AI Red Team Engineering notes, research references, and field notes on AI systems, responsible AI, governance, and compliance.
Global search

Search AI Red Team

Search across the complete knowledge base.

Enter at least two characters to begin.
↑↓ select Enter open Browse the full research archive
NVIDIA AI Red Team · February 25, 2025

Agentic Autonomy Levels and Security

framework AI Red TeamingAgent SecurityPrompt Injection
Why it matters

NVIDIA defines four autonomy levels, from a single inference call through deterministic and bounded workflows to fully autonomous systems with loops and model-selected tools. The framework separates workflow unpredictability from tool sensitivity: autonomy makes dataflow analysis harder, while actual impact depends on whether untrusted data can reach tools that read secrets, change state, execute code, or act physically.

My takeaway: Classify each workflow by autonomy, then map untrusted sources to sensitive sinks independently of the label. Enumerate every path in deterministic and bounded systems; for looping agents, propagate taint, re-authorize at time of use, and require approval for sensitive actions. Enforce identity, scope, and parameter validation at the tool boundary rather than trusting model intent.
Keep exploring

More curated notes connected through AI Red Teaming and Agent Security.

OpenAI News · framework

OpenAI’s Frontier Governance Framework

OpenAI's 22-page Frontier Governance Framework maps its frontier-model processes to California's Transparency in Frontier AI Act and the EU AI Act's general-purpose AI code. It documents lifecycle risk assessment, cyber-offense and other risk tiers, mitigation and residual-risk decisions, critical-incident handling, security risk management, model reporting, external review, responsibility allocation, and change control.

OWASP GenAI Security Project · guide

OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications for 2026

OWASP's community guide organizes agentic-system risk into ten categories, including goal hijacking, tool misuse, identity and privilege abuse, memory poisoning, insecure inter-agent communication, cascading failures, and rogue-agent behavior. It provides a shared taxonomy and mitigation starting point rather than a certification checklist or evidence that a deployed system is secure.

OECD.AI Wonk · guide

A five-step roadmap to closing the AI evaluation gap

The roadmap addresses evaluation results that overstate real-world performance or fail to transfer across deployment contexts. Its five steps balance standardized and local tests, evaluate throughout the lifecycle, build qualified assurance and communication capacity, tailor tests to each value-chain actor and technology, and use a coordinated, trusted process for updating methods.