Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.08864v2
• Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:54:50 GMT
• Title: Toward Quantitative Modeling of Cybersecurity Risks Due to AI Misuse
• Authors: Steve Barrett, Malcolm Murray, Otter Quarks, Matthew Smith, Jakub Kryś, Siméon Campos, Alejandro Tlaie Boria, Chloé Touzet, Sevan Hayrapet, Fred Heiding, Omer Nevo, Adam Swanda, Jair Aguirre, Asher Brass Gershovich, Eric Clay, Ryan Fetterman, Mario Fritz, Marc Juarez, Vasilios Mavroudis, Henry Papadatos,
• Abstract summary: We develop nine detailed cyber risk models.<n>Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework.<n>Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation.
• Score: 50.87630846876635
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Advanced AI systems offer substantial benefits but also introduce risks. In 2025, AI-enabled cyber offense has emerged as a concrete example. This technical report applies a quantitative risk modeling methodology (described in full in a companion paper) to this domain. We develop nine detailed cyber risk models that allow analyzing AI uplift as a function of AI benchmark performance. Each model decomposes attacks into steps using the MITRE ATT&CK framework and estimates how AI affects the number of attackers, attack frequency, probability of success, and resulting harm to determine different types of uplift. To produce these estimates with associated uncertainty, we employ both human experts, via a Delphi study, as well as LLM-based simulated experts, both mapping benchmark scores (from Cybench and BountyBench) to risk model factors. Individual estimates are aggregated through Monte Carlo simulation. The results indicate systematic uplift in attack efficacy, speed, and target reach, with different mechanisms of uplift across risk models. We aim for our quantitative risk modeling to fulfill several aims: to help cybersecurity teams prioritize mitigations, AI evaluators design benchmarks, AI developers make more informed deployment decisions, and policymakers obtain information to set risk thresholds. Similar goals drove the shift from qualitative to quantitative assessment over time in other high-risk industries, such as nuclear power. We propose this methodology and initial application attempt as a step in that direction for AI risk management. While our estimates carry significant uncertainty, publishing detailed quantified results can enable experts to pinpoint exactly where they disagree. This helps to collectively refine estimates, something that cannot be done with qualitative assessments alone.

Related papers

• Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report v1.5 [61.787178868669265]
  This technical report presents an updated and granular assessment of five critical dimensions: cyber offense, persuasion and manipulation, strategic deception, uncontrolled AI R&D, and self-replication.<n>This work reflects our current understanding of AI frontier risks and urges collective action to mitigate these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-16T04:30:06Z)
• Toward Risk Thresholds for AI-Enabled Cyber Threats: Enhancing Decision-Making Under Uncertainty with Bayesian Networks [0.3151064009829256]
  We propose a structured approach to developing and evaluating AI cyber risk thresholds.<n>First, we analyze existing industry cyber thresholds and identify common threshold elements.<n>Second, we propose the use of Bayesian networks as a tool for modeling AI-enabled cyber risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T23:23:12Z)
• A Methodology for Quantitative AI Risk Modeling [32.594929429306774]
  This paper advances the risk modeling component of AI risk management by introducing a methodology that integrates scenario building with quantitative risk estimation.<n>Our methodology is designed to be applicable to key systemic AI risks, including cyber offense, biological weapon development, harmful manipulation, and loss-of-control.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T17:34:59Z)
• The Role of Risk Modeling in Advanced AI Risk Management [33.357295564462284]
  Rapidly advancing artificial intelligence (AI) systems introduce novel, uncertain, and potentially catastrophic risks.<n>Managing these risks requires a mature risk-management infrastructure whose cornerstone is rigorous risk modeling.<n>We argue that advanced-AI governance should adopt a similar dual approach and that verifiable, provably-safe AI architectures are urgently needed.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-09T15:37:33Z)
• Mapping AI Benchmark Data to Quantitative Risk Estimates Through Expert Elicitation [0.7889270818022226]
  We show how existing AI benchmarks can be used to facilitate the creation of risk estimates.<n>We describe the results of a pilot study in which experts use information from Cybench, an AI benchmark, to generate probability estimates.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T10:39:47Z)
• Statistical Scenario Modelling and Lookalike Distributions for Multi-Variate AI Risk [0.6526824510982799]
  We show how scenario modelling can be used to model AI risk holistically.<n>We show how lookalike distributions from phenomena analogous to AI can be used to estimate AI impacts in the absence of directly observable data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T12:14:54Z)
• AILuminate: Introducing v1.0 of the AI Risk and Reliability Benchmark from MLCommons [62.374792825813394]
  This paper introduces AILuminate v1.0, the first comprehensive industry-standard benchmark for assessing AI-product risk and reliability.<n>The benchmark evaluates an AI system's resistance to prompts designed to elicit dangerous, illegal, or undesirable behavior in 12 hazard categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T05:58:52Z)
• Risks and NLP Design: A Case Study on Procedural Document QA [52.557503571760215]
  We argue that clearer assessments of risks and harms to users will be possible when we specialize the analysis to more concrete applications and their plausible users. We conduct a risk-oriented error analysis that could then inform the design of a future system to be deployed with lower risk of harm and better performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-16T17:23:43Z)
• EARBench: Towards Evaluating Physical Risk Awareness for Task Planning of Foundation Model-based Embodied AI Agents [53.717918131568936]
  Embodied artificial intelligence (EAI) integrates advanced AI models into physical entities for real-world interaction.<n>Foundation models as the "brain" of EAI agents for high-level task planning have shown promising results.<n>However, the deployment of these agents in physical environments presents significant safety challenges.<n>This study introduces EARBench, a novel framework for automated physical risk assessment in EAI scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-08T13:19:37Z)
• 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)
• ML-Doctor: Holistic Risk Assessment of Inference Attacks Against Machine Learning Models [64.03398193325572]
  Inference attacks against Machine Learning (ML) models allow adversaries to learn about training data, model parameters, etc. We concentrate on four attacks - namely, membership inference, model inversion, attribute inference, and model stealing. Our analysis relies on a modular re-usable software, ML-Doctor, which enables ML model owners to assess the risks of deploying their models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-04T11:35:13Z)

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.