Skip to content
injentik

AI red team · offensive security

We don't test your model.
We test what your model can make your systems do.

Offensive security for AI systems, rooted in red teaming — not ML. The jailbreak isn't the finding. The SSRF, the over-scoped token, and the pivot behind it are.

Get the sample report

Independent · Offensive-security firm · HTB COAE certified

Attack path — illustrative

AI application

  • Untrusted input

    poisoned document → RAG

  • Model

    follows the hidden instruction

  • Tool callSSRF

    reaches the metadata endpoint

Perimeter

Internal systems

  • Credentials

    returned in the response

  • PivotOWN

    into the internal network

One poisoned document, followed to system access.

01The problem

An LLM in your stack isn't a chatbot. It's a new caller inside your perimeter — one that reads untrusted content, holds credentials, and invokes tools.

LLM01

Indirect prompt injection

Instructions don't have to come from your user. A support ticket, a scraped page, a PDF in your RAG index — any of it can carry a payload your model will follow.

e.g. A poisoned document in the knowledge base tells the assistant to fetch an internal URL, and its answer comes back with your metadata endpoint attached.

LLM06

Agent & tool-call abuse

Give a model tools and you've given it reach. If the agent runs with broader permissions than the user in front of it, the model becomes a confused deputy with an API key.

e.g. An agent scoped to "read the user's orders" is steered into calling an internal admin endpoint the user was never allowed to touch.

LLM02

Training-data & context leakage

What the model was trained on, fine-tuned with, or handed at inference can be pulled back out — including data that belongs to another customer.

e.g. A carefully shaped prompt reconstructs a fine-tuning record, and one tenant reads another tenant's data.

02Services

Four engagements. Scope the one that matches where your AI actually is.

01

3 days

AI Readiness Review

What gets tested

Architecture review, AI attack-surface mapping across your models, data flows and tool integrations, gap analysis against a recognized control set.

What you get

A surface map, a ranked list of exposure points, and a short brief on where an assessment would pay off first.

02

6–8 days

AI Application Security Assessment

What gets tested

A working LLM/RAG application, end to end — direct and indirect injection, context and system-prompt leakage, RBAC on retrieval sources, and abuse of the application chain the model sits in.

What you get

Reproducible findings with proof-of-concept requests, business impact per issue, and concrete remediation you can hand to engineering.

03

4–5 days

AI Data & Privacy Assessment

What gets tested

Membership inference, model and training-data extraction, cross-tenant leakage, and the data-protection exposure that follows — mapped to GDPR obligations.

What you get

A data-exposure report, demonstrated extraction paths where they exist, and a privacy-risk view your DPO can act on.

04

10–12 days

Agentic Red Team

What gets tested

Agents with real tools and MCP integrations — tool-call abuse, privilege escalation through agent permissions, and multi-step chains that turn one weak link into system access.

What you get

Full attack narratives from entry to impact, the exact chain reproduced step by step, and the containment changes that break it.

03Training

Attack it, then defend it.

Hands-on training in AI security, built around your stack — from the offensive chains to the controls that stop them. The people who run the engagements also teach in an engineering school.

Offensive

Break your own AI

Find the chains yourself: indirect injection, agent and tool-call abuse, the path from a prompt to a pivot. Labs on a live LLM / RAG / agent target.

Defensive

Detect and contain it

Shut those chains down: harden retrieval and RBAC, scope agent permissions, and spot injection and exfiltration — taught from the attacker's playbook.

Ask about training

Tailored to your stack · in-house or remote · on request

04Methodology

Findings map to the frameworks your board already asks about.

Every issue is tied to a public reference so it survives scrutiny — from your engineers, your auditors, and your customers running vendor security reviews.

OWASPOWASP LLM Top 10

Per-finding classification against the LLM application risk list.

MITREMITRE ATLAS

Adversary tactics and techniques for machine-learning systems.

GOOGLEGoogle SAIF

Control-level alignment with the Secure AI Framework.

NISTNIST AI RMF

Governance and risk-function mapping for stakeholders.

06About

We come from offensive security, not ML.

Injentik is an independent offensive-security firm. The people who scope your engagement are the ones writing the exploit and presenting the findings — no account managers, no junior handoff.

The background is classic offensive red teaming. That matters here: most AI red teaming comes from the ML side and stops at the jailbreak. Injentik comes from the attacker side and follows the chain behind it — into the app, the tokens, and the network.

Testing is done to the HTB COAE standard — Certified Offensive AI Engineer, a seven-day hands-on exam built with Google. Every finding is tied to a public framework, so it holds up under review.

HTB COAE — Certified Offensive AI Engineer

07Get the sample report

See what a finding actually looks like.

The sample report is a redacted engagement writeup — one real chain, from indirect injection to internal access, with the reproduction steps and the fix. Leave a work email and it comes straight to your inbox.

Prefer to talk first? Use the same form and say so in the message.

Sample report

  1. 01Executive summary
  2. 02The chain
  3. 03Proof of concept
  4. 04Impact
  5. 05Remediation
  6. 06Framework mapping