AI Bugs Hide in New Paths
Traditional scanners miss prompt injection, unsafe output handling, retrieval abuse, model misuse, and agent tool paths.
Buyer fear
We are missing AI-specific vulnerabilities because our tools were built for older app patterns.
Primary service
AI Red Team & Adversarial Testing
Supporting services
Best for
Why This Matters
The business and security pressure.
Traditional scanners miss the paths AI systems actually use. Attack testing has to follow prompts, retrieval, tools, and generated artifacts.
Review Surfaces
Systems and surfaces in scope.
Listed surfaces are common review targets, not partnership, certification, or endorsement claims. Marketplace readiness support does not replace official review.
Common Failure Modes
What usually breaks.
Prompt injection is treated as a text issue
Unsafe output handling is ignored
Retrieval poisoning slips through
Generated code and artifact paths are never tested
What We Do
The work mapped to the service path.
Run AI-specific red-team tests across prompts, tools, repos, artifacts, generated code, retrieval flows, extensions, binaries, and agent workflows
Find abuse paths traditional scanners miss
Convert findings into remediation and retest plans
Package evidence for buyers and stakeholders
Workbench Instruments
Products used to deliver or demonstrate the work.
Deliverables Produced
Artifacts buyers can inspect.
AI Attack Path Report
Prompt Injection Findings Register
Tool Abuse Findings
Artifact Risk Report
Remediation Roadmap
What Good Looks Like
Concrete outcomes.
Abuse paths are reproducible
Findings map to real business impact
Fixes can be retested
Evidence is safe to share
Related services
Related research
Caveat
Based on analyzed job-description signals and scoped engagement evidence, not proof of any individual company's internal security maturity.
Turn this brief into scoped work.
The CTA follows the primary service path so the next step is commercially clear.