How Do You Choose Your AI Component? An Interview Study of Secure AI Integration in Practice

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16660v1
• Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2026 06:30:12 GMT
• Title: How Do You Choose Your AI Component? An Interview Study of Secure AI Integration in Practice
• Abstract summary: We conduct semistructured interviews with 22 software developers, architects, and AI practitioners about how they integrate AI components into their software.<n>Our analysis finds that practitioners' model selection is predominantly driven by functional criteria, including performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features.<n>We observe a consistent lack of security concern throughout the AI component integration process, with established software supply chain lessons overlooked or ignored.
• Score: 3.3043425525629293
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: The increasing adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as AI components in modern software systems introduces distinct security risks to the software supply chain. While many considerations and safety mechanisms are in place for components of the traditional software supply chain, the recent rapid adoption of AI components and platforms has overlooked these hard learned lessons. Selecting and integrating AI models without clear guidance on how these choices affect system security may leave applications vulnerable to threats, such as malicious components, data leakage, and unintended behavior. The goal of this study is to understand practitioners' decision making process and security considerations in selecting and integrating AI components through an exploratory semi-structured interview study. Toward this goal, we conducted semistructured interviews with 22 software developers, architects, and AI practitioners across diverse organizations about how they integrate AI components into their software. Our analysis finds that practitioners' model selection is predominantly driven by functional criteria, including performance, accuracy, cost, and specific features, e.g., tool calling or multimodal support, while security is rarely considered as an evaluation criterion. We observe a consistent lack of security concern throughout the AI component integration process, with established software supply chain lessons overlooked or ignored. The industry is repeating the historically costly mistakes of early software dependency management, prioritizing rapid reuse and availability over security and provenance. We distill our findings into actionable recommendations for AI adopters, model providers, and researchers, advocating for a proactive, security-by-design approach that integrates security evaluation into component selection and sustains it throughout the software development lifecycle.

Related papers

• ORCA -- An Automated Threat Analysis Pipeline for O-RAN Continuous Development [57.61878484176942]
  Open-Radio Access Network (O-RAN) integrates numerous software components in a cloud-like deployment, opening the radio access network to previously unconsidered security threats.<n>Current vulnerability assessment practices often rely on manual, labor-intensive, and subjective investigations, leading to inconsistencies in the threat analysis.<n>We propose an automated pipeline that leverages Natural Language Processing (NLP) to minimize human intervention and associated biases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-20T07:31:59Z)
• Securing the AI Supply Chain: What Can We Learn From Developer-Reported Security Issues and Solutions of AI Projects? [0.5352699766206809]
  We conduct an empirical investigation of developer-reported issues and solutions based on discussions from Hugging Face and GitHub.<n>This pipeline produces a dataset of 312,868 security discussions.<n>We conduct a thematic analysis of 753 posts sampled from our dataset and uncover a fine-grained taxonomy of 32 security issues and 24 solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T11:22:11Z)
• Securing Agentic AI Systems -- A Multilayer Security Framework [0.0]
  Securing Agentic Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems requires addressing the complex cyber risks introduced by autonomous, decision-making, and adaptive behaviors.<n>Existing AI security frameworks do not adequately address these challenges or the unique nuances of agentic AI.<n>This research develops a lifecycle-aware security framework specifically designed for agentic AI systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T20:22:25Z)
• Systems Security Foundations for Agentic Computing [21.600611396864114]
  This paper examines end-to-end security properties of entire systems, rather than AI models in isolation.<n>A key goal is to examine where research challenges arise when applying traditional security principles in the context of AI agents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-01T05:28:59Z)
• Security Vulnerabilities in Software Supply Chain for Autonomous Vehicles [5.600944414742589]
  We analyze security vulnerabilities in open-source software components in autonomous vehicles.<n>The goal is to inform researchers, practitioners, and policymakers about the existing security flaws in the commonplace open-source software ecosystem in the AV domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-21T03:22:05Z)
• Report on NSF Workshop on Science of Safe AI [75.96202715567088]
  New advances in machine learning are leading to new opportunities to develop technology-based solutions to societal problems.<n>To fulfill the promise of AI, we must address how to develop AI-based systems that are accurate and performant but also safe and trustworthy.<n>This report is the result of the discussions in the working groups that addressed different aspects of safety at the workshop.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-24T18:55:29Z)
• AISafetyLab: A Comprehensive Framework for AI Safety Evaluation and Improvement [73.0700818105842]
  We introduce AISafetyLab, a unified framework and toolkit that integrates representative attack, defense, and evaluation methodologies for AI safety.<n> AISafetyLab features an intuitive interface that enables developers to seamlessly apply various techniques.<n>We conduct empirical studies on Vicuna, analyzing different attack and defense strategies to provide valuable insights into their comparative effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-24T02:11:52Z)
• 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)
• "I Don't Use AI for Everything": Exploring Utility, Attitude, and Responsibility of AI-empowered Tools in Software Development [19.851794567529286]
  This study investigates the adoption, impact, and security considerations of AI-empowered tools in the software development process. Our findings reveal widespread adoption of AI tools across various stages of software development.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T09:17:10Z)
• 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)
• Dos and Don'ts of Machine Learning in Computer Security [74.1816306998445]
  Despite great potential, machine learning in security is prone to subtle pitfalls that undermine its performance. We identify common pitfalls in the design, implementation, and evaluation of learning-based security systems. We propose actionable recommendations to support researchers in avoiding or mitigating the pitfalls where possible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-19T13:09:31Z)

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.