| # Core Testing Principles | |
| The AISecForge framework is guided by a set of fundamental principles that inform all security testing methodologies. These principles ensure that our approaches are comprehensive, ethical, reproducible, and focused on improving AI system security. | |
| ## 1. Systematic Coverage | |
| ### Definition | |
| Security testing should comprehensively cover all model capabilities, potential attack surfaces, and vulnerability classes. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Map all model functionalities and capabilities before beginning testing | |
| - Develop test suites covering each identified attack surface | |
| - Ensure testing covers all vulnerability classes in our taxonomy | |
| - Implement testing that addresses both known and theoretical vulnerabilities | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Coverage percentage across identified attack surfaces | |
| - Vulnerability class testing completeness | |
| - Capability testing depth | |
| ## 2. Defense-in-Depth | |
| ### Definition | |
| Security testing should employ multiple layers of testing approaches, with increasing sophistication, to identify vulnerabilities that might escape simpler testing methodologies. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Begin with basic testing of each vulnerability class | |
| - Progress to more sophisticated variations of each attack vector | |
| - Combine attack vectors to test for emergent vulnerabilities | |
| - Implement advanced evasion techniques for each test case | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Testing sophistication progression | |
| - Cross-vector testing coverage | |
| - Advanced evasion technique incorporation | |
| ## 3. Reproducibility | |
| ### Definition | |
| All testing methodologies must be documented with sufficient detail to allow consistent reproduction of results across different evaluators, environments, and times. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Provide detailed, step-by-step testing procedures | |
| - Specify all necessary environmental conditions | |
| - Document exact inputs used in testing | |
| - Establish clear evaluation criteria for test outcomes | |
| - Version control all testing methodologies | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Methodology specificity score | |
| - Result consistency across evaluators | |
| - Documentation completeness rating | |
| ## 4. Responsible Practice | |
| ### Definition | |
| All security testing must be conducted with appropriate safeguards, focusing on defensive improvement rather than exploitation, and following responsible disclosure practices. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Conduct all testing in isolated environments | |
| - Focus on identification rather than exploitation of vulnerabilities | |
| - Follow established responsible disclosure protocols | |
| - Prioritize defense-oriented recommendations | |
| - Maintain confidentiality of vulnerability details until patched | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Ethical compliance score | |
| - Disclosure protocol adherence | |
| - Defense orientation rating | |
| ## 5. Empirical Validation | |
| ### Definition | |
| Testing methodologies should be based on empirical evidence, with continuous validation against real-world vulnerability patterns and evolving attack techniques. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Regularly update methodologies based on emerging vulnerability research | |
| - Validate testing approaches against known vulnerabilities | |
| - Incorporate feedback from actual exploitation attempts | |
| - Benchmark against industry standards and best practices | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Methodology update frequency | |
| - Known vulnerability detection rate | |
| - Industry standard alignment score | |
| ## 6. Contextual Adaptation | |
| ### Definition | |
| Testing methodologies should adapt to the specific context, capabilities, and intended use cases of the AI system under evaluation. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Tailor testing approaches to system-specific capabilities | |
| - Prioritize tests based on deployment context risks | |
| - Adjust test sophistication to match system maturity | |
| - Consider domain-specific vulnerabilities for specialized systems | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Contextual customization score | |
| - Deployment risk alignment | |
| - Domain-specific coverage | |
| ## 7. Quantitative Assessment | |
| ### Definition | |
| Testing should produce quantitative metrics that enable objective comparison, tracking of security posture over time, and prioritization of remediation efforts. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Apply consistent scoring methodologies | |
| - Establish baseline measurements for comparison | |
| - Implement multi-dimensional security metrics | |
| - Enable trend analysis across model versions | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Metric objectivity score | |
| - Comparative analysis capability | |
| - Trend visualization effectiveness | |
| ## 8. Continuous Evolution | |
| ### Definition | |
| Testing methodologies should continuously evolve to address emerging threats, new model capabilities, and advances in security research. | |
| ### Implementation | |
| - Establish a regular review cycle for all methodologies | |
| - Incorporate feedback from the security research community | |
| - Proactively research new attack vectors | |
| - Maintain an emerging threats watch list | |
| ### Key Metrics | |
| - Methodology refresh rate | |
| - New threat incorporation speed | |
| - Research community engagement level | |
| --- | |
| ## Applying These Principles | |
| When developing or implementing testing methodologies: | |
| 1. **Begin with a principles review**: Ensure your approach aligns with all eight core principles | |
| 2. **Perform gap analysis**: Identify any principles not fully addressed in your methodology | |
| 3. **Document alignment**: Explicitly note how each principle is implemented | |
| 4. **Continuous evaluation**: Regularly assess methodological alignment with these principles | |
| By consistently applying these principles, we ensure that AISecForge provides comprehensive, responsible, and effective security testing approaches for AI systems. | |