NVIDIA AI Red Team · February 25, 2025

Defining LLM Red Teaming

Why it matters

Drawing on a grounded-theory study of practitioner interviews, NVIDIA characterizes LLM red teaming as systematic, limit-seeking, non-malicious, manual, collaborative work and distinguishes security testing from content testing. The article connects exploratory human testing to release decisions, coordinated disclosure, model documentation, and automated regression coverage through tools such as garak.

My takeaway: Name the red-team domain and system boundary before testing: model content, confidentiality, integrity, availability, or the surrounding application. Record attacker assumptions and complete traces, validate findings independently, disclose responsibly, and convert confirmed failures into automated regression cases without treating automation as a replacement for creative human exploration.
Keep exploring

More curated notes connected through AI Red Teaming and Model Evaluation.

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.