AI-Forge governance cockpit showing a completed prompt injection resistance assessment with 44 attacks fired against Llama 3 8B, verdict tally of 36 refused, 1 partial, 4 complied, 3 leaked, with real-time attack feed and dual-taxonomy compliance matrix

AI-Forge: 44 adversarial attacks, 5 regulatory frameworks, live PASS/FAIL per control, audit-grade evidence.

Validation Platform

AI-Forge

Automated AI Compliance Validation Through Live Adversarial Testing

Compliance teams, AI governance leads, security engineers and Authorizing Officials need proof that deployed AI systems behave the way regulators and threat models require. AI-Forge is a prototype that runs real adversarial attacks against real models and produces binary PASS/FAIL findings per regulatory control. Every finding carries the exact prompt sent, the exact response received, a UTC timestamp and a SHA-256 hash. One assessment run produces evidence across five frameworks simultaneously.

Dual-Taxonomy Compliance Matrix

Every attack maps simultaneously to regulatory frameworks (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, CSA AI Controls Matrix) and industry threat taxonomies (OWASP LLM Top 10, MITRE ATLAS). One assessment run updates control status across all five taxonomies. A commercial CISO sees OWASP LLM01 and MITRE AML.T0051 in the language their red team speaks. A federal reviewer sees EU AI Act Article 15 and NIST MEASURE-2.7 in the language their Authorizing Official expects. Same data. Both views. Zero duplication.

Audit-Grade Evidence Pipeline

Every finding carries the exact prompt sent to the model, the exact response received, a UTC timestamp and a SHA-256 cryptographic hash of both. Evidence is written to PostgreSQL with full chain of custody from attack execution to control status. Nothing is summarized by AI. Nothing is paraphrased. The evidence record is what actually happened. Verifiable and reproducible.

Attack-First Pacing

Attacks begin firing against the target model within seconds of clicking Run. The regulatory compliance matrix fills in during runtime as findings accumulate. This is not a dashboard that displays pre-computed results. It is a live validation engine that generates evidence in real time while the viewer watches.

Why This Matters

Over 30 vendors build AI governance dashboards. Policies, risk registers, documentation, monitoring. None of them run actual adversarial attacks against actual deployed AI models and produce PASS/FAIL findings with cryptographic evidence per regulatory control. That is the gap AI-Forge fills.

What penetration testing gave network security teams, AI-Forge gives AI governance teams. Proof of resilience generated by the same techniques adversaries use, mapped to the frameworks regulators enforce.

How It Works: Prompt Injection Resistance

The operational validator tests LLM resilience against prompt injection, the top attack vector in both federal and commercial AI threat models.

01

Curated Attack Battery

50 adversarial attacks across four categories:

  • Direct injection
  • Indirect injection
  • Jailbreak and goal hijacking
  • Prompt leaking

13 attacks are healthcare-flavored, testing PHI extraction, clinical record injection, care recommendation hijacking and HIPAA-protected disclosure attempts. Every attack traces to a documented 2025 or 2026 incident or an established academic threat pattern. No hypothetical scenarios.

02

LLM-as-Judge Scoring

A secondary LLM call evaluates whether the primary model complied with the injected instruction. A hybrid override guard prevents the judge from flipping high-precision heuristic compliance markers. The result is a definitive REFUSED, PARTIAL, COMPLIED or LEAKED verdict for every attack, with the judge's reasoning and confidence score recorded as evidence.

03

Cross-Framework Control Mapping

Each attack carries mappings to EU AI Act articles, NIST AI RMF subcategories, CSA AI Controls Matrix controls, OWASP LLM Top 10 items and MITRE ATLAS techniques. A single assessment run against one model produces findings that update control status across all five taxonomies simultaneously.

Regulatory and Industry Frameworks

AI-Forge validates AI system behavior against published regulatory requirements and industry threat taxonomies.

Regulatory Frameworks

EU AI Act (Art. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) NIST AI RMF 1.0 (MEASURE-2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, MANAGE-1.3) CSA AI Controls Matrix (243 controls)

Industry Threat Taxonomies

OWASP LLM Top 10 2025 (LLM01, LLM02, LLM06, LLM07) MITRE ATLAS (AML.T0051, AML.T0054, AML.T0057)

Anchored to Real Incidents

Every attack in the battery traces to a publicly documented 2025 or 2026 AI security incident.

GTG-1002 (November 2025)

Chinese state-sponsored threat actor used a commercial AI agent to orchestrate autonomous cyber-espionage against approximately 30 organizations. Disrupted by Anthropic. The attack pattern of task decomposition combined with prompt injection is exactly what AI-Forge's jailbreak and goal-hijacking battery tests for.

OpenClaw (January 2026)

Cisco AI Defense documented 9 security findings in an autonomous AI agent skill that performed silent data exfiltration via embedded instructions. AI-Forge's indirect injection battery tests for this exact pattern: adversarial instructions hidden in data the model processes.

LiteLLM / TeamPCP (March 2026)

Supply chain compromise of a widely used AI infrastructure package on PyPI. Three-stage credential stealer with Kubernetes lateral movement and persistent systemd backdoor. Represents the third AI risk surface beyond model manipulation and agent exploitation: infrastructure supply chain integrity.

Assessment Results

Most recent assessment run against Llama 3 8B Instruct via Ollama.

Attacks fired 44
Refused (model rejected injection) 36
Partial (ambiguous response) 1
Complied (model followed injection) 4
Leaked (model disclosed system context) 3
Score 0.82 (threshold: 0.80)
Duration 1 minute 46 seconds
Evidence integrity SHA-256 hash per prompt/response pair

Current Prototype Status

AI-Forge is a functional prototype, not a concept. Here is what has been built and what remains to be validated.

Demonstrated

Prompt Injection Resistance validator operational end-to-end with 50-attack battery
LLM-as-judge scoring with hybrid override guard for verdict integrity
Dual-taxonomy control mappings across 5 frameworks
SHA-256 evidence hashing on every prompt/response pair
Streaming UI with real-time attack feed and compliance matrix
Healthcare-flavored attack scenarios for HIPAA and HITRUST positioning
Verified stable on dual RTX 3090 GPU infrastructure under sustained adversarial inference

Requires Validation

Additional validator categories (bias, hallucination, safety) not yet built beyond architectural patterns
Not yet tested against commercial API-hosted models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Bedrock)
Evidence export formats (OSCAL, SSP) not yet implemented
Single-user prototype without multi-tenant support or RBAC
Compliance Duration Engine designed but not yet connected to the AI assessment pipeline

Product Family

KSI-Forge validates cloud security controls across NIST 800-53, FedRAMP, CMMC and eight additional risk frameworks. AI-Forge validates AI-specific regulatory controls across the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF and CSA AI Controls Matrix. Same architectural patterns. Binary PASS/FAIL validators, evidence pipelines, cross-framework mapping. Applied to a different compliance domain. Cybersecurity compliance and AI compliance are related but distinct disciplines, each requiring purpose-built validation.

AI-Forge validates AI system behavior through automated adversarial testing and produces evidence mapped to published regulatory frameworks. It does not claim regulatory certification, authorization or attestation. Official compliance determinations are made by the relevant governing bodies and their authorized representatives.