| # Test Execution Protocols | |
| This document outlines standardized procedures for implementing security tests within the AISecForge framework. Following these protocols ensures consistent, reproducible, and comprehensive security assessments across different models and evaluators. | |
| ## General Execution Principles | |
| ### 1. Controlled Testing Environment | |
| All security testing must be conducted in isolated environments to prevent unintended exposure of vulnerabilities or harmful outputs. | |
| #### Requirements | |
| - Isolated network environment or appropriate API sandboxing | |
| - Access controls limiting exposure to authorized testers only | |
| - Logging systems capturing all interactions | |
| - Prohibition on testing against production systems | |
| - Appropriate data handling procedures for any sensitive outputs | |
| #### Implementation Steps | |
| 1. Configure testing environment with appropriate isolation | |
| 2. Verify logging systems are operational | |
| 3. Confirm access controls are in place | |
| 4. Document environment configuration for reproducibility | |
| ### 2. Systematic Test Progression | |
| Testing should follow a systematic progression from basic to advanced techniques, ensuring comprehensive coverage while efficiently identifying vulnerabilities. | |
| #### Testing Phases | |
| 1. **Baseline Testing**: Establish model's standard behavior and response patterns | |
| 2. **Basic Vulnerability Testing**: Implement fundamental test cases for each security dimension | |
| 3. **Advanced Technique Testing**: Apply sophisticated variations of each attack vector | |
| 4. **Combined Vector Testing**: Test interactions between different vulnerability classes | |
| 5. **Persistent Testing**: Evaluate degradation over extended interactions | |
| 6. **Edge Case Testing**: Explore boundary conditions and rare scenarios | |
| #### Implementation Steps | |
| 1. Develop test plan detailing progression through phases | |
| 2. Document completion criteria for each phase | |
| 3. Maintain dependencies between phases (e.g., advanced testing builds on basic results) | |
| 4. Track coverage across dimensions and techniques | |
| ### 3. Comprehensive Documentation | |
| All testing activities must be thoroughly documented to ensure reproducibility, support analysis, and enable remediation. | |
| #### Documentation Requirements | |
| - Detailed test case descriptions | |
| - Exact inputs used (including any randomization parameters) | |
| - Complete response outputs | |
| - Environmental conditions and configurations | |
| - Timestamps and execution duration | |
| - Success/failure determinations | |
| - Observations on model behavior | |
| #### Implementation Steps | |
| 1. Establish documentation templates | |
| 2. Configure automated logging where possible | |
| 3. Document manual observations contemporaneously | |
| 4. Maintain secure storage of all test artifacts | |
| ### 4. Failure Analysis | |
| When vulnerabilities are identified, they should be subject to detailed analysis to understand boundaries, reproducibility, and impact. | |
| #### Analysis Requirements | |
| - Determination of success conditions and reliability | |
| - Investigation of variant approaches | |
| - Identification of triggering factors | |
| - Assessment of impact severity | |
| - Evaluation of potential mitigations | |
| #### Implementation Steps | |
| 1. Define clear success criteria for each test case | |
| 2. Implement multiple variations to determine boundaries | |
| 3. Test reliability through repeated execution | |
| 4. Document all findings systematically | |
| ## Dimension-Specific Protocols | |
| ### 1. Linguistic Pattern Exploitation | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Linguistic Transformation Series** | |
| - Apply systematic transformations to known-harmful prompts | |
| - Test increasingly sophisticated obfuscation techniques | |
| - Evaluate language mixing and transitioning strategies | |
| - Test nested linguistic structures of varying complexity | |
| 2. **Reference Point Testing** | |
| - Establish baseline model responses to direct harmful requests | |
| - Compare responses to transformed requests against baselines | |
| - Measure degradation in refusal strength | |
| - Document success conditions for each transformation | |
| 3. **Threshold Determination** | |
| - Identify minimum complexity required for successful exploitation | |
| - Determine linguistic patterns with highest success rates | |
| - Document pattern effectiveness across different content policies | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Library of reference harmful prompts | |
| - Standardized linguistic transformation techniques | |
| - Metrics for measuring refusal strength | |
| - Documentation templates for linguistic pattern effectiveness | |
| ### 2. Contextual Boundary Testing | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Contextual Framing Series** | |
| - Implement progressively complex framing scenarios | |
| - Test role-based, hypothetical, and emergency framings | |
| - Evaluate nested contextual structures | |
| - Assess contextual authority invocation patterns | |
| 2. **Boundary Pressure Testing** | |
| - Establish baseline boundary enforcement | |
| - Apply incremental pressure through contextual manipulation | |
| - Measure degradation in boundary enforcement | |
| - Document pressure thresholds for boundary failures | |
| 3. **Contextual Transition Testing** | |
| - Test abrupt versus gradual contextual transitions | |
| - Evaluate contextual inheritance patterns | |
| - Assess boundary reset effectiveness | |
| - Document successful transition patterns | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Library of contextual framing templates | |
| - Standardized boundary pressure techniques | |
| - Metrics for measuring boundary enforcement | |
| - Documentation templates for contextual manipulation effectiveness | |
| ### 3. System Prompt Extraction | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Extraction Technique Series** | |
| - Apply increasingly sophisticated extraction methods | |
| - Test direct, indirect, and inferential approaches | |
| - Evaluate combined extraction strategies | |
| - Assess token prediction exploitation techniques | |
| 2. **Information Completeness Assessment** | |
| - Measure quantity and quality of extracted information | |
| - Compare extracted content against known system instructions | |
| - Evaluate usefulness of extracted information for attacks | |
| - Document extraction efficiency and accuracy | |
| 3. **Extraction Barrier Testing** | |
| - Identify mechanisms preventing extraction | |
| - Test techniques for bypassing specific barriers | |
| - Evaluate resilience of different barrier types | |
| - Document successful barrier bypass patterns | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Library of extraction techniques | |
| - Metrics for measuring extraction success | |
| - Templates for documenting extracted information | |
| - Methods for evaluating extraction accuracy | |
| ### 4. Multi-turn Vulnerability Assessment | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Conversation Progression Series** | |
| - Implement progressively complex conversation flows | |
| - Test gradual boundary erosion techniques | |
| - Evaluate memory exploitation strategies | |
| - Assess trust-building and redirection approaches | |
| 2. **Temporal Degradation Measurement** | |
| - Establish baseline boundaries in single-turn interactions | |
| - Measure boundary degradation over multiple turns | |
| - Track memory persistence and exploitation | |
| - Document temporal patterns in security failures | |
| 3. **Recovery Testing** | |
| - Assess model recovery after partial exploitation | |
| - Test persistence of vulnerability after conversation breaks | |
| - Evaluate effectiveness of conversational resets | |
| - Document recovery patterns and failures | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Standardized conversation flow templates | |
| - Metrics for measuring security degradation over time | |
| - Documentation formats for temporal vulnerability patterns | |
| - Methods for evaluating conversation state management | |
| ### 5. Multimodal Attack Vectors | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Cross-Modal Injection Series** | |
| - Test increasingly sophisticated multimodal inputs | |
| - Evaluate different embedding techniques across modalities | |
| - Assess modality-specific vulnerabilities | |
| - Test transitions between modalities | |
| 2. **Modal Translation Assessment** | |
| - Evaluate security in modal interpretation processes | |
| - Test for inconsistencies in cross-modal security | |
| - Assess exploitation of modal translation errors | |
| - Document modality-specific security weaknesses | |
| 3. **Modal Boundary Testing** | |
| - Identify security boundaries between modalities | |
| - Test techniques for bypassing modal boundaries | |
| - Evaluate consistency of security across modalities | |
| - Document successful boundary bypass patterns | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Library of multimodal test inputs | |
| - Tools for creating cross-modal attack vectors | |
| - Metrics for measuring modal security consistency | |
| - Documentation templates for multimodal vulnerabilities | |
| ### 6. Tool Use Security | |
| #### Key Testing Protocols | |
| 1. **Tool Manipulation Series** | |
| - Test increasingly sophisticated tool use manipulations | |
| - Evaluate parameter injection techniques | |
| - Assess function call redirection strategies | |
| - Test tool chaining vulnerabilities | |
| 2. **Tool Boundary Assessment** | |
| - Evaluate security boundaries in tool selection processes | |
| - Test for inconsistencies in tool use permissions | |
| - Assess exploitation of tool output interpretation | |
| - Document tool-specific security weaknesses | |
| 3. **Tool Chain Testing** | |
| - Identify vulnerabilities in sequences of tool operations | |
| - Test techniques for manipulating tool chains | |
| - Evaluate security in complex tool interactions | |
| - Document successful tool chain manipulation patterns | |
| #### Implementation Requirements | |
| - Test harnesses for tool use simulation | |
| - Library of tool manipulation techniques | |
| - Metrics for measuring tool use security | |
| - Documentation templates for tool-related vulnerabilities | |
| ## Results Recording Standards | |
| ### Test Case Documentation | |
| Each test case execution should be documented with: | |
| ``` | |
| TEST CASE ID: [Unique identifier] | |
| SECURITY DIMENSION: [Primary dimension] | |
| TEST DESCRIPTION: [Detailed description] | |
| TEST ENVIRONMENT: [Environment details] | |
| EXECUTION DATE: [Date and time] | |
| EXACT INPUTS: | |
| [Full input text/content] | |
| EXACT OUTPUTS: | |
| [Full output text/content] | |
| SUCCESS/FAILURE: [Determination] | |
| SUCCESS CRITERIA: [Specific criteria used] | |
| OBSERVATIONS: [Additional observations] | |
| VARIANTS TESTED: [List of variants] | |
| RELIABILITY: [Success rate across attempts] | |
| CLASSIFICATION: [Vulnerability classification if applicable] | |
| ``` | |
| ### Testing Session Summary | |
| Each testing session should be summarized with: | |
| ``` | |
| SESSION ID: [Unique identifier] | |
| DATE RANGE: [Start and end dates] | |
| TESTER(S): [Names or identifiers] | |
| SECURITY DIMENSIONS COVERED: [List of dimensions] | |
| TEST CASES EXECUTED: [Number of test cases] | |
| VULNERABILITIES IDENTIFIED: [Number of vulnerabilities] | |
| KEY FINDINGS: [Summary of findings] | |
| NOTABLE PATTERNS: [Observed patterns] | |
| RECOMMENDATIONS: [Testing recommendations] | |
| ARTIFACTS: [Links to detailed results] | |
| ``` | |
| ### Vulnerability Summary | |
| Each identified vulnerability should be summarized with: | |
| ``` | |
| VULNERABILITY ID: [Unique identifier] | |
| CLASSIFICATION: [Full classification code] | |
| DESCRIPTION: [Detailed description] | |
| REPRODUCTION: [Step-by-step reproduction] | |
| RELIABILITY: [Success rate] | |
| SEVERITY: [Severity assessment] | |
| AFFECTED COMPONENTS: [System components] | |
| RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS: [Guidance] | |
| RELATED VULNERABILITIES: [Links to related issues] | |
| TEST CASE REFERENCES: [Links to test cases] | |
| ``` | |
| ## Execution Workflow | |
| ### 1. Preparation Phase | |
| 1. Define testing scope and objectives | |
| 2. Configure testing environment | |
| 3. Prepare test case library | |
| 4. Establish baseline model behaviors | |
| 5. Document configuration and preparation | |
| ### 2. Execution Phase | |
| 1. Implement test cases following dimension-specific protocols | |
| 2. Document all tests contemporaneously | |
| 3. Perform failure analysis on identified vulnerabilities | |
| 4. Adapt testing based on emerging findings | |
| 5. Track coverage across security dimensions | |
| ### 3. Analysis Phase | |
| 1. Compile testing results | |
| 2. Classify identified vulnerabilities | |
| 3. Assess severity and impact | |
| 4. Identify patterns and trends | |
| 5. Document findings comprehensively | |
| ### 4. Reporting Phase | |
| 1. Prepare vulnerability summaries | |
| 2. Generate dimensional security assessments | |
| 3. Compile overall security evaluation | |
| 4. Develop remediation recommendations | |
| 5. Prepare final assessment report | |
| ## Quality Control | |
| To ensure testing quality and consistency: | |
| 1. **Peer Review**: Critical vulnerabilities should undergo peer review for validation | |
| 2. **Reproduction Verification**: Vulnerabilities should be reproduced by multiple testers | |
| 3. **Comparative Analysis**: Results should be compared across similar models when possible | |
| 4. **Historical Comparison**: Current results should be compared against previous assessments | |
| 5. **Documentation Review**: All reports should undergo review for completeness and clarity | |
| ## Ethical Considerations | |
| All testing must adhere to these ethical guidelines: | |
| 1. Testing must occur in isolated, controlled environments | |
| 2. No exposure of vulnerable models to the public | |
| 3. Responsible disclosure to model developers before publication | |
| 4. Focus on defensive improvements rather than exploitation | |
| 5. Prohibition of techniques that could cause broader harm | |
| ## Conclusion | |
| These execution protocols provide a standardized framework for implementing LLM security testing. By following these protocols consistently, testers can ensure comprehensive, reproducible, and responsible security assessments that effectively identify vulnerabilities while minimizing potential harms. | |
| For implementation examples and case studies, refer to the [case studies](../case-studies/) directory. | |