LLMSecForge/vulnerability-assessment.md · recursivelabsai/AISecForge at main

Vulnerability Assessment Documentation

Required documentation for comprehensive assessment:

Documentation Element	Purpose	Content Requirements
Technical Assessment	Detailed technical understanding of vulnerability	• Vulnerability classification • Technical details • Reproduction methodology • Root cause analysis
Impact Analysis	Understanding of potential exploitation impact	• Theoretical impact • Realistic scenarios • Affected users/systems • Potential harm assessment
Severity Determination	Clear explanation of severity rating	• LLMVS calculation • Component scores • Severity justification • Comparative context
Remediation Guidance	Direction for addressing the vulnerability	• Recommended approaches • Technical guidance • Implementation considerations • Verification methodology

Researcher Communication Templates

Standardized communication for consistent researcher experience:

Communication Type	Purpose	Key Elements
Acknowledgment	Confirm report receipt and set expectations	• Receipt confirmation • Timeline expectations • Next steps • Point of contact
Triage Response	Communicate initial assessment results	• Scope confirmation • Initial severity assessment • Additional information requests • Timeline update
Validation Confirmation	Confirm vulnerability validity	• Validation results • Severity indication • Process next steps • Timeline expectations
Reward Notification	Communicate final determination and reward	• Final severity • Reward amount • Calculation explanation • Payment process details
Remediation Update	Provide status on vulnerability addressing	• Remediation approach • Implementation timeline • Verification process • Disclosure coordination

Internal Documentation Requirements

Documentation for program management and governance:

Document Type	Purpose	Content Requirements
Case File	Comprehensive vulnerability documentation	• Full vulnerability details • Complete assessment • All communications • Reward calculation
Executive Summary	Concise overview for leadership	• Key vulnerability details • Impact summary • Remediation approach • Strategic implications
Metrics Report	Data for program measurement	• Processing timeframes • Severity distribution • Reward allocation • Researcher statistics
Trend Analysis	Identification of vulnerability patterns	• Vulnerability categories • Temporal patterns • Model-specific trends • Researcher behaviors

Implementation Best Practices

Assessment Team Engagement

Effective engagement with assessment stakeholders:

Clear Role Definition
- Document specific assessment responsibilities
- Establish clear decision authority
- Define escalation paths
- Create RACI matrix for assessment process
Expertise Accessibility
- Ensure access to specialized knowledge
- Develop subject matter expert networks
- Create knowledge sharing mechanisms
- Establish consultation protocols
Collaborative Assessment
- Implement cross-functional assessment reviews
- Create collaborative assessment processes
- Develop consensus-building protocols
- Establish disagreement resolution mechanisms
Continuous Improvement
- Collect assessment process feedback
- Analyze assessment effectiveness
- Identify assessment efficiency opportunities
- Implement process refinements

Assessment Quality Assurance

Mechanisms to ensure assessment quality and consistency:

Assessment Standards
- Document clear assessment methodologies
- Establish quality criteria
- Create assessment templates
- Define minimum requirements
Peer Review Process
- Implement structured review protocols
- Define review criteria
- Establish review responsibilities
- Document review findings
Calibration Exercises
- Conduct regular assessment calibration
- Use known vulnerability examples
- Compare assessment outcomes
- Address inconsistencies
Program Oversight
- Establish assessment oversight mechanisms
- Conduct periodic assessment audits
- Review assessment trends
- Provide assessment guidance

For detailed implementation guidance, templates, and practical examples, refer to the associated documentation in this bounty program framework section.

Impact Dimensions

Impact Dimension	Description	Assessment Considerations
System Integrity	Compromise of system intended behavior	• Degree of behavior manipulation • Persistence of manipulation • Detection difficulty • Scope of affected functionality
Authorization Bypass	Circumvention of access controls or permissions	• Level of unauthorized access gained • Authorization boundary affected • Authentication requirement evasion • Privilege elevation potential
Safety Mechanism Evasion	Bypassing AI safety controls	• Type of content policy evaded • Consistency of evasion • Scope of safety bypass • Potential harm from bypass
Resource Manipulation	Unauthorized use or manipulation of resources	• Computational resource impact • Data resource manipulation • Financial resource implications • Service availability effects

Attack Scenario Development

Methodology for understanding potential exploitation:

Scenario Element	Description	Assessment Approach
Attacker Profile	Characterization of potential attackers	• Technical capability requirements • Resource requirements • Motivation factors • Access prerequisites
Exploitation Path	Steps required for successful exploitation	• Exploitation complexity • Prerequisite conditions • Technical sophistication • Detection avoidance requirements
Impact Scenario	Potential harm or impact from exploitation	• Direct consequences • Secondary effects • Scaling potential • Persistence characteristics
Mitigation Difficulty	Complexity of addressing the vulnerability	• Fix complexity • Deployment challenges • Verification difficulties • Side effect potential

AI-Specific Impact Categories

Specialized impact assessment for AI vulnerabilities:

Category	Description	Example Scenarios
Model Behavior Manipulation	Causing a model to produce unintended outputs	• Safety alignment bypass allowing harmful content • Context manipulation causing false information • Persona manipulation resulting in inappropriate responses
Training Data Extraction	Extracting data used to train the model	• Verbatim training data retrieval • Inference of confidential training examples • Reconstruction of protected information
Model Knowledge Inference	Inferring model capabilities or configuration	• System prompt extraction • Model parameter inference • Capability boundary mapping
Abuse Amplification	Amplifying potential for abuse or misuse	• Automating harmful content generation • Scaling content policy evasion • Enhancing manipulation effectiveness
Deployment Context Exploitation	Exploiting the environment where model is deployed	• Context window poisoning • Integration point manipulation • Environment variable exploitation

Severity Classification Framework

LLMVS: Language Model Vulnerability Scoring

Specialized scoring system for LLM vulnerabilities:

Component	Weight	Description	Assessment Criteria
Exploitation Ease	20%	How easily the vulnerability can be exploited	• Technical complexity • Required resources • Reproducibility • Prerequisites
Impact Severity	35%	Potential negative impact from exploitation	• Harm potential • Scope of impact • Affected users • Persistence
Detection Resistance	15%	Difficulty of detecting exploitation	• Monitoring evasion • Behavioral indicators • Signature development • Detection complexity
Model Applicability	15%	Breadth of affected models or systems	• Model type coverage • Version applicability • Architecture sensitivity • Implementation specificity
Remediation Complexity	15%	Difficulty of addressing the vulnerability	• Fix complexity • Implementation challenges • Verification difficulty • Potential side effects

Severity Calculation

Structured approach to calculating vulnerability severity:

# Pseudocode for LLMVS severity calculation
def calculate_severity(assessment):
    # Component scores (0-10 scale)
    exploitation_ease = assess_exploitation_ease(assessment)
    impact_severity = assess_impact_severity(assessment)
    detection_resistance = assess_detection_resistance(assessment)
    model_applicability = assess_model_applicability(assessment)
    remediation_complexity = assess_remediation_complexity(assessment)
    
    # Weighted score calculation
    severity_score = (
        (exploitation_ease * 0.20) +
        (impact_severity * 0.35) +
        (detection_resistance * 0.15) +
        (model_applicability * 0.15) +
        (remediation_complexity * 0.15)
    ) * 10  # Scale to 0-100
    
    # Severity category determination
    if severity_score >= 80:
        severity_category = "Critical"
    elif severity_score >= 60:
        severity_category = "High"
    elif severity_score >= 40:
        severity_category = "Medium"
    else:
        severity_category = "Low"
    
    return {
        "score": severity_score,
        "category": severity_category,
        "components": {
            "exploitation_ease": exploitation_ease,
            "impact_severity": impact_severity,
            "detection_resistance": detection_resistance,
            "model_applicability": model_applicability,
            "remediation_complexity": remediation_complexity
        }
    }

Severity Level Descriptions

Detailed description of severity categories:

Severity	Score Range	Description	Response Expectations
Critical	80-100	Severe vulnerabilities with broad impact potential and significant harm	• Immediate triage • Rapid remediation plan • Executive notification • Comprehensive mitigation
High	60-79	Significant vulnerabilities with substantial security implications	• Priority triage • Rapid assessment • Prioritized remediation • Interim mitigations
Medium	40-59	Moderate vulnerabilities with limited security implications	• Standard triage • Scheduled assessment • Planned remediation • Standard mitigations
Low	0-39	Minor vulnerabilities with minimal security impact	• Batch triage • Prioritized assessment • Backlog remediation • Documentation updates

Reward Determination Process

Reward Calculation Framework

Structured approach to determining appropriate rewards:

Factor	Weight	Description	Assessment Criteria
Base Severity	60%	Foundational reward based on severity	• LLMVS score and category • Standardized severity tiers • Base reward mapping
Report Quality	15%	Quality and clarity of vulnerability report	• Reproduction clarity • Documentation thoroughness • Evidence quality • Remediation guidance
Technical Sophistication	15%	Technical complexity and innovation	• Novel technique development • Research depth • Technical creativity • Implementation sophistication
Program Alignment	10%	Alignment with program priorities	• Priority area targeting • Program objective advancement • Strategic vulnerability focus • Key risk area impact

Quality Multiplier Framework

Adjustments based on report quality and researcher contribution:

Quality Level	Multiplier	Criteria	Example
Exceptional	1.5x	• Outstanding documentation • Novel research • Comprehensive analysis • Valuable remediation guidance	Detailed report with novel technique discovery, proof-of-concept code, impact analysis, and specific fix recommendations
Excellent	1.25x	• Above-average documentation • Strong analysis • Good remediation insight • Thorough testing	Well-documented report with clear reproduction steps, multiple test cases, and thoughtful mitigation suggestions
Standard	1.0x	• Adequate documentation • Clear reproduction • Basic analysis • Functional report	Basic report with sufficient information to reproduce and understand the vulnerability
Below Standard	0.75x	• Minimal documentation • Limited analysis • Poor clarity • Incomplete information	Report requiring significant back-and-forth to understand, with unclear reproduction steps or limited evidence

Reward Calculation Process

Step-by-step process for determining bounty rewards:

Determine Base Reward
- Calculate LLMVS score
- Map severity category to base reward range
- Establish initial position within range based on score
Apply Quality Adjustments
- Assess report quality
- Evaluate technical sophistication
- Determine program alignment
- Calculate composite quality score
Calculate Final Reward
- Apply quality multiplier to base reward
- Consider special circumstances or bonuses
- Finalize reward amount
- Document calculation rationale
Review and Approval
- Conduct peer review of calculation
- Obtain appropriate approval based on amount
- Document final determination
- Prepare researcher communication

Documentation and Communication