Graph of Effort: Quantifying Risk of AI Usage for Vulnerability Assessment

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2503.16392v2
• Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2025 10:01:44 GMT
• Title: Graph of Effort: Quantifying Risk of AI Usage for Vulnerability Assessment
• Authors: Anket Mehra, Andreas Aßmuth, Malte Prieß,
• Abstract summary: An AI used to attack non-AI assets is referred to as offensive AI.<n>The risk of exploiting its capabilities, such as high automation and complex pattern recognition, could significantly increase.<n>This paper introduces the Graph of Effort, an intuitive, flexible, and effective threat modeling method for analyzing the effort required to use offensive AI for vulnerability exploitation by an adversary.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: With AI-based software becoming widely available, the risk of exploiting its capabilities, such as high automation and complex pattern recognition, could significantly increase. An AI used offensively to attack non-AI assets is referred to as offensive AI. Current research explores how offensive AI can be utilized and how its usage can be classified. Additionally, methods for threat modeling are being developed for AI-based assets within organizations. However, there are gaps that need to be addressed. Firstly, there is a need to quantify the factors contributing to the AI threat. Secondly, there is a requirement to create threat models that analyze the risk of being attacked by AI for vulnerability assessment across all assets of an organization. This is particularly crucial and challenging in cloud environments, where sophisticated infrastructure and access control landscapes are prevalent. The ability to quantify and further analyze the threat posed by offensive AI enables analysts to rank vulnerabilities and prioritize the implementation of proactive countermeasures. To address these gaps, this paper introduces the Graph of Effort, an intuitive, flexible, and effective threat modeling method for analyzing the effort required to use offensive AI for vulnerability exploitation by an adversary. While the threat model is functional and provides valuable support, its design choices need further empirical validation in future work.

Related papers

• Computational Safety for Generative AI: A Signal Processing Perspective [65.268245109828]
  computational safety is a mathematical framework that enables the quantitative assessment, formulation, and study of safety challenges in GenAI.<n>We show how sensitivity analysis and loss landscape analysis can be used to detect malicious prompts with jailbreak attempts.<n>We discuss key open research challenges, opportunities, and the essential role of signal processing in computational AI safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T02:26:50Z)
• Considerations Influencing Offense-Defense Dynamics From Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  AI can enhance defensive capabilities but also presents avenues for malicious exploitation and large-scale societal harm.<n>This paper proposes a taxonomy to map and examine the key factors that influence whether AI systems predominantly pose threats or offer protective benefits to society.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-05T10:05:53Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Artificial Intelligence as the New Hacker: Developing Agents for Offensive Security [0.0]
  This paper explores the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into offensive cybersecurity. It develops an autonomous AI agent, ReaperAI, designed to simulate and execute cyberattacks. ReaperAI demonstrates the potential to identify, exploit, and analyze security vulnerabilities autonomously.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-09T18:15:12Z)
• Asset-centric Threat Modeling for AI-based Systems [7.696807063718328]
  This paper presents ThreatFinderAI, an approach and tool to model AI-related assets, threats, countermeasures, and quantify residual risks. To evaluate the practicality of the approach, participants were tasked to recreate a threat model developed by cybersecurity experts of an AI-based healthcare platform. Overall, the solution's usability was well-perceived and effectively supports threat identification and risk discussion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T08:40:01Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• AI Potentiality and Awareness: A Position Paper from the Perspective of Human-AI Teaming in Cybersecurity [18.324118502535775]
  We argue that human-AI teaming is worthwhile in cybersecurity. We emphasize the importance of a balanced approach that incorporates AI's computational power with human expertise.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T01:20:44Z)
• Model evaluation for extreme risks [46.53170857607407]
  Further progress in AI development could lead to capabilities that pose extreme risks, such as offensive cyber capabilities or strong manipulation skills. We explain why model evaluation is critical for addressing extreme risks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T16:38:43Z)
• AI Maintenance: A Robustness Perspective [91.28724422822003]
  We introduce highlighted robustness challenges in the AI lifecycle and motivate AI maintenance by making analogies to car maintenance. We propose an AI model inspection framework to detect and mitigate robustness risks. Our proposal for AI maintenance facilitates robustness assessment, status tracking, risk scanning, model hardening, and regulation throughout the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-08T15:02:38Z)
• Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence for Cyber Security (AICS) Workshop at AAAI 2022 [55.573187938617636]
  The workshop will focus on the application of AI to problems in cyber security. Cyber systems generate large volumes of data, utilizing this effectively is beyond human capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-28T18:27:41Z)
• Cybertrust: From Explainable to Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) [58.981120701284816]
  Actionable and Interpretable AI (AI2) will incorporate explicit quantifications and visualizations of user confidence in AI recommendations. It will allow examining and testing of AI system predictions to establish a basis for trust in the systems' decision making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-01-26T18:53:09Z)
• Security and Privacy for Artificial Intelligence: Opportunities and Challenges [11.368470074697747]
  In recent years, most AI models are vulnerable to advanced and sophisticated hacking techniques. This challenge has motivated concerted research efforts into adversarial AI. We present a holistic cyber security review that demonstrates adversarial attacks against AI applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-09T06:06:13Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.