All courses / AI Platform and Security / Module 4 / Chapter 16
Learning objectives
After the lesson the participant can:
- Explain the three properties of AI systems that break long-standing security assumptions.
- Map the points of the threat surface of an AI system to their main threats and primary architectural controls.
- Describe how an ML-BOM, signing and provenance bring a model into an existing promotion gate.
- Draft a threat model entry whose controls resolve to a guardrail configuration.
Key concepts
- Single channel for instructions and data
- A large language model receives its system prompt, the user's request and any retrieved document as one sequence of tokens, and nothing in the model enforces a boundary between them. The boundary is therefore enforced outside the model.
- Indirect prompt injection
- Instructions planted in content such as a web page, an email or a shared document that are followed when the content enters the context window. The attacker never touches the application, so every system that reads external content is exposed by construction.
- ML-BOM
- The CycloneDX Machine Learning Bill of Materials, which records the provenance, licences and training parameters of models and datasets. When a base model is withdrawn, a query over the registry's ML-BOMs lists every model that depends on it.
- Threat model as code
- A threat model kept in the repository with trust boundaries, threats tagged with OWASP and ATLAS identifiers, and named controls. It is reviewed on every change, because the pull request that adds a source or tool shows the entries affected.
- Guardrail policy
- The configuration the AI gateway enforces at runtime: allowed retrieval collections, output validation, tool allow-list, actions to confirm and limits. The threat model's control identifiers point to it, so a named control is demonstrably live.
Interactive exercises
Do them here and get feedback at once. Choose a card and then where it belongs, or drag it.
Interactive exercise 1 · Match
OWASP entries and their primary control
Match each entry of the OWASP Top 10 for LLM applications with the primary architectural control the chapter's table gives.
Interactive exercise 2 · Sort
The review checklist by layer
Sort each item of Nordvik Region's security review checklist under the part of the checklist it belongs to.
Teaching plan
| 15 min | The teacher walks Figure 16.1 point by point and has participants name, for each point, why a classical control alone does not reach it. |
| 20 min | Cover the OWASP entries with their primary controls, then the outside-the-model responses to injection, poisoning, extraction and training-data leakage, at the level of design. |
| 15 min | Read Nordvik Region's ML-BOM, threat model excerpt and guardrail policy, and trace one control identifier from threat to configuration. |
| 30 min | Exercise: a security design review of one AI system, producing threat entries and the guardrail settings they point to. |
| 10 min | Close with the three reporting clocks one event can start and what the logs must link for the first of them to be met. |
Discussion
- The checklist puts foundations first because a reviewer who starts with the AI-specific items tends to miss a shared API key. Which foundation is weakest around your AI systems?
- None of the controls makes injection impossible; together they make it unprofitable. What is the worst case of a fully hijacked model in one of your systems today?
- Could your organisation establish within 24 hours whether retrieved content caused a wrongful action? What would have to be logged for that?
Written exercise
Exercise · 30 minutes
Security design review of an AI system
Review an AI system of your own organisation, or Nordvik Region's casework assistant, as its security architect. Draw its trust boundaries: where user input, retrieved content, tool results and supply-chain artefacts enter. Write four threat entries in the chapter's form, each with an OWASP identifier, the vector described at design level, the impact, the controls and the residual risk; cover at least retrieved content, agent tools and the model supply chain. Then write the guardrail settings those controls point to: allowed collections, output validation, tool allow-list, actions needing confirmation and limits. Finish by listing which checklist items for foundations you could not evidence.
Deliverable: A threat model excerpt with four linked entries, the matching guardrail policy, and a list of unevidenced foundation items.
Self-test
Choose an answer to see whether it is right, or open the answer below each question.
Why is indirect prompt injection described as more dangerous for enterprises than direct injection?
Show the answer
D. Because the attacker never touches the application: planted content acts when it enters the context
Instructions planted in a page, an email or a shared document act when retrieved, so every retrieval system and agent that reads external content is exposed by construction.What does the chapter say is the property that matters in a codified threat model and guardrail policy?
Show the answer
B. Linkage: the threat names the control, the control names the configuration, the pipeline proves deployment
The chapter states that the property that matters is linkage, not completeness, so that a named control is demonstrably live.In the casework assistant's prompt section on untrusted content, what does the rule that the prompt contains no credentials record?
Show the answer
A. That no control depends on the prompt's confidentiality; the case management API decides authorisation
The rule addresses system prompt leakage: the prompt enforces no boundary and holds no secrets or authorisation logic.