AI security assessment

We assess the potential for information leaks and misuse of permissions when AI is introduced and operated,
and recommend improvements aligned with personal data processing and internal security requirements.

Assessment standard · OWASP AITGEnquire about a project

What we assess

AI that searches internal documents
When you need to verify that the retrieval and use of RAG-connected documents respects user permissions.
Agents that carry out business tasks
When introducing or extending AI capabilities that call APIs or change data.
Chatbots that process external inputs
When you need to test whether instructions in user messages or uploaded documents bypass the AI’s security restrictions.

Reports and remediation recommendations

Threat scenarios and assessment scope
We document threat scenarios and assessment scope based on the model, RAG and agent architecture.
Evidence of inputs, responses and tool calls
We organise records from attack inputs through to responses and tool execution to provide the basis for our findings.
Repetition conditions and improvements
We document the model, settings, number of repetitions, observations and assessment limitations, and recommend improvements to permission, data and tool controls.

Detailed assessment scope

OWASP AITG guides our review of the connections and permissions across models, RAG and agents.

Direct and indirect prompt injection
We examine how user inputs, as well as external documents and content read by AI, may be interpreted as instructions.
Information disclosure and permission separation
Using test data, we check whether documents, internal information or system prompts are exposed without authorisation.
Tool calls and repeated testing
We check whether tool execution exceeds user permissions or the permitted scope. We repeat the same scenarios and record response differences and the conditions for success and failure.
Indirect prompt injection test scenario

This example assumes an AI system with internal document search and business API calling capabilities. We test each stage, from external input to execution results.

  1. 01 / INPUT

    External document

    We examine how the AI handles malicious instructions embedded in retrieved documents.

  2. 02 / OBSERVE

    Responses and tool calls

    We check whether the AI uses material it is not authorised to access in its answers or calls APIs outside the permitted scope.

  3. 03 / RECORD

    Repetition conditions and evaluation

    We record the model, settings, inputs, number of repetitions and response differences, then evaluate the results against predefined criteria.

  4. 04 / RETEST

    Remediation and retesting

    After document access permissions and tool execution controls have been improved, we retest under the agreed conditions.

Items recorded in the report

Input and document identifiers / Model and settings / Responses and tool calls / Number of repetitions / Evaluation evidence / Recommendations

Project information

Preparation
We review the AI’s purpose, the connections between the model, RAG and tools, user roles and test accounts. Test data is prepared instead of real customer information.
Scope, schedule and quotation
We prepare a proposal after discussing the functions, data and tools in scope, the number of tests and the cost limit.
Execution controls
We test within the authorised environment and scope. Permissions for data changes, external transfers and paid tool calls, as well as stopping criteria, are agreed in advance.
Results briefing
We review records from inputs through to answers and tool execution with the developers responsible and discuss where controls should be applied.
Retesting
We agree on the remediation items, schedule and repetition conditions. If the model or settings change, we first establish the conditions under which results can be compared with earlier findings.
ANONYMISED / SAMPLE REPORT
FELSEN SECURITY / WEB ASSESSMENT

Security assessment
Sample report

An anonymised Korean-language excerpt following the format of an actual security assessment report. Client identifiers have been removed, and omitted passages are marked in the document.

Executive summary
Summarises the distribution of vulnerabilities and remediation priorities.
Scope and methodology
Specifies the assessment targets, validation methods and scope.
Detailed analysis excerpts
Explains missing HSTS headers and input format validation with sample responses.
Remediation guidance
Sets out the impact of vulnerabilities and the improvements required.

Korean · PDF · 8 pages · 739 KB

Anonymised and reconstructed from past assessment work. This does not describe a client’s current security status or confirm that remediation is complete.

PRIVACY NOTE

How inquiry information is handled

This site’s inquiry form does not send your entries to its own server or store them in browser storage. We do not use analytics tools or marketing cookies.

The email button opens your email app. You send the message yourself from that app. Include only the information needed for your inquiry, and do not send passwords, access tokens or actual client data.

Copying your inquiry and saving files take place on your device when you press the relevant button. The hosting provider may process connection information needed to operate the service.

For inquiries and requests to delete information: mingi.hong@gainge.com