impersonation tricks, and multi-turn manipulation.
Attackers don’t use your model the way your product team expects. They craft prompts to extract internal instructions, impersonate roles, or escalate trust boundaries. And they chain requests in ways your prompt filters aren’t ready for.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
Security teams need to think like attackers. That means running structured adversarial prompt tests against the model itself. You’re not just checking what a model says, but also probing how it can be manipulated.
Techniques to focus on include:
This type of testing reveals what your prompt guardrails actually block and what still gets through.
Generic tests are a weak defense. If you’re building a fintech chatbot, you need to simulate abuse scenarios that target financial workflows, impersonate account roles, or extract transaction data. If it’s a customer service agent, test for ways to escalate, leak internal policy, or bypass identity checks.
Start building a curated library of test cases based on:
Use this as your baseline for model-level red teaming. Run these tests with every major prompt update, model retrain, or fine-tune.
Static prompt testing shows you what a model does in isolation. Abuse simulation shows you how it behaves under pressure. If you’re serious about securing AI systems, this is the layer you need to validate. Because attackers already know how to simulate abuse.
Every time you retrain, fine-tune, or push new data into a model, the risk profile shifts. It might be subtle. It might not show up in immediate outputs. But it happens. And not validating those changes before deployment is the same as introducing vulnerabilities that weren’t there last week.
Model drift isn’t just about accuracy loss. It affects behavior. A prompt that was safe last version might leak context in the next. A patched injection route can reopen with a slight shift in token weighting. Your entire trust boundary depends on how the model reasons, and that reasoning can change with every update.
Drift introduces:
If you’re retraining models without a review gate, you’re skipping the same kind of control that exists for every other core component in your stack. You wouldn’t deploy a new backend service without testing. Updated models should be no different.
Here’s what that gate should include:
Treat model deployments like you treat code: test, review, and stage them before they go live.
You need full version control for models, just as you do for code. That means:
Set up baseline response sets for key scenarios, then run those baselines against each update. If the model starts behaving differently, that’s a red flag and not something to find out in production.
Security testing at launch isn’t enough. With every update, every fine-tune, every retrain, the rules change. You need to treat AI systems like dynamic infrastructure: monitored, validated, and version-controlled.
No one deploys production cloud infrastructure without testing how it holds up under attack. You simulate privilege escalation, data exfiltration, misconfigurations, and control bypasses before anything goes live. Your AI models should be no different. Because just like infrastructure, they are exposed. And they will be targeted.
Static reviews won’t show you how a model behaves when someone’s trying to break it. AI-specific red teaming is about controlled and intentional misuse. It’s not to break the system, but to find where it bends.
Here’s what that looks like in practice:
This isn’t your generic fuzzing. It’s targeted abuse, designed to mimic how adversaries exploit system logic.
You don’t need to guess what to test. Both NIST AI Risk Management Framework and MITRE ATLAS provide structured ways to think about adversarial behavior.
Many teams rely on model hardening guides, prompt filters, and wrapper logic as their entire defense. And that’s not enough. These controls can be bypassed. They give a false sense of security unless they’re stress-tested.
Red teaming tells you if those defenses hold up, or if the model is just behaving during friendly use.
Make red teaming part of your AI release cycle:
Secure a cloud environment by testing it. Your AI systems deserve the same operational discipline. Make offensive testing part of your standard AI deployment pipeline.
If testing happens after deployment or outside the CI pipeline, it’s already late. By then, the model is exposed and behavior is locked in. If you want predictable outcomes and fewer surprises, security has to shift left and built into how models are trained, validated, and shipped.
Just like application teams run tests during builds, your AI team needs integrated validation for model changes. That means security checks that run automatically every time a model is trained, fine-tuned, or versioned.
Start with automation like this:
Not every model needs the same level of scrutiny. A customer-facing LLM that handles financial workflows deserves tighter controls than an internal summarizer. Start by classifying models based on exposure and function.
Define tiers like:
For each tier, assign minimum test coverage:
Automated gates should block promotion if a Tier 1 model fails a critical test.
You don’t need to build everything from scratch. Platforms like SecurityReview.ai allow you to embed LLM testing into your development cycle using the docs, diagrams, and artifacts your team already produces. It pulls from Confluence, Slack, architecture files, and more to model risks without forcing a new workflow.
If you’re building in-house:
The goal is full coverage without overhead. Developers should never have to leave their flow to trigger security reviews.
Model development is fast. So your testing needs to keep up. Automation is how you scale security without becoming a bottleneck. When validation is part of delivery, nothing gets skipped. You catch regressions early. And you reduce risk without adding process debt.
They’ll come from assumptions. Assuming a model behaves the same way after fine-tuning. Assuming guardrails work across languages. Assuming testing the wrapper is enough.
The bigger risk is treating AI security like a one-time task. The threat surface shifts every time a model is retrained, re-prompted, or reused in a new flow. And risk builds up quietly if your testing doesn’t evolve with it.
Soon, model governance will stop being optional. You’ll need audit trails for prompt logic, behavior diffs across versions, and a clear record of how models were tested before deployment. The regulators are already watching. And so are your customers.
Treat model security with the same maturity you apply to your cloud stack. Not just for coverage, but for credibility.
we45 helps teams integrate AI security testing into their SDLC, from red teaming LLMs to validating RAG pipelines and building audit-ready controls. If you’re deploying GenAI in production, we can help you secure it without slowing your team down. Let’s talk.
AI model security testing evaluates how machine learning models, especially large language models (LLMs), respond to malicious inputs, misuse, or logic abuse. It matters because models are increasingly deployed in production without visibility into how they behave under real-world attack conditions. Without testing, organizations risk data leakage, policy violations, or model compromise.
Traditional AppSec focuses on code, APIs, and infrastructure. AI security targets how models process input, generate output, and maintain boundaries. Attacks like prompt injection, model inversion, and jailbreaks are specific to model logic and cannot be detected with standard vulnerability scans.
Prompt injections manipulate how a model interprets instructions, often overriding system prompts or safety constraints. This can lead to unauthorized actions, data leakage, or harmful outputs. These attacks are subtle and require direct model-level testing to detect.
You must test the model itself. Many critical risks emerge inside the model’s reasoning, not at the API or wrapper level. Testing only the surrounding application leaves the actual decision logic unverified and exposed.
Common abuse simulations include: Prompt chaining to bypass restrictions Context leakage of system instructions or user data Impersonation of roles through language manipulation Policy bypass via indirect phrasing or multi-turn prompts These are used in red-team exercises to uncover behavior under adversarial conditions.
Security testing should be triggered with every model update, retraining, or configuration change. Model behavior can drift over time, reopening previously mitigated risks. Regular validation ensures consistency and control.
Use the OWASP LLM Top 10 as a baseline for risk categories. For deeper adversary simulation, the MITRE ATLAS framework maps tactics, techniques, and procedures specific to AI systems. NIST AI RMF helps structure governance and testing rigor.
You can embed testing tools that scan prompts, validate system instructions, and run regression suites against LLM outputs. Platforms like SecurityReview.ai integrate into model pipelines using existing documentation and version control. Model tiering and tagging also allow automated enforcement based on business risk.
Model drift occurs when the behavior of an AI model changes due to retraining, fine-tuning, or new data. This can reintroduce hallucinations, logic gaps, or previously fixed vulnerabilities. Drift detection and behavior diffing are essential to maintain secure operations.
Ownership depends on maturity. In most organizations, AppSec teams are best positioned to own model security because they already manage risk in the SDLC. However, they will need tools and training specific to AI threat surfaces.
