Purpose
Establish controls that prevent adversarial misuse of models, prompts, tools, and outputs from compromising confidentiality, integrity, or availability—distinct from content-safety and responsible-AI harms covered in the Safety domain.
Mandatory checks
Gate controls. Each check is pass/fail via artifact + pass condition. Expected from the annotated capability level when the system meets the minimum criticality tier.
Untrusted input (including model-generated text) shall never authorize privileged tool or side-effect actions without server-side policy—so prompt injection and privilege escalation cannot bypass the control plane.
- Artifact
- Server-side policy mediating privileged tool/actions (not prompt-only) + Versioned injection/privilege-escalation corpus + CI gate report + Policy-engine deny sample logs or harness results (denyRatePct + modelTextPrivilegeGrants)
- Pass condition
- ≥95% of corpus cases that attempt privilege escalation via untrusted input are denied; 0 cases where model text alone granted a privileged tool call in the suite (measuredAt ≤90 days). If production AI cannot invoke tools or privileged side effects, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapPrevent untrusted model input from being treated as an authorization decision for privileged actions.
Threats mitigated
Prompt InjectionPrivilege EscalationExcessive AgencyUnauthorized Tool UseProtects
RuntimeToolsExternal SystemsIdentityMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0051 · ATLAS AML.T0051.000 · ATLAS AML.T0051.001 · ATLAS AML.T0054 · ATLAS AML.T0053
Direct and indirect prompt injection only produces impact when model output is trusted to authorize a privileged operation. Enforcing authorization server-side, independently of the model, removes the injected instruction's path to a privileged effect, and contains jailbreaks for the same reason.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
High-risk model outputs shall be schema-validated or policy-filtered before any write, irreversible, or financial side effect—so non-conforming output cannot drive privileged downstream actions.
- Artifact
- Coverage inventory of high-risk side-effect paths (write/irreversible/financial) + Schema or policy filter definitions applied before those side effects + Contract test results showing non-conforming output rejected on 100% of inventoried paths
- Pass condition
- 100% of high-risk side-effect paths (impact tier write/irreversible/financial) reject non-conforming model output in contract tests; coverage inventory lists every such path (measuredAt ≤90 days). If production AI cannot drive write, irreversible, or financial side effects, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapEnsure model output cannot cause side effects until it has been validated against an explicit schema or policy.
Threats mitigated
Prompt InjectionUnsafe Code ExecutionHallucinated ActionsTool AbuseHarmful Content GenerationProtects
RuntimeExternal SystemsDataUsersSafetyMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0051.001 · ATLAS AML.T0067 · ATLAS AML.T0077 · ATLAS AML.T0102 · ATLAS AML.T0050 · ATT&CK T1059
Schema validation and policy filtering break the link between manipulated model output and the downstream executor that acts on it. This blunts rendering and trusted-output-component manipulation, and prevents generated malicious commands from reaching an interpreter unchecked.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
Customer-facing releases shall run an abuse/jailbreak/injection security suite—with those case classes present—as a blocking gate, or record a time-boxed waiver (owner + expiry ≤30 days) when the gate does not pass.
- Artifact
- Abuse/jailbreak/injection suite definition covering those case classes + CI/release gate configuration that blocks promote on suite fail + Last 30 days of release reports showing gate=pass, or owned waivers (expiry ≤30 days)
- Pass condition
- 100% of production releases in the last 30 days show an abuse/jailbreak/injection suite gate = pass (suite must include those case classes), or a time-boxed waiver with owner and expiry ≤30 days (measuredAt ≤90 days). If no customer-facing / production AI releases exist, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapPrevent releases that regress the system's resistance to jailbreak, abuse, and injection.
Threats mitigated
Prompt InjectionJailbreakHarmful Content GenerationData ExfiltrationProtects
ModelsPromptsUsersSafetyMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0051 · ATLAS AML.T0054 · ATLAS AML.T0043 · ATLAS AML.T0068
Pre-release adversarial testing detects injection and jailbreak regressions before customers are exposed to them. Covering obfuscated and crafted adversarial inputs is what makes the gate meaningful rather than nominal. It is a release gate, not a runtime defence.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
Network and identity boundaries shall prevent the model/tool runtime path from becoming a universal proxy to internal systems—so the model identity reaches only allowlisted destinations and has 0 unrestricted routes to internal admin APIs or data stores.
- Artifact
- Architecture diagram of model/tool trust boundaries + Network policy or egress allowlist export for the model/tool runtime identity + Automated or reviewed probe results (allowlisted-only reachability; unrestricted internal admin/data-store routes = 0)
- Pass condition
- Automated or reviewed probe shows the model/tool runtime can reach only allowlisted destinations; 0 unrestricted routes to internal admin APIs or data stores from the model identity (measuredAt ≤90 days). If no model or tool runtime can initiate network calls, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapPrevent the model and agent path from becoming an unrestricted proxy into internal systems and networks.
Threats mitigated
Data ExfiltrationPrivilege EscalationPrompt InjectionTool AbuseProtects
NetworkInfrastructureExternal SystemsAPIsDataMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0025 · ATLAS AML.T0086 · ATLAS AML.T0072 · ATT&CK T1090 · ATT&CK T1041 · ATT&CK T1567
Egress and identity boundaries constrain where a compromised model path can send data or open a connection. This directly limits exfiltration over cyber means and via agent tool invocation and denies reverse-shell callbacks. It bounds reach; it does not prevent the initial injection.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
Evidence required
- Threat model covering LLM-specific attack paths
- Records of injection/jailbreak test suites and results
- Architecture diagram showing trust boundaries around model and tools
- Incident playbooks referencing AI-specific abuse scenarios
Recommended checks
Strengthen posture beyond the gate. Same measurable structure; non-blocking unless elevated by organizational policy.
Production systems that use multi-turn dialogue, RAG, or MCP should run a versioned red-team suite with ≥10 multi-turn and ≥10 indirect RAG/MCP injection cases—so single-turn jailbreak tests alone cannot claim coverage.
- Artifact
- Versioned red-team suite covering multi-turn and indirect RAG/MCP injection + Case counts (≥10 multi-turn, ≥10 indirect RAG/MCP) with documented pass thresholds + Latest scored run report ≤90 days with retention ≥90 days
- Pass condition
- Suite includes ≥10 multi-turn and ≥10 indirect RAG/MCP injection cases; latest run ≤90 days meets documented pass thresholds; report retained ≥90 days (measuredAt ≤90 days). If the system has no multi-turn, RAG, or MCP surfaces, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapValidate defences against multi-turn and retrieval-borne indirect prompt injection.
Threats mitigated
Prompt InjectionMemory PoisoningData ExfiltrationTool AbuseProtects
ContextMemoryToolsDataMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0051.001 · ATLAS AML.T0051.002 · ATLAS AML.T0070 · ATLAS AML.T0071 · ATLAS AML.T0066 · ATLAS AML.T0094
Indirect injection arrives through retrieved or tool-sourced content rather than the user turn, so single-turn testing misses it entirely. Exercising RAG and MCP paths surfaces poisoned-retrieval and delayed-trigger techniques before release.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
Where production AI accepts multimodal inputs (images, files, or similar), content-safety and malware scanners should run before model ingest—so unscanned media cannot reach the model path.
- Artifact
- Multimodal input content-safety and/or malware scanner config (pre-model-ingest) + Inventory of image/file types accepted in production + Latest CI or batch scan report ≤90 days showing type coverage and 0 unscanned production paths
- Pass condition
- Where multimodal inputs are accepted, scanner runs before model ingest; last report ≤90 days shows coverage of image/file types in use and 0 unscanned production paths (measuredAt ≤90 days). If multimodal inputs are not accepted, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapPrevent malicious or unsafe multimodal payloads from reaching the model or downstream systems.
Threats mitigated
Prompt InjectionHarmful Content GenerationUnsafe Code ExecutionSupply Chain CompromiseProtects
ModelsContextRuntimeUsersSafetyMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0051 · ATLAS AML.T0043 · ATLAS AML.T0068 · ATLAS AML.T0011
Images, audio, and documents can carry obfuscated instructions or adversarial perturbations that text-only filters never see. Scanning before ingest removes that delivery channel and blocks malware embedded in uploaded files.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
Sensitive AI contexts should have mechanisms to detect data exfiltration attempts—canary/honeytokens are one strong implementation; equivalent DLP, SIEM/UEBA, egress monitoring, or similar controls also satisfy when validated.
- Artifact
- Documented exfiltration-detection mechanism for sensitive AI contexts (mechanism class named) + Coverage of production-sensitive AI paths (inventory or mapping) + Latest validation ≤90 days (detection test, alert-rule exercise, or equivalent) with expected alerts / 0 silent misses
- Pass condition
- Sensitive AI contexts have a documented exfiltration-detection mechanism (canary/honeytoken, DLP, SIEM/UEBA, egress monitoring, or equivalent); latest validation ≤90 days shows expected detection/alerts for covered paths with 0 silent misses in the validation suite or review (measuredAt ≤90 days). If no sensitive AI contexts exist, score NOT_APPLICABLE.
Why this control exists
Threat mapDetect attempts to exfiltrate sensitive data through AI request and response paths.
Threats mitigated
Data ExfiltrationSensitive Information DisclosureSecret LeakagePrompt InjectionProtects
DataSecretsContextLogsMITRE: ATLAS AML.T0024 · ATLAS AML.T0057 · ATLAS AML.T0056 · ATLAS AML.T0025 · ATLAS AML.T0086 · ATT&CK T1041 · ATT&CK T1567
Monitoring the model path detects inference-API and agent-tool data egress that conventional DLP does not observe, because the data leaves as generated text rather than as a file transfer. The control is detective, so it shortens dwell time rather than preventing the attempt.
Informative threat context — mappings reduce exposure and do not guarantee mitigation; not certification.
More detailPhilosophy, failures, practices, validations, examples, crosswalks, and evolution
Engineering philosophy
Treat the model as an untrusted co-processor inside a zero-trust boundary. Security controls belong in the application and platform layers—never solely in prompt wording. Defense in depth spans input validation, output filtering, tool mediation, identity, and runtime isolation.
Why it matters
AI surfaces expand the attack surface: prompt injection, data exfiltration via tools, jailbreaks, model theft, and poisoned retrieval. A chatbot that 'mostly works' can still become an incident response event when an attacker turns natural language into a privileged API.
Common failures
- Relying on system prompts alone to enforce security policy
- Passing untrusted retrieval or user content into privileged tool contexts
- Logging full prompts/completions that contain secrets or PII
- No output schema enforcement—free-form text executes downstream logic
- Missing abuse rate limits distinct from normal product quotas
Severity & risk
- Severity
- critical
- Impact if violated
- Risk level
- critical
- Typical residual risk (impact × likelihood)
Engineering best practices
- Separate instruction channels from data channels; never concatenate untrusted data into system instructions without mediation
- Apply least privilege to every tool and retrieval corpus the model can touch
- Fail closed on policy violations; prefer refusal over silent degradation for security decisions
- Version and review security policies the same way you review firewall rules
Automatic validations
- CI security tests for known injection payloads against critical flows
- Runtime policy engines rejecting disallowed tool calls
- Schema validation on structured model outputs
- Anomaly detection on tool-call volume and destination
Manual validations
- Periodic adversarial review of new tools and prompts
- Architecture review of trust boundaries before Level 3 launch
- Tabletop exercises for data-exfiltration via the AI path
Examples
- A support agent refuses to call refund APIs when the refund amount exceeds policy, regardless of user phrasing
- RAG documents containing 'ignore previous instructions' cannot elevate privileges
- MCP servers expose only scoped tools with server-side authorization independent of the model
References
Crosswalks
Show 31 peer mappingsexpandcollapse
Secure & Resilient Secure and Resilient
NIST AI Risk Management Framework · aligns-with
Annex A AI system controls (selected themes)
ISO/IEC 42001 · partial
LLM01 Prompt Injection
OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · supports
LLM05 Improper Output Handling
OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · supports
LLM07 System Prompt Leakage
OWASP Top 10 for Large Language Model Applications · aligns-with
C2.1 Prompt Injection Defenses
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C2.2 Content & Policy Screening
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C5.1 Authentication
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · aligns-with
C7.1 Output Format Enforcement
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C7.2 Hallucination Detection & Mitigation
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C7.3 Output Safety
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C7.4 Source Attribution & Citation Integrity
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · aligns-with
C9.3 Component Isolation and Tool Authorization
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C10.1 Component Integrity
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C10.2 Authentication & Authorization
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C10.3 Secure Transport
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C10.4 Schema, Message, and Input Validation
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C11.1 Model Alignment, Safety, and Robustness Testing and Training
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
C11.2 Membership-Inference and Model-Inversion Mitigation
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C11.3 Model-Extraction Defense
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · partial
C11.4 Model Runtime Anomaly Detection
OWASP AI Application Security Verification Standard (AISVS) · supports
CWE-22 Path Traversal
OpenCRE (Open Common Requirements Enumeration) · partial
CWE-502 Deserialization of Untrusted Data
OpenCRE (Open Common Requirements Enumeration) · partial
CWE-78 OS Command Injection
OpenCRE (Open Common Requirements Enumeration) · aligns-with
CWE-79 Cross-site Scripting (XSS)
OpenCRE (Open Common Requirements Enumeration) · partial
L1 Foundation Models
CSA MAESTRO (Multi-Agentic Threat Model) · supports
L6 Security & Compliance
CSA MAESTRO (Multi-Agentic Threat Model) · supports
emergent-covert-coordination Emergent Covert Coordination
CSA MAESTRO (Multi-Agentic Threat Model) · aligns-with
heterogeneous-multi-agent-exploits Heterogeneous Multi-Agent Exploits
CSA MAESTRO (Multi-Agentic Threat Model) · aligns-with
CC9 Risk Mitigation
SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria · evidence-for
Security Security
AWS Well-Architected Framework · aligns-with
Future evolution
Expect standardized machine-readable AI threat taxonomies, portable policy packs across providers, and attestation of model-path controls analogous to cloud security posture management.