| # Assessment Dimensions | |
| This document outlines the key security dimensions evaluated within the AISecForge framework. Each dimension represents a distinct aspect of AI system security that requires specialized testing approaches and evaluation criteria. | |
| ## 1. Linguistic Pattern Exploitation | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates a model's vulnerability to linguistically sophisticated structures designed to bypass security measures through semantic manipulation, obfuscation, or novel linguistic formulations. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Semantic Obfuscation**: Testing for vulnerability to meaning-preserving transformations that evade detection | |
| - **Multi-language Injection**: Assessing resistance to instructions embedded across multiple languages | |
| - **Nested Instruction Manipulation**: Evaluating vulnerability to hierarchically structured prompts | |
| - **Interpretative Framing Exploitation**: Testing susceptibility to reframing of harmful requests | |
| - **Temporal Context Manipulation**: Assessing vulnerability to historically constructed attack patterns | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can allow attackers to bypass content policies, extract sensitive information, or manipulate model behavior through sophisticated linguistic techniques that evade detection systems. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing in this dimension employs a variety of linguistic transformation techniques, measuring model responses against baseline controls to identify security degradation resulting from linguistic manipulations. | |
| ## 2. Contextual Boundary Testing | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension assesses a model's ability to maintain appropriate behavioral boundaries under various contextual pressures, including role-playing scenarios, authority invocation, ethical dilemmas, and emergency situations. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Role-based Constraint Testing**: Evaluating boundary maintenance within role-playing scenarios | |
| - **Authority Figure Impersonation**: Testing susceptibility to requests framed as coming from authority sources | |
| - **Persona Manipulation**: Assessing vulnerability to character-based constraint circumvention | |
| - **Ethical Scenario Boundary Testing**: Evaluating model behavior in ethically ambiguous situations | |
| - **Emergency Situation Simulation**: Testing boundary maintenance under simulated emergency contexts | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can lead to inappropriate model behavior in specific contexts, potentially resulting in harmful outputs, unauthorized actions, or disclosure of sensitive information when contextual pressure is applied. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs contextual framing techniques, systematically increasing pressure on model boundaries while measuring adherence to security constraints across various scenarios. | |
| ## 3. System Prompt Extraction | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates a model's resistance to attempts to reveal underlying system instructions, operational parameters, or training directives through various extraction techniques. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Indirect Revelation Techniques**: Testing for vulnerability to oblique questioning that reveals system directives | |
| - **Token Prediction Exploitation**: Assessing susceptibility to attacks leveraging prediction mechanics | |
| - **Comparative Response Analysis**: Evaluating vulnerability to differential analysis of responses | |
| - **System Instruction Reconstruction**: Testing resistance to systematic reconstruction of instructions | |
| - **Parameter Inference Methods**: Assessing vulnerability to techniques that infer system parameters | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can lead to exposure of proprietary system instructions, enabling more effective attacks by revealing model constraints, training directives, or operational parameters. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs systematic extraction attempts with progressive refinement, measuring information leakage against known system instructions to quantify extraction success. | |
| ## 4. Multi-turn Vulnerability Assessment | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates security degradation across extended interactions, assessing how model boundaries, restrictions, and safeguards hold up over multiple conversation turns. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Progressive Boundary Erosion**: Testing for gradual weakening of security boundaries over time | |
| - **Context Window Manipulation**: Assessing vulnerability to context window poisoning or overflow | |
| - **Memory Exploitation**: Evaluating susceptibility to attacks leveraging model memory mechanisms | |
| - **Conversation Flow Redirection**: Testing vulnerability to subtle conversation steering techniques | |
| - **Trust Building Exploitation**: Assessing vulnerability to attacks that establish trust before exploitation | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can enable attackers to circumvent security measures through persistent interaction, potentially achieving actions or outputs that would be refused in single-turn interactions. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs extended conversation scenarios with progressive attack sophistication, measuring security degradation over time against single-turn baseline security levels. | |
| ## 5. Multimodal Attack Vectors | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates security across different input modalities, assessing how vulnerabilities may manifest when leveraging images, audio, code, or document inputs in addition to text. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Image-based Prompt Injection**: Testing for vulnerability to instructions embedded in images | |
| - **Audio Instruction Embedding**: Assessing susceptibility to audio-based attack vectors | |
| - **Code-based Vulnerability Introduction**: Evaluating security in code interpretation contexts | |
| - **Document-embedded Attack Patterns**: Testing vulnerability to attacks hidden in document structure | |
| - **Cross-modal Transfer Attacks**: Assessing vulnerability to attacks that transition across modalities | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can enable attackers to bypass text-focused security measures by leveraging alternative input modalities, potentially achieving harmful outputs or actions through these channels. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs multimodal inputs containing embedded attack patterns, measuring response differences between text-only and multimodal variants of equivalent attacks. | |
| ## 6. Tool Use Security | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates security in the context of AI system tool use capabilities, assessing vulnerabilities related to external system access, API interactions, and function calling mechanisms. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Tool Selection Manipulation**: Testing for vulnerability in the tool selection process | |
| - **Parameter Injection**: Assessing susceptibility to malicious parameter manipulation | |
| - **Function Call Hijacking**: Evaluating vulnerability to redirection of function calls | |
| - **Tool Output Interpretation**: Testing security of tool output processing | |
| - **Tool Chaining Vulnerabilities**: Assessing security in sequences of tool operations | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can enable attackers to leverage AI system tool use capabilities to perform unauthorized actions, access sensitive systems, or manipulate external resources in harmful ways. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs crafted inputs designed to manipulate tool use behavior, measuring divergence from authorized and intended tool operations across various scenarios. | |
| ## 7. Recovery & Remediation Assessment | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates a model's ability to recover from security failures, recognize exploitation attempts, and implement appropriate remediation actions when vulnerabilities are exploited. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Attack Recognition**: Assessing ability to identify exploitation attempts in progress | |
| - **Conversation Reset Mechanisms**: Testing effectiveness of security reset procedures | |
| - **Exploit Mitigation**: Evaluating ability to prevent further exploitation after detection | |
| - **Resilience to Repeated Attacks**: Testing robustness against persistent attack attempts | |
| - **Remediation Notification**: Assessing communication of security issues to users | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can prevent effective recovery from security breaches, potentially extending impact when exploitation occurs and reducing system resilience against persistent attacks. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs successful exploitation followed by remediation attempts, measuring recovery efficacy and persistent vulnerability after initial security failures. | |
| ## 8. Authorization & Authentication Boundaries | |
| ### Definition | |
| This dimension evaluates a model's ability to maintain appropriate boundaries around user identification, authorization levels, and access controls within conversations or across sessions. | |
| ### Key Testing Areas | |
| - **Identity Confusion Exploitation**: Testing for vulnerability to user identity manipulation | |
| - **Permission Inheritance**: Assessing susceptibility to unauthorized permission acquisition | |
| - **Session Boundary Enforcement**: Evaluating maintenance of security across session boundaries | |
| - **Authorization Level Manipulation**: Testing resistance to attempts to elevate privileges | |
| - **Authentication Bypass Techniques**: Assessing vulnerability to authentication circumvention | |
| ### Security Implications | |
| Weaknesses in this dimension can enable unauthorized access to features, data, or capabilities restricted to specific users or roles, potentially compromising system security policies. | |
| ### Assessment Approach | |
| Testing employs identity and authorization manipulation techniques, measuring access control enforcement against defined authorization boundaries and policies. | |
| --- | |
| ## Dimensional Interaction Analysis | |
| While each dimension can be tested individually, security vulnerabilities often span multiple dimensions. The AISecForge framework includes cross-dimensional analysis to identify compound vulnerabilities that emerge from the interaction of weaknesses across different dimensions. | |
| Key interaction patterns include: | |
| 1. **Linguistic + Contextual**: Using sophisticated linguistic patterns within specific contextual frames | |
| 2. **Multi-turn + System Prompt**: Leveraging extended conversations to extract system instructions | |
| 3. **Multimodal + Tool Use**: Employing non-text inputs to manipulate tool use behavior | |
| 4. **Authorization + Recovery**: Exploiting authentication weaknesses to prevent effective remediation | |
| For implementation details on testing each dimension, refer to the dimension-specific methodology documents in the [dimensions directory](dimensions/). | |