Threat Modeling for AI: The Case for an Asset-Centric Approach

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06315v2
• Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2025 22:04:43 GMT
• Title: Threat Modeling for AI: The Case for an Asset-Centric Approach
• Authors: Jose Sanchez Vicarte, Marcin Spoczynski, Mostafa Elsaid,
• Abstract summary: AI systems now able to autonomously execute code, interact with external systems, and operate without human oversight.<n>With AI systems now able to autonomously execute code, interact with external systems, and operate without human oversight, traditional security approaches fall short.<n>This paper introduces an asset-centric methodology for threat modeling AI systems.
• Score: 0.23408308015481666
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Recent advances in AI are transforming AI's ubiquitous presence in our world from that of standalone AI-applications into deeply integrated AI-agents. These changes have been driven by agents' increasing capability to autonomously make decisions and initiate actions, using existing applications; whether those applications are AI-based or not. This evolution enables unprecedented levels of AI integration, with agents now able to take actions on behalf of systems and users -- including, in some cases, the powerful ability for the AI to write and execute scripts as it deems necessary. With AI systems now able to autonomously execute code, interact with external systems, and operate without human oversight, traditional security approaches fall short. This paper introduces an asset-centric methodology for threat modeling AI systems that addresses the unique security challenges posed by integrated AI agents. Unlike existing top-down frameworks that analyze individual attacks within specific product contexts, our bottom-up approach enables defenders to systematically identify how vulnerabilities -- both conventional and AI-specific -- impact critical AI assets across distributed infrastructures used to develop and deploy these agents. This methodology allows security teams to: (1) perform comprehensive analysis that communicates effectively across technical domains, (2) quantify security assumptions about third-party AI components without requiring visibility into their implementation, and (3) holistically identify AI-based vulnerabilities relevant to their specific product context. This approach is particularly relevant for securing agentic systems with complex autonomous capabilities. By focusing on assets rather than attacks, our approach scales with the rapidly evolving threat landscape while accommodating increasingly complex and distributed AI development pipelines.

Related papers

• Internet of Agents: Fundamentals, Applications, and Challenges [66.44234034282421]
  We introduce the Internet of Agents (IoA) as a foundational framework that enables seamless interconnection, dynamic discovery, and collaborative orchestration among heterogeneous agents at scale.<n>We analyze the key operational enablers of IoA, including capability notification and discovery, adaptive communication protocols, dynamic task matching, consensus and conflict-resolution mechanisms, and incentive models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T02:04:37Z)
• Offensive Security for AI Systems: Concepts, Practices, and Applications [0.0]
  Traditional defensive measures often fall short against the unique and evolving threats facing AI-driven technologies.<n>This paper emphasizes proactive threat simulation and adversarial testing to uncover vulnerabilities throughout the AI lifecycle.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-09T18:58:56Z)
• Multi-agent Embodied AI: Advances and Future Directions [47.25234488714998]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (Embodied AI) plays a pivotal role in the application of advanced technologies in the intelligent era.<n>This paper reviews the current state of research, analyzes key contributions, and identifies challenges and future directions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-08T10:13:53Z)
• Graph of Effort: Quantifying Risk of AI Usage for Vulnerability Assessment [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T17:52:42Z)
• Position: Mind the Gap-the Growing Disconnect Between Established Vulnerability Disclosure and AI Security [56.219994752894294]
  We argue that adapting existing processes for AI security reporting is doomed to fail due to fundamental shortcomings for the distinctive characteristics of AI systems.<n>Based on our proposal to address these shortcomings, we discuss an approach to AI security reporting and how the new AI paradigm, AI agents, will further reinforce the need for specialized AI security incident reporting advancements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T13:50:26Z)
• 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)
• Generative AI Agents in Autonomous Machines: A Safety Perspective [9.02400798202199]
  generative AI agents provide unparalleled capabilities, but they also have unique safety concerns. This work investigates the evolving safety requirements when generative models are integrated as agents into physical autonomous machines. We recommend the development and implementation of comprehensive safety scorecards for the use of generative AI technologies in autonomous machines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T20:07:08Z)
• Attack Atlas: A Practitioner's Perspective on Challenges and Pitfalls in Red Teaming GenAI [52.138044013005]
  generative AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), become increasingly integrated into production applications. New attack surfaces and vulnerabilities emerge and put a focus on adversarial threats in natural language and multi-modal systems. Red-teaming has gained importance in proactively identifying weaknesses in these systems, while blue-teaming works to protect against such adversarial attacks. This work aims to bridge the gap between academic insights and practical security measures for the protection of generative AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T10:18:10Z)
• Safeguarding AI Agents: Developing and Analyzing Safety Architectures [0.0]
  This paper addresses the need for safety measures in AI systems that collaborate with human teams.<n>We propose and evaluate three frameworks to enhance safety protocols in AI agent systems.<n>We conclude that these frameworks can significantly strengthen the safety and security of AI agent systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-03T10:14:51Z)
• Towards Guaranteed Safe AI: A Framework for Ensuring Robust and Reliable AI Systems [88.80306881112313]
  We will introduce and define a family of approaches to AI safety, which we will refer to as guaranteed safe (GS) AI. The core feature of these approaches is that they aim to produce AI systems which are equipped with high-assurance quantitative safety guarantees. We outline a number of approaches for creating each of these three core components, describe the main technical challenges, and suggest a number of potential solutions to them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T17:38:32Z)
• 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)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

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.