AI Security

AI Security Reviews

Independent security reviews for AI and LLM-powered features. We look at how prompts are constructed, how retrieval and tools are wired in, where sensitive data flows, and how the model supply chain is governed — mapped to the OWASP LLM Top 10 and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF).

Why teams engage us

Common reasons teams come to us

  • An enterprise buyer sent an AI security questionnaire and the team needs a defensible answer.
  • A new LLM-powered feature is close to launch and no independent security review has happened.
  • Prompt injection, data leakage, and abuse risk have been raised but not tested.
  • Foundation models, plugins, and tool integrations have expanded faster than the review process.
  • Leadership wants an internal AI risk and review process aligned to NIST AI RMF.
  • OWASP LLM Top 10 has been referenced in a customer contract or vendor security policy.

Talk through your scope, timeline, and customer pressure on a 30-minute call.

Who it's for
  • Product teams shipping LLM-powered chat, copilot, or agent features
  • SaaS and fintech companies embedding third-party foundation models
  • Teams answering customer AI security questionnaires
  • Security leaders establishing an internal AI risk and review process
What's included
  • OWASP LLM Top 10 review — prompt injection, insecure output handling, training data poisoning, model DoS, supply chain, sensitive info disclosure, insecure plugins, excessive agency, overreliance, model theft
  • NIST AI RMF (AI 100-1) alignment across Govern, Map, Measure, Manage
  • Prompt injection and jailbreak testing on user-facing surfaces
  • Data leakage review — training data, retrieval sources, embeddings, logs
  • Model supply chain review — providers, weights, plugins, tool use
  • Guardrail, evaluation, and abuse-monitoring design review
  • Customer-facing AI security narrative and questionnaire responses
Coverage

What an AI security review covers

OWASP LLM Top 10

Prompt injection, insecure output handling, sensitive info disclosure, excessive agency, and the rest of the Top 10.

NIST AI RMF alignment

Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage functions mapped to your AI development lifecycle.

Prompt injection & jailbreak testing

Hands-on adversarial testing against user-facing chat, copilot, and agent surfaces.

Data & retrieval flow review

Where sensitive data enters prompts, embeddings, retrieval sources, and model logs.

Model supply chain & tools

Foundation model providers, weights, plugins, function-calling, and tool integrations.

Guardrails & abuse monitoring

Evaluation, guardrail, and abuse-monitoring design so risk stays visible in production.

Benefits
  • Ship AI features with a defensible security posture, not vibes
  • Get ahead of enterprise AI security questionnaires and procurement blocks
  • Turn OWASP LLM Top 10 and NIST AI RMF into concrete engineering actions
  • Reduce prompt injection, data leakage, and third-party model risk
Typical outputs
  • AI architecture and data flow notes
  • Findings mapped to OWASP LLM Top 10 and NIST AI RMF
  • Prompt injection and abuse test results
  • Prioritized remediation and guardrail recommendations
Process

A clear path from scope to remediation

  1. 01

    Scope

    Identify AI features, models, data sources, retrieval, and tool integrations in scope.

  2. 02

    Map

    Diagram prompts, context, retrieval, tools, outputs, and downstream systems.

  3. 03

    Test

    Run prompt injection, data leakage, and abuse tests against user-facing surfaces.

  4. 04

    Assess

    Score against OWASP LLM Top 10 and NIST AI RMF, and rate business risk.

  5. 05

    Report

    Deliver findings, remediation, and customer-facing AI security narrative.

Next step

Need a clear view of your security gaps?

Start with a focused readiness call. We'll discuss your customer pressure, compliance goals, application risk, and the best next step.