M.A.D.E. · ATTACK

Adversarial Analysis and Validation

Test the flows. Validate the paths.

Exercise realistic failure conditions across prompts, retrieval, agents, tools, identities, permissions, approval boundaries, code, outputs, and external actions.

Attack connects static analysis, bounded adversarial scenarios, runtime evidence, path qualification, and regression planning. The objective is not to maximize jailbreak counts. It is to establish what can happen in the actual application, why it can happen, which controls matter, and what evidence supports the conclusion.

Scope adversarial testing Open Adversarial Range Explore Code Scanner Explore Attack Path Analysis Next: Defend

Attack Path Analysis at a glance

Turn connected evidence into defensible attack paths.

Most security reports stop at individual findings. Attack Path Analysis asks which findings, identities, permissions, workflows, runtime observations, code relationships, and control weaknesses combine into a supported route toward consequential impact.

157Scenario files in the current registry

15Active attack packs

22Threat vectors represented

8First-class tool adapters

Best next steps

Code Scanner-Find AI-specific code findings and code-risk paths.Attack Path Analysis-Qualify supported findings into defensible paths.AI Red Teaming-Deeper adversarial validation when findings need proof.Adversarial Range-Exercise realistic failure flows and preserve reproducible outcomes.

A finding is not yet an attack path.

Attack reproduces the behavior, qualifies the transitions, and preserves the evidence required to support an end-to-end consequence.

ATT-02

From Isolated Finding to Defensible Path

A defensible attack path connects observed steps, evidence, and consequences rather than merely grouping nearby findings.

Not every issue should become a path. A defensible path requires supported ordering, evidence tied to each meaningful step, and a bounded statement of consequence.

Connected analysis and validation

Analyze the implementation. Exercise the flows. Capture the outcome. Qualify the paths.

No single test tells the whole story. Static code analysis, adversarial behavior, runtime evidence, and path qualification answer different security questions. Attack combines those signals without pretending they are the same thing.

Analyze the implementation

Use Code Scanner, Artifact Analyzer, Prompt Security Review, Tool Analyzer, and focused configuration analysis to identify supported findings, exposed capabilities, missing controls, and reviewable code-risk paths.

Code findingsCode-risk pathsArtifact capabilitiesPrompt and configuration findingsValidation requirements

Exercise realistic flows

Use Adversarial Range and specialist test packs to exercise bounded prompt, retrieval, agent, tool, multimodal, output, approval, and workflow failure conditions.

Scenario resultObserved behaviorPass, fail, partial, or inconclusive stateControl behaviorReplayable test case

Capture the outcome

Preserve the inputs, environment, model, retrieval context, identity, tool activity, approval state, output, external effect, and evidence required to explain what happened.

Runtime traceEvidence referencesControl stateObserved consequenceReproduction status

Qualify the paths

Use Attack Path Analysis to combine supported findings, system relationships, authority context, observed traces, and evidence into candidate, supported, validated, reproduced, rejected, or residual paths while preserving evidence grounding.

Attack pathsRelated candidate pathsExplicit hypothesesRemediation chokepointsRetest conditions

Focused test packs

Bounded questions, connected evidence.

Use focused test packs for bounded questions. Their outputs contribute evidence to wider application analysis without being presented as complete standalone platforms.

RAG Security Testing

Test retrieval authorization, tenant isolation, provenance, poisoning, context integrity, leakage, and unsafe action propagation.

Prompt Injection Test Pack

Run structured direct and indirect injection probes, record outcomes, and preserve the evidence session.

Prompt Security Review

Apply deterministic checks to system prompts, agent instructions, tool prompts, retrieval templates, and corpus documents.

Output Safety Analysis

Analyze model output against the security requirements of the destination sink, including rendering, links, commands, tool calls, email, databases, code, and terminals.

From security signal to supported path

From security signal to supported path.

Step 1

Identify the signal

Static finding, configuration issue, artifact capability, authority relationship, or modeled scenario.

Step 2

Establish application context

Affected component, identity, workflow, data, tool, permission, control, and trust boundary.

Step 3

Exercise or inspect the relevant flow

Run a bounded scenario, inspect the implementation, or analyze approved runtime evidence.

Step 4

Preserve the outcome

Record observations, evidence references, control behavior, consequence, and uncertainty.

Step 5

Qualify the path

Determine whether the result supports a code-risk path, authority path, candidate path, supported path, or validated path.

Step 6

Prioritize the control

Identify remediation chokepoints, ownership, implementation work, and retest conditions.

Attack Path Analysis

Qualify the path before you claim it.

Attack Path Analysis reasons over supported findings and system context while keeping direct evidence, provisional extensions, and analyst decisions visibly distinct.

Preserve where the evidence stops.

Attack Path Analysis separates what the available evidence directly supports from plausible extensions that still require qualification or analyst review.

PATH-01

Grounded path steps and explicit hypotheses.

Attack Path Analysis separates what the evidence directly supports from what remains an explicit hypothesis requiring validation or analyst review.

Observed evidence

1Code and configuration evidence
2Runtime and trace evidence
3Identity and permission evidence
4Scanner and adversarial findings

Grounded path

Observed entry condition
Supported intermediate action
Evidence-supported impact

Explicit inference

Plausible next step
Assumption requiring challenge
Unverified impact extension

Inference never becomes grounded merely because it is plausible; evidence or explicit analyst validation must change its status.

Validation / analyst review

Evidence confirms extension
Analyst review required
Extension rejected

Observed and grounded steps remain distinct from inference. That boundary is essential when an attack path becomes a remediation priority, executive claim, or customer-facing artifact.

What Attack Path Analysis returns

candidate attack paths

grounded vs inferred step labels

MITRE ATT&CK mapping

MITRE Attack Flow export where supported

ATT&CK Navigator layers

qualitative loss-exposure reasoning and risk drivers

ranked remediation chokepoints

retest conditions

explicit analyst-review status

Scope note

Attack Path Analysis performs defensive attack-path analysis at the tactic-technique-procedure level. It does not generate exploit code, payloads, credential material, or step-by-step intrusion instructions.

Preserve findings, traces, paths, fixes, retests, control evidence, and reviewed outputs.

Open route