AI & LLM APPLICATION SECURITY

Testing prompt injection resistance, RAG data leakage, autonomous agent permissions, and Generative AI application security.

Best suited forCustomer chatbots and internal assistants handling sensitive data
Primary outcomeAI-system threat model and trust-boundary diagram
ScopeDirect and Indirect Prompt Injection payload testing
Typical timingTiming depends on the number of systems, roles, environments, available documentation and agreed constraints.

Is this right for you?

When to choose this service

Customer chatbots and internal assistants handling sensitive dataRAG systems reading documents or customer contentAgents calling APIs, writing code or taking business actionsTeams before public AI-feature launch or a material model change

AI & LLM Assessment Vectors

  • Direct and Indirect Prompt Injection payload testing
  • RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) vector store authorization and tenant isolation
  • System prompt extraction, memory inspection, and sensitive data leakage mitigation
  • Autonomous AI agent privilege boundaries and downstream API execution control

What you receive

  • AI-system threat model and trust-boundary diagram
  • Abuse-case library with repeatable tests
  • Findings separating application defects, model limitations and governance gaps
  • OWASP LLM/GenAI and MITRE ATLAS mapping where relevant
  • Security requirements for agent permissions, RAG and data handling
  • AI security regression suite and retesting cadence

Delivery flow

From scope to a verified result

  1. Scope and safety boundaries. Confirm the objective, systems, roles, environment, exclusions, authorised actions and emergency stop contact.

  2. Information and access. Receive only the documentation, accounts, configuration or evidence needed for the work through a secure channel.

  3. AI & LLM Threat Modeling. We evaluate prompt injection risks, training data leakage, and model interface security controls.

  4. Validation and reporting. Confirm findings, remove false positives and connect each risk to business impact and an accountable owner.

  5. Workshop and follow-through. Explain priorities, answer delivery teams, agree remediation timing and perform a retest where included.

Before we start

Frequently asked questions

How long does an engagement usually take?

Timing depends on the number of systems, roles, environments, available documentation and agreed constraints. After initial information is received, the scope states the stages, customer involvement and a specific schedule.

What should we prepare before work starts?

Usually we need a system or process owner, current scope, access and test accounts, architecture or process information, critical business scenarios and an emergency contact. Never send passwords through a normal website form.

Will we receive only a technical report?

No. The standard output includes an executive summary, prioritised detail, evidence, remediation guidance and a results workshop. Where relevant, the engagement includes a retest or implementation roadmap.

Can we guarantee that a model will never disclose data?

No. Testing reduces known scenario risk and validates system controls, but model behaviour is not fully deterministic. Sensitive-data access must be restricted architecturally, tool actions constrained and real use monitored.

Is testing the public chat interface enough?

No. The assessment should also cover system prompts, RAG retrieval, document ingestion, model/API configuration, tool permissions, memory, logs, tenant isolation and downstream applications consuming model output.

Related next steps