Red Team Operations: Structure, Methodology & Execution Framework
This document outlines a comprehensive approach to structuring, executing, and documenting adversarial red team operations for AI systems, with specific focus on language models and generative AI security assessment.
Foundational Framework
Core Red Team Principles
Red team operations are guided by five core principles:
- Adversarial Mindset: Adopting an attacker's perspective to identify vulnerabilities
- Structured Methodology: Following systematic processes for comprehensive assessment
- Realistic Simulation: Creating authentic attack scenarios that mirror real threats
- Evidence-Based Results: Generating actionable, well-documented findings
- Ethical Operation: Conducting testing within appropriate ethical and legal boundaries
Red Team Objectives
Core goals that drive effective red team operations:
| Objective | Description | Implementation Approach | Success Indicators |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Discovery | Identify security weaknesses | Systematic attack simulation | Number and severity of findings |
| Defense Evaluation | Assess control effectiveness | Control bypass testing | Defense effectiveness metrics |
| Risk Quantification | Measure security risk | Structured risk assessment | Evidence-based risk scores |
| Security Enhancement | Drive security improvements | Finding-based remediation | Security posture improvement |
| Threat Intelligence | Generate threat insights | Systematic attack analysis | Actionable threat information |
Red Team Operational Structure
1. Team Composition
Optimal structure for effective red team operations:
| Role | Responsibilities | Expertise Requirements | Team Integration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Red Team Lead | Overall operation coordination | Security leadership, AI expertise, testing methodology | Reports to security leadership, coordinates all team activities |
| AI Security Specialist | AI-specific attack execution | Deep AI security knowledge, model exploitation expertise | Works closely with lead on attack design, executes specialized attacks |
| Attack Engineer | Technical attack implementation | Programming skills, tool development, automation expertise | Develops custom tools, automates testing, implements attack chains |
| Documentation Specialist | Comprehensive finding documentation | Technical writing, evidence collection, risk assessment | Ensures complete documentation, contributes to risk assessment |
| Ethics Advisor | Ethical oversight | Ethics, legal requirements, responsible testing | Provides ethical guidance, ensures responsible testing |
2. Operational Models
Different approaches to red team implementation:
| Model | Description | Best For | Implementation Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dedicated Red Team | Permanent team focused exclusively on adversarial testing | Large organizations with critical AI deployments | Requires substantial resource commitment, develops specialized expertise |
| Rotating Membership | Core team with rotating specialists | Organizations with diverse AI deployments | Balances specialized expertise with fresh perspectives, requires good knowledge management |
| Tiger Team | Time-limited, focused red team operations | Specific security assessments, pre-release testing | Intensive resource usage for limited time, clear scoping essential |
| Purple Team | Combined offensive and defensive testing | Organizations prioritizing immediate remediation | Accelerates remediation cycle, may reduce finding independence |
| External Augmentation | Internal team supplemented by external experts | Organizations seeking independent validation | Combines internal knowledge with external perspectives, requires careful onboarding |
3. Operational Lifecycle
The complete lifecycle of red team activities:
| Phase | Description | Key Activities | Deliverables |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning | Operation preparation and design | Scope definition, threat modeling, attack planning | Test plan, threat model, rules of engagement |
| Reconnaissance | Information gathering and analysis | Target analysis, vulnerability research, capability mapping | Reconnaissance report, attack surface map |
| Execution | Active testing and exploitation | Vulnerability testing, attack chain execution, evidence collection | Testing logs, evidence documentation |
| Analysis | Finding examination and risk assessment | Vulnerability confirmation, impact assessment, risk quantification | Analysis report, risk assessment |
| Reporting | Communication of findings and recommendations | Report development, presentation preparation, remediation guidance | Comprehensive report, executive summary, remediation plan |
| Feedback | Post-operation learning and improvement | Methodology assessment, tool evaluation, process improvement | Lessons learned document, methodology enhancements |
Methodology Framework
1. Threat Modeling
Structured approach to identifying relevant threats:
| Activity | Description | Methods | Outputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threat Actor Profiling | Identify relevant adversaries | Actor capability analysis, motivation assessment | Threat actor profiles |
| Attack Scenario Development | Create realistic attack scenarios | Scenario workshop, historical analysis | Attack scenario catalog |
| Attack Vector Identification | Identify relevant attack vectors | Attack tree analysis, STRIDE methodology | Attack vector inventory |
| Impact Assessment | Evaluate potential attack impact | Business impact analysis, risk modeling | Impact assessment document |
| Threat Prioritization | Prioritize threats for testing | Risk-based prioritization, likelihood assessment | Prioritized threat list |
2. Attack Planning
Developing effective attack approaches:
| Activity | Description | Methods | Outputs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attack Strategy Development | Design overall attack approach | Strategy workshop, attack path mapping | Attack strategy document |
| Attack Vector Selection | Select specific vectors for testing | Vector prioritization, coverage analysis | Selected vector inventory |
| Attack Chain Design | Design multi-step attack sequences | Attack chain mapping, dependency analysis | Attack chain diagrams |
| Success Criteria Definition | Define what constitutes success | Criteria workshop, objective setting | Success criteria document |
| Resource Allocation | Assign resources to attack components | Resource planning, capability mapping | Resource allocation plan |
3. Execution Protocol
Standardized approach to test execution:
| Protocol Element | Description | Implementation | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testing Sequence | Order and structure of test execution | Phased testing approach, dependency management | Test sequence document |
| Evidence Collection | Approach to gathering proof | Systematic evidence capture, chain of custody | Evidence collection guide |
| Finding Validation | Process for confirming findings | Validation methodology, confirmation testing | Validation protocol |
| Communication Protocol | Team communication during testing | Communication channels, status updates | Communication guide |
| Contingency Handling | Managing unexpected situations | Issue escalation, contingency protocols | Contingency playbook |
4. Documentation Standards
Requirements for comprehensive documentation:
| Documentation Element | Content Requirements | Format | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finding Documentation | Detailed description of each vulnerability | Structured finding template | Comprehensive vulnerability record |
| Evidence Repository | Collected proof of vulnerabilities | Organized evidence storage | Substantiation of findings |
| Attack Narrative | Description of attack execution | Narrative document with evidence links | Contextual understanding of attacks |
| Risk Assessment | Evaluation of finding severity and impact | Structured risk assessment format | Prioritization guidance |
| Remediation Guidance | Recommendations for addressing findings | Actionable recommendation format | Security enhancement |
5. Reporting Framework
Structured approach to communicating results:
| Report Element | Content | Audience | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive Summary | High-level findings and implications | Leadership, stakeholders | Strategic understanding |
| Technical Findings | Detailed vulnerability documentation | Security team, development | Technical remediation |
| Risk Assessment | Finding severity and impact analysis | Security leadership, risk management | Risk understanding and prioritization |
| Attack Narratives | Stories of successful attack chains | Security team, development | Attack understanding |
| Remediation Recommendations | Specific guidance for addressing findings | Security team, development | Security enhancement |
Attack Vector Framework
1. Prompt Injection Vectors
Approaches for testing prompt injection vulnerabilities:
| Vector Category | Description | Testing Methodology | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Direct Instruction Injection | Attempts to directly override system instructions | Multiple direct injection variants | System instruction override |
| Indirect Manipulation | Subtle manipulation to influence behavior | Progressive manipulation techniques | Behavior manipulation without direct injection |
| Context Manipulation | Using context to influence interpretation | Context building techniques | Context-driven behavior change |
| Format Exploitation | Using formatting to hide instructions | Format manipulation techniques | Format-based instruction hiding |
| Authority Impersonation | Impersonating system authorities | Authority persona techniques | Authority-based instruction override |
2. Content Policy Evasion Vectors
Approaches for testing content policy controls:
| Vector Category | Description | Testing Methodology | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Content Obfuscation | Hiding prohibited content | Multiple obfuscation techniques | Successful policy bypass |
| Semantic Manipulation | Using alternative phrasing | Semantic equivalent testing | Policy bypass through meaning preservation |
| Context Reframing | Creating permissible contexts | Multiple reframing approaches | Context-based policy bypass |
| Token Manipulation | Manipulating tokenization | Token-level techniques | Tokenization-based bypass |
| Multi-Turn Evasion | Progressive policy boundary testing | Multi-turn interaction sequences | Progressive boundary erosion |
3. Information Extraction Vectors
Approaches for testing information protection:
| Vector Category | Description | Testing Methodology | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| System Instruction Extraction | Attempts to extract system prompts | Multiple extraction techniques | Successful prompt extraction |
| Training Data Extraction | Attempts to extract training data | Data extraction techniques | Successful data extraction |
| Parameter Inference | Attempts to infer model parameters | Inference techniques | Successful parameter inference |
| User Data Extraction | Attempts to extract user information | User data extraction techniques | Successful user data extraction |
| Cross-Conversation Leakage | Testing for cross-user information leakage | Cross-context testing | Successful information leakage |
4. Multimodal Attack Vectors
Approaches for testing across modalities:
| Vector Category | Description | Testing Methodology | Success Criteria |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-Modal Injection | Using one modality to attack another | Cross-modal techniques | Successful cross-modal vulnerability |
| Modal Boundary Exploitation | Exploiting transitions between modalities | Boundary testing techniques | Successful boundary exploitation |
| Multi-Modal Chain Attacks | Using multiple modalities in attack chains | Multi-step chains | Successful chain execution |
| Modal Inconsistency Exploitation | Exploiting inconsistent handling across modalities | Inconsistency testing | Successful inconsistency exploitation |
| Hidden Modal Content | Hiding attack content in modal elements | Content hiding techniques | Successful hidden content execution |
Practical Implementation
1. Attack Execution Process
Step-by-step process for effective attack execution:
| Process Step | Description | Key Activities | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preparation | Setting up for attack execution | Environment preparation, tool setup | Preparation checklist |
| Initial Testing | First phase of attack execution | Basic vector testing, initial probing | Initial testing log |
| Vector Refinement | Refining attack approaches | Vector adaptation, approach tuning | Refinement notes |
| Full Execution | Complete attack execution | Full attack chain execution, evidence collection | Execution log, evidence repository |
| Finding Validation | Confirming successful findings | Reproducibility testing, validation checks | Validation documentation |
| Attack Extension | Extending successful attacks | Impact expansion, variant testing | Extension documentation |
2. Evidence Collection Framework
Systematic approach to gathering attack evidence:
| Evidence Type | Collection Method | Documentation Format | Chain of Custody |
|---|---|---|---|
| Attack Inputs | Input logging | Input documentation template | Input repository with timestamps |
| Model Responses | Response capture | Response documentation template | Response repository with correlation to inputs |
| Attack Artifacts | Artifact preservation | Artifact documentation template | Artifact repository with metadata |
| Attack Flow | Process documentation | Attack flow documentation template | Flow repository with timestamps |
| Environmental Factors | Environment logging | Environment documentation template | Environment log with test correlation |
3. Finding Classification Framework
Structured approach to categorizing findings:
| Classification Element | Description | Categorization Approach | Implementation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vulnerability Type | Nature of the vulnerability | Standard taxonomy application | Type classification system |
| Severity Rating | Seriousness of the finding | Severity calculation framework | Severity rating system |
| Exploitation Difficulty | Challenge in exploiting the finding | Difficulty assessment methodology | Difficulty rating system |
| Attack Prerequisites | Requirements for successful exploitation | Prerequisite analysis framework | Prerequisite documentation system |
| Impact Classification | Nature and scope of potential impact | Impact assessment framework | Impact classification system |
4. Risk Assessment Methodology
Approach to evaluating the risk of findings:
| Assessment Element | Description | Calculation Approach | Documentation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exploitation Likelihood | Probability of successful exploitation | Likelihood scoring methodology | Likelihood assessment document |
| Impact Severity | Seriousness of exploitation consequences | Impact scoring methodology | Impact assessment document |
| Attack Complexity | Difficulty of executing the attack | Complexity scoring methodology | Complexity assessment document |
| Affected Scope | Range of systems or users affected | Scope scoring methodology | Scope assessment document |
| Detection Difficulty | Challenge in detecting exploitation | Detection scoring methodology | Detection assessment document |
Operational Examples
Example 1: Prompt Injection Assessment
Operation: Systematic Prompt Injection Assessment
1. Operation Objective:
Comprehensively evaluate the target model's resistance to prompt injection attacks
2. Attack Vectors Implemented:
- Direct System Instruction Override (3 variants)
- Role-Based Authority Manipulation (4 variants)
- Context Window Poisoning (3 techniques)
- Format-Based Instruction Hiding (5 techniques)
- Multi-Turn Manipulation (3 scenarios)
3. Execution Methodology:
- Initial baseline testing with standard vectors
- Progressive refinement based on model responses
- Chain development combining successful techniques
- Variant testing to identify boundary conditions
- Documentation of successful injection patterns
4. Key Findings:
- Successfully achieved instruction override in 18/50 attempts
- Identified consistent vulnerability to authority-based manipulation
- Discovered format exploitation allowing consistent policy bypass
- Mapped specific boundary conditions for successful injection
- Identified multi-turn techniques with 65% success rate
5. Risk Assessment:
- Severity: High (CVSS: 8.2)
- Attack Prerequisites: Basic prompt engineering knowledge
- Exploitation Difficulty: Low (successful with limited attempts)
- Detection Difficulty: Moderate (some techniques leave behavioral signals)
- Impact: Significant (enables policy bypass, information extraction)
Example 2: Multi-Modal Attack Chain
Operation: Cross-Modal Attack Chain Assessment
1. Operation Objective:
Evaluate the model's vulnerability to attacks spanning multiple modalities
2. Attack Chain Implemented:
- Phase 1: Image-embedded text instruction (visual modality)
- Phase 2: Context establishment based on image response (text modality)
- Phase 3: Audio-based authority reinforcement (audio modality)
- Phase 4: Code-embedded execution trigger (code modality)
- Phase 5: Cross-modal policy bypass attempt (mixed modalities)
3. Execution Methodology:
- Modality-specific baseline testing
- Transition point identification
- Cross-modal context preservation testing
- Chain construction with optimal transition points
- Full chain execution with evidence collection
4. Key Findings:
- Successfully achieved end-to-end chain execution in 7/20 attempts
- Identified critical vulnerability at image-text transition point
- Discovered audio-based authority reinforcement increased success by 40%
- Mapped specific format requirements for successful transitions
- Identified defensive weakness in cross-modal context tracking
5. Risk Assessment:
- Severity: High (CVSS: 8.7)
- Attack Prerequisites: Multi-modal expertise, specialized tools
- Exploitation Difficulty: Moderate (requires precise execution)
- Detection Difficulty: High (crosses multiple monitoring domains)
- Impact: Severe (enables sophisticated attacks difficult to detect)
Adversarial Red Team Engagement Framework
1. Engagement Models
Different approaches to red team exercises:
| Engagement Model | Description | Best For | Implementation Considerations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Announced Assessment | Organization is aware of testing | Initial assessments, control testing | More cooperative, may miss some detection issues |
| Unannounced Assessment | Organization unaware of specific timing | Testing detection capabilities | Requires careful coordination, additional safety measures |
| Continuous Assessment | Ongoing red team activities | Mature security programs | Requires dedicated resources, sophisticated testing rotation |
| Tabletop Exercise | Theoretical attack simulation | Preliminary assessment, training | Limited technical validation, good for education |
| Collaborative Exercise | Combined red/blue team activity | Defense enhancement focus | Accelerates remediation, may miss some findings |
2. Rules of Engagement
Framework for establishing testing boundaries:
| Element | Description | Documentation | Approval Process |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope Boundaries | Defines included/excluded targets | Scope document | Security leadership approval |
| Acceptable Techniques | Permitted testing approaches | Technique inventory | Security and legal approval |
| Prohibited Actions | Explicitly forbidden activities | Prohibition list | Security and legal approval |
| Timeline Parameters | Testing timeframes and constraints | Timeline document | Operational leadership approval |
| Escalation Procedures | Process for handling issues | Escalation protocol | Cross-functional approval |
3. Communication Protocol
Structure for effective engagement communication:
| Communication Element | Purpose | Participants | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kickoff Meeting | Establish engagement parameters | Red team, security leadership | Prior to engagement |
| Status Updates | Provide progress information | Red team, engagement sponsor | Regular intervals during engagement |
| Critical Finding Notification | Alert to serious issues | Red team, security leadership | Immediately upon discovery |
| Engagement Conclusion | Formal end of active testing | Red team, security leadership | Upon completion of testing |
| Results Presentation | Communicate findings | Red team, stakeholders | Post-testing, prior to report |
4. Documentation Requirements
Comprehensive documentation for the engagement:
| Document | Content | Audience |