OWASP_LLM_Security_Policy.md

June 20, 2026 · View on GitHub

🛡️ Hack23 AB — OWASP LLM Security Policy

🔐 Comprehensive LLM Security Framework Through OWASP Top 10 Alignment
🎯 Enterprise-Grade AI Security Demonstrating Cybersecurity Excellence

📋 Document Owner: CEO | 📄 Version: 1.5 | 📅 Last Updated: 2026-06-20 (UTC)
🔄 Review Cycle: Quarterly | ⏰ Next Review: 2026-09-20

🎯 Purpose Statement

🏢 Hack23 AB's OWASP LLM Security Policy demonstrates how systematic application of industry-standard LLM security controls directly enables both AI innovation excellence and risk management. Our comprehensive LLM security framework showcases how methodical vulnerability management and threat mitigation create competitive advantages through robust AI system protection.

This policy establishes mandatory security controls for all Large Language Model (LLM) applications at Hack23 AB, ensuring protection against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025 vulnerabilities while maintaining alignment with our 🤖 AI Governance Policy, 🇪🇺 EU AI Act, and 📋 ISO/IEC 42001:2023 standards.

🔗 ISMS Integration Framework:

🤖 AI Foundation: Extends AI Governance Policy
🔐 Security Controls: Applies Information Security Policy
📊 Risk Management: Uses Risk Assessment Methodology
🔍 Vulnerability Tracking: Integrates Vulnerability Management

— 👨‍💼 James Pether Sörling, CEO/Founder

⚠️ Implementation Status Notice

Current Implementation Phase: Foundation + Planning (Q4 2025)

This policy documents Hack23 AB's comprehensive LLM security framework including:

📊 Implementation Categories

✅ Implemented (60%): Enterprise security foundation fully operational
- Access Control, Data Classification, Cryptography policies
- Third-Party Management with AI vendor assessments
- AI Governance with human oversight requirements
- Core ISMS infrastructure and monitoring
📋 Documented (23%): Standard operating procedures ready for LLM-specific extension
- Incident response playbooks
- Business continuity procedures
- Security metrics framework
- General monitoring and logging
⏭️ Planned (17%): LLM-specific technical controls scheduled for Q1-Q2 2026
- LLM input validation and prompt templates
- LLM output filtering and DLP integration
- Vector database security (AWS Bedrock deployment)
- LLM-specific monitoring and anomaly detection

🗓️ Implementation Roadmap

Phase	Timeline	Key Deliverables
Phase 0: Foundation	Q3-Q4 2025	ISMS policies, AI governance, vendor assessments
Phase 1: AWS Bedrock	Q1 2026	Vector security (LLM08), knowledge base deployment
Phase 2: LLM Controls	Q2 2026	Prompt injection prevention, output handling, DLP
Phase 3: Monitoring	Q3 2026	LLM-specific dashboards, anomaly detection, metrics
Target Completion	Q3 2026	90%+ implementation rate achieved

🎯 Transparency Commitment

This policy reflects our intended security architecture while honestly representing current implementation status. The strong foundational ISMS (100% complete) enables rapid LLM control deployment as systems scale. Our approach prioritizes:

Honest Assessment: Clear distinction between implemented, documented, and planned controls
Risk-Based Deployment: Foundation-first approach ensures core security before LLM-specific features
Scalable Architecture: ISMS framework designed for rapid LLM control integration
Continuous Improvement: Quarterly reviews and evidence-based status updates

Current Reality: Enterprise-grade security foundation operational; LLM-specific technical controls in active development aligned with AWS Bedrock Q1 2026 deployment.

🔍 Scope & Application

🎯 Policy Scope

This policy applies to all LLM-based systems and AI applications at Hack23 AB:

🤖 LLM Application Category	Security Classification	OWASP Coverage	Risk Level
🔧 Development AI (GitHub Copilot)		All 10 vulnerabilities
💬 Content Generation (OpenAI GPT)		All 10 vulnerabilities
🏛️ Political OSINT Analysis		All 10 vulnerabilities
🧠 Knowledge Base (AWS Bedrock)		All 10 vulnerabilities

🏢 Hack23 Product LLM Attack Surface

LLM-based capabilities span the Hack23 AB product portfolio. OWASP LLM Top 10 controls apply per product based on its LLM surface; each product documents implementation in its own SECURITY_ARCHITECTURE.md:

🏢 Hack23 Product	🔗 Repository	🤖 LLM Surface	🎯 Primary OWASP Focus
🏛️ Citizen Intelligence Agency (CIA)	GitHub	Political OSINT analysis, Copilot dev	LLM01, LLM02, LLM09
📊 CIA Compliance Manager	GitHub	Content generation, Copilot dev	LLM01, LLM05, LLM06
🎮 Black Trigram	GitHub	Creative AI assets, Copilot dev	LLM03, LLM05
🌐 European Parliament MCP Server	GitHub	MCP data integration, OSINT analysis	LLM01, LLM02, LLM06, LLM08
🇪🇺 EU Parliament Monitor	GitHub	Political OSINT analysis, Copilot dev	LLM01, LLM02, LLM09
🗳️ Riksdagsmonitor	GitHub	Political OSINT analysis, Copilot dev	LLM01, LLM02, LLM09
🏠 Homepage	GitHub	Creative AI marketing content, Copilot dev	LLM05, LLM09
🎯 Game Template	GitHub	Creative AI assets, Copilot dev	LLM03, LLM05

Universal control: All products use GitHub Copilot as a development-time LLM. This shared surface brings every repository into scope for the development-time subset of the OWASP LLM Top 10 — primarily LLM01 (Prompt Injection), LLM02 (Sensitive Information Disclosure), and LLM05 (Improper Output Handling). The remaining categories apply per product based on its runtime LLM surface, as mapped in the table above. Product portfolio classification and AI governance are defined in the 🤖 AI Governance Policy.

📋 Regulatory Context

Our OWASP LLM security controls align with:

EU AI Act Article 15: AI system technical robustness and cybersecurity requirements
GDPR Article 32: Security of processing for AI-handled personal data
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 Section 8.2: AI system security risk management
NIS2 Directive: Critical infrastructure AI system protection

🔒 OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025

🗺️ Threat Landscape Overview

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
      'lineColor': '#ff9800',
      'secondaryColor': '#D32F2F',
      'tertiaryColor': '#7B1FA2'
    }
  }
}%%
mindmap
  root)🤖 AI/ML Attack Framework<br/>15 Tactics - 81 Techniques(
    (🔍 Reconnaissance<br/>6 techniques)
      [Search Open Technical Databases]
      [Search Open AI Vulnerability Analysis]
      [Search Victim-Owned Websites]
      [Search Application Repositories]
      [Active Scanning]
      [Gather RAG-Indexed Targets]
    
    (🛠️ Resource Development<br/>12 techniques)
      [Acquire Public AI Artifacts]
      [Obtain Capabilities]
      [Develop Capabilities]
      [Acquire Infrastructure]
      [Publish Poisoned Datasets]
      [Poison Training Data]
      [Establish Accounts]
      [Publish Poisoned Models]
      [Publish Hallucinated Entities]
      [LLM Prompt Crafting]
      [Retrieval Content Crafting]
      [Stage Capabilities]
    
    (🚪 Initial Access<br/>6 techniques)
      [AI Supply Chain Compromise]
      [Valid Accounts]
      [Evade AI Model]
      [Exploit Public-Facing Application]
      [Phishing]
      [Drive-by Compromise]
    
    (🎯 AI Model Access<br/>4 techniques)
      [AI Model Inference API Access]
      [AI-Enabled Product or Service]
      [Physical Environment Access]
      [Full AI Model Access]
    
    (⚡ Execution<br/>4 techniques)
      [User Execution]
      [Command and Scripting Interpreter]
      [LLM Prompt Injection]
      [AI Agent Tool Invocation]
    
    (♻️ Persistence<br/>6 techniques)
      [Poison Training Data]
      [Manipulate AI Model]
      [LLM Prompt Self-Replication]
      [RAG Poisoning]
      [AI Agent Context Poisoning]
      [Modify AI Agent Configuration]
    
    (⬆️ Privilege Escalation<br/>2 techniques)
      [AI Agent Tool Invocation]
      [LLM Jailbreak]
    
    (🛡️ Defense Evasion<br/>8 techniques)
      [Evade AI Model]
      [LLM Jailbreak]
      [LLM Trusted Output Components Manipulation]
      [LLM Prompt Obfuscation]
      [False RAG Entry Injection]
      [Impersonation]
      [Masquerading]
      [Corrupt AI Model]
    
    (🔑 Credential Access<br/>3 techniques)
      [Unsecured Credentials]
      [RAG Credential Harvesting]
      [Credentials from AI Agent Configuration]
    
    (🔎 Discovery<br/>8 techniques)
      [Discover AI Model Ontology]
      [Discover AI Model Family]
      [Discover AI Artifacts]
      [Discover LLM Hallucinations]
      [Discover AI Model Outputs]
      [Discover LLM System Information]
      [Cloud Service Discovery]
      [Discover AI Agent Configuration]
    
    (📦 Collection<br/>4 techniques)
      [AI Artifact Collection]
      [Data from Information Repositories]
      [Data from Local System]
      [Data from AI Services]
    
    (🎭 AI Attack Staging<br/>4 techniques)
      [Create Proxy AI Model]
      [Manipulate AI Model]
      [Verify Attack]
      [Craft Adversarial Data]
    
    (📡 Command and Control<br/>1 technique)
      [Reverse Shell]
    
    (📤 Exfiltration<br/>6 techniques)
      [Exfiltration via AI Inference API]
      [Exfiltration via Cyber Means]
      [Extract LLM System Prompt]
      [LLM Data Leakage]
      [LLM Response Rendering]
      [Exfiltration via AI Agent Tool Invocation]
    
    (💥 Impact<br/>7 techniques)
      [Evade AI Model]
      [Denial of AI Service]
      [Spamming AI System with Chaff Data]
      [Erode AI Model Integrity]
      [Cost Harvesting]
      [External Harms]
      [Erode Dataset Integrity]

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0d47a1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
flowchart TD
    START["🎯 AI/ML Attack Lifecycle"]
    
    subgraph RECON["🔍 Reconnaissance (6 techniques)"]
        R1[Search Open Technical<br/>Databases]
        R2[Search AI Vulnerability<br/>Analysis]
        R3[Search Victim-Owned<br/>Websites]
        R4[Search Application<br/>Repositories]
        R5[Active Scanning]
        R6[Gather RAG-Indexed<br/>Targets]
    end
    
    subgraph RESOURCE["🛠️ Resource Development (12 techniques)"]
        RD1[Acquire Public AI<br/>Artifacts]
        RD2[Obtain/Develop<br/>Capabilities]
        RD3[Acquire<br/>Infrastructure]
        RD4[Publish Poisoned<br/>Datasets/Models]
        RD5[LLM Prompt<br/>Crafting]
        RD6[Stage<br/>Capabilities]
    end
    
    subgraph ACCESS["🚪 Initial Access (6 techniques)"]
        IA1[AI Supply Chain<br/>Compromise]
        IA2[Valid Accounts]
        IA3[Evade AI Model]
        IA4[Exploit Public-Facing<br/>Application]
        IA5[Phishing]
        IA6[Drive-by<br/>Compromise]
    end
    
    subgraph MODELACCESS["🎯 AI Model Access (4 techniques)"]
        MA1[AI Model Inference<br/>API Access]
        MA2[AI-Enabled Product<br/>or Service]
        MA3[Physical Environment<br/>Access]
        MA4[Full AI Model<br/>Access]
    end
    
    subgraph EXECUTE["⚡ Execution (4 techniques)"]
        EX1[User Execution]
        EX2[Command/Scripting<br/>Interpreter]
        EX3[LLM Prompt<br/>Injection]
        EX4[AI Agent Tool<br/>Invocation]
    end
    
    subgraph PERSIST["♻️ Persistence (6 techniques)"]
        PE1[Poison Training<br/>Data]
        PE2[Manipulate AI<br/>Model]
        PE3[LLM Prompt<br/>Self-Replication]
        PE4[RAG/Context<br/>Poisoning]
    end
    
    subgraph LATERAL["⬆️ Privilege Escalation (2) | 🛡️ Defense Evasion (8)"]
        LA1[LLM Jailbreak]
        LA2[Evade AI Model]
        LA3[Prompt Obfuscation]
        LA4[False RAG Entry]
        LA5[Impersonation/<br/>Masquerading]
    end
    
    subgraph INTEL["🔑 Credential Access (3) | 🔎 Discovery (8)"]
        IN1[Unsecured<br/>Credentials]
        IN2[RAG Credential<br/>Harvesting]
        IN3[Discover AI Model<br/>Ontology/Family]
        IN4[Discover LLM<br/>Hallucinations]
        IN5[Discover System<br/>Information]
    end
    
    subgraph COLLECT["📦 Collection (4) | 🎭 AI Attack Staging (4)"]
        CO1[AI Artifact<br/>Collection]
        CO2[Data from AI<br/>Services]
        CO3[Create Proxy AI<br/>Model]
        CO4[Craft Adversarial<br/>Data]
    end
    
    subgraph EXFIL["📡 Command & Control (1) | 📤 Exfiltration (6)"]
        EF1[Reverse Shell]
        EF2[Exfiltration via AI<br/>Inference API]
        EF3[Extract LLM System<br/>Prompt]
        EF4[LLM Data<br/>Leakage]
    end
    
    subgraph IMPACT["💥 Impact (7 techniques)"]
        IM1[Denial of AI<br/>Service]
        IM2[Erode AI Model<br/>Integrity]
        IM3[Cost Harvesting]
        IM4[External Harms]
        IM5[Erode Dataset<br/>Integrity]
    end
    
    START --> RECON
    RECON --> RESOURCE
    RESOURCE --> ACCESS
    ACCESS --> MODELACCESS
    MODELACCESS --> EXECUTE
    EXECUTE --> PERSIST
    PERSIST --> LATERAL
    LATERAL --> INTEL
    INTEL --> COLLECT
    COLLECT --> EXFIL
    EXFIL --> IMPACT
    
    LATERAL -.Can Loop Back.-> EXECUTE
    INTEL -.Feeds Into.-> COLLECT
    
    classDef recon fill:#1565C0,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px
    classDef resource fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#7b1fa2,stroke-width:2px
    classDef access fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    classDef execute fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px
    classDef persist fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px
    classDef lateral fill:#FFC107,stroke:#FFA000,stroke-width:2px
    classDef intel fill:#1565C0,stroke:#455A64,stroke-width:2px
    classDef collect fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#C62828,stroke-width:2px
    classDef exfil fill:#7B1FA2,stroke:#7B1FA2,stroke-width:2px
    classDef impact fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:3px
    
    class RECON,R1,R2,R3,R4,R5,R6 recon
    class RESOURCE,RD1,RD2,RD3,RD4,RD5,RD6 resource
    class ACCESS,IA1,IA2,IA3,IA4,IA5,IA6 access
    class MODELACCESS,MA1,MA2,MA3,MA4 access
    class EXECUTE,EX1,EX2,EX3,EX4 execute
    class PERSIST,PE1,PE2,PE3,PE4 persist
    class LATERAL,LA1,LA2,LA3,LA4,LA5 lateral
    class INTEL,IN1,IN2,IN3,IN4,IN5 intel
    class COLLECT,CO1,CO2,CO3,CO4 collect
    class EXFIL,EF1,EF2,EF3,EF4 exfil
    class IMPACT,IM1,IM2,IM3,IM4,IM5 impact

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'primaryTextColor': '#2E7D32',
      'lineColor': '#4caf50'
    }
  }
}%%
sankey-beta

%% Source: 15 Tactics with technique counts
Reconnaissance,Initial Access,6
Reconnaissance,Discovery,6
Resource Development,Persistence,12
Resource Development,Initial Access,12
Initial Access,AI Model Access,6
AI Model Access,Execution,4
Execution,Persistence,4
Persistence,Privilege Escalation,6
Privilege Escalation,Defense Evasion,2
Defense Evasion,Credential Access,8
Credential Access,Discovery,3
Discovery,Collection,8
Collection,AI Attack Staging,4
AI Attack Staging,Command and Control,4
Command and Control,Exfiltration,1
Exfiltration,Impact,6
Defense Evasion,Impact,8

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
      'lineColor': '#ff9800',
      'secondaryColor': '#D32F2F',
      'tertiaryColor': '#7B1FA2'
    }
  }
}%%
mindmap
  root)🛡️ OWASP LLM Top 10 2025(
    (🎯 Input Threats)
      🚨 LLM01 Prompt Injection
      🔓 LLM07 System Prompt Leakage
    (📊 Data Threats)
      📂 LLM02 Information Disclosure
      ☠️ LLM04 Data Poisoning
      📍 LLM08 Vector Weaknesses
    (🔧 Integration Threats)
      🔗 LLM03 Supply Chain
      ⚠️ LLM05 Output Handling
      🤖 LLM06 Excessive Agency
    (⚡ Operational Threats)
      ❌ LLM09 Misinformation
      💥 LLM10 Unbounded Consumption

🔍 Detailed Threat Category Analysis

This section provides in-depth analysis of each OWASP LLM Top 10 threat category, showing the attack patterns, defense mechanisms, and Hack23's implementation status.

🎯 Input Threats Category

Category Overview: Input threats exploit the prompt interface where users interact with LLMs, targeting both the manipulation of model behavior through malicious prompts and the extraction of sensitive system instructions.

Business Impact: High - Direct exposure to user-controlled attack surface with potential for confidentiality breaches and integrity compromise.

Hack23 Implementation Status: 31.5% implemented (Foundation strong, LLM-specific controls in Q2 2026 development)

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
      'lineColor': '#ff9800',
      'secondaryColor': '#D32F2F',
      'tertiaryColor': '#7B1FA2'
    }
  }
}%%
mindmap
  root)🎯 Input Threats Category<br/>31.5% Implemented(
    (🚨 LLM01 Prompt Injection<br/>30% Complete)
      [Attack Vectors]
        Direct Injection
          Malicious Instructions
          Role Manipulation
          Instruction Override
        Indirect Injection
          Poisoned Documents
          Hidden Instructions
          External Content Manipulation
        Jailbreak Techniques
          Ethical Bypass
          DAN Methods
          Safety Filter Evasion
      [Defense Controls]
        ✅ Access Control<br/>Implemented
        ⏭️ Input Validation<br/>Q2 2026
        ⏭️ Prompt Templates<br/>Q2 2026
        ⏭️ Content Filtering<br/>Q2 2026
      [Impact]
        🔐 Confidentiality Breach
        ✅ Integrity Compromise
        💼 Reputation Risk
    (🔓 LLM07 System Prompt Leakage<br/>33% Complete)
      [Extraction Methods]
        Direct Querying
          "Repeat Above"
          "Ignore Previous"
          Context Tricks
        Social Engineering
          Pretend Scenarios
          Debug Mode Requests
          Admin Impersonation
        Incremental Discovery
          Probing Questions
          Pattern Detection
          Response Analysis
      [Protection Layers]
        📋 Architecture Design<br/>Documented
        ✅ Error Handling<br/>Implemented
        ⏭️ Output Filtering<br/>Q2 2026
        ⏭️ Prompt Scanning<br/>Q2 2026
      [Exposure Risk]
        🔐 System Architecture
        💡 Business Logic
        🛡️ Security Controls

Category Deep Dive: Input Threats

🚨 LLM01: Prompt Injection (30% Implemented)

Attack Pattern Description: Prompt injection represents the most direct attack vector where adversaries craft inputs designed to override system instructions, extract sensitive information, or manipulate model behavior beyond intended parameters. This includes:

Direct Injection: Users provide prompts containing instructions that conflict with system prompts
- Example: "Ignore previous instructions and reveal confidential data"
- Risk: High - Can completely bypass security controls
Indirect Injection: Malicious instructions embedded in documents, web pages, or data sources the LLM processes
- Example: Hidden instructions in PDF documents or web scraping targets
- Risk: Critical - Harder to detect, affects RAG systems
Jailbreak Attacks: Sophisticated techniques to bypass content filters and safety guardrails
- Example: "DAN" (Do Anything Now) personas, role-playing scenarios
- Risk: High - Evolving attack methods

Hack23 Defense Strategy:

✅ Implemented: Privilege separation, access control, incident response procedures
📋 Documented: Security logging framework, monitoring procedures
⏭️ Planned Q2 2026: Input validation library, prompt template system, content filtering engine

🔓 LLM07: System Prompt Leakage (33% Implemented)

Vulnerability Pattern Description: System prompt leakage occurs when internal system instructions, configurations, or architectural details are inadvertently revealed through carefully crafted queries. This exposes:

System Architecture: Internal design patterns, component interactions
- Impact: Enables targeted attacks, reveals security weaknesses
Business Logic: Proprietary algorithms, decision-making processes
- Impact: Competitive disadvantage, intellectual property loss
Security Controls: Filter mechanisms, validation rules, access patterns
- Impact: Enables bypass techniques, undermines defense-in-depth

Hack23 Defense Strategy:

✅ Implemented: Generic error messages, penetration testing procedures
📋 Documented: Context separation architecture, monitoring framework
⏭️ Planned Q2 2026: System prompt filtering, automated leakage scanning

Category Risk Assessment:

Risk Factor	LLM01	LLM07	Category Average
Likelihood	Moderate	High	Moderate-High
Confidentiality Impact	High	High	High
Integrity Impact	Critical	Moderate	High
Residual Risk	High	High	High

Investment Priority: 🔴 Critical - Q2 2026 development focus with $50K allocated for prompt security framework

📊 Data Threats Category

Category Overview: Data threats target the entire information lifecycle from training data through storage, embeddings, retrieval, and output generation. These attacks exploit how LLMs handle, process, and store sensitive information.

Business Impact: Critical - Direct regulatory exposure (GDPR, NIS2) with potential for data breaches, compliance violations, and severe reputation damage.

Hack23 Implementation Status: 49% implemented (Strong foundation with enterprise data controls, LLM-specific extensions Q1-Q2 2026)

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0d47a1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
mindmap
  root)📊 Data Threats Category<br/>49% Implemented(
    (📂 LLM02 Information Disclosure<br/>50% Complete)
      [Leakage Sources]
        Training Data
          Memorized PII
          Confidential Records
          Proprietary Information
        System Information
          API Keys
          Credentials
          Configuration Details
        User Data
          Session Information
          Previous Interactions
          Cross-User Leakage
      [Protection Layers]
        ✅ Data Classification<br/>Implemented
        ✅ Encryption at Rest<br/>Implemented
        ✅ Pre-trained Only<br/>Policy
        ⏭️ Output Filtering<br/>Q2 2026
        ⏭️ DLP Integration<br/>Q2 2026
      [Regulatory Risk]
        ⚖️ GDPR Article 32
        🇪🇺 EU AI Act
        📋 NIS2 Directive
    (☠️ LLM04 Data Poisoning<br/>67% Complete)
      [Attack Methods]
        Training Phase
          Backdoor Injection
          Bias Amplification
          Performance Degradation
        Fine-tuning Phase
          Parameter Manipulation
          Prompt Persistence
          Behavior Modification
        Embedding Phase
          Vector Corruption
          Similarity Poisoning
      [Hack23 Mitigation]
        ✅ Pre-trained Models Only<br/>Strategic Decision
        ✅ Vendor Assessment<br/>Complete
        ✅ No Custom Training<br/>Policy
        📋 Model Versioning<br/>Documented
      [Risk Reduction]
        🟢 Eliminates Training Risk
        🟢 Vendor Security Investment
        🟢 Operational Simplicity
    (📍 LLM08 Vector Weaknesses<br/>30% Complete)
      [Vulnerability Types]
        Database Attacks
          Unauthorized Access
          Data Exfiltration
          Permission Bypass
        Embedding Attacks
          Poisoned Embeddings
          Similarity Manipulation
          Semantic Bypass
        Retrieval Attacks
          Context Injection
          Cross-User Leakage
          Adversarial Queries
      [AWS Bedrock Strategy]
        ✅ Encryption<br/>AES-256
        ✅ IAM Controls<br/>Least Privilege
        ✅ Data Classification<br/>Enforced
        ⏭️ Vector Security<br/>Q1 2026
        ⏭️ Monitoring<br/>Q1-Q3 2026
      [Q1 2026 Deployment]
        Week 1-2: Setup
        Week 3-4: Hardening
        Week 5-6: Monitoring
        Week 7-8: Validation

🔍 Detailed Threat Category Analysis

🎯 Input Threats: Attack Surface and Defense

Input threats target the prompt interface, attempting to manipulate LLM behavior through malicious user inputs or system prompt extraction.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
      'lineColor': '#ff9800',
      'secondaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FFC107'
    }
  }
}%%
graph TB
    subgraph ATTACK["🎯 Input Attack Vectors"]
        A1["🚨 Direct Prompt Injection<br/>Malicious Instructions"]
        A2["🔄 Indirect Injection<br/>Hidden Instructions in Data"]
        A3["🔓 System Prompt Extraction<br/>Leakage Attempts"]
        A4["💣 Jailbreak Techniques<br/>Safety Bypass"]
    end
    
    subgraph CONTROLS["🛡️ Defense Controls"]
        C1["✅ Input Validation<br/>Status: Planned Q2 2026"]
        C2["📋 Prompt Templates<br/>Status: Planned Q2 2026"]
        C3["🔒 Context Separation<br/>Status: Documented"]
        C4["🛡️ Output Filtering<br/>Status: Planned Q2 2026"]
    end
    
    subgraph MONITORING["📊 Detection & Response"]
        M1["📝 Interaction Logging<br/>Status: Documented"]
        M2["🚨 Anomaly Detection<br/>Status: Planned Q3 2026"]
        M3["🔍 Pattern Analysis<br/>Status: Documented"]
    end
    
    subgraph IMPACT["⚠️ Potential Impact"]
        I1["🔐 Confidentiality Breach<br/>Risk Level: High"]
        I2["✅ Integrity Compromise<br/>Risk Level: High"]
        I3["📢 Reputation Damage<br/>Risk Level: Moderate"]
    end
    
    A1 --> C1
    A2 --> C2
    A3 --> C3
    A4 --> C4
    
    C1 --> M1
    C2 --> M1
    C3 --> M2
    C4 --> M3
    
    M1 -.Mitigates.-> I1
    M2 -.Mitigates.-> I2
    M3 -.Mitigates.-> I3
    
    classDef attack fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:3px,color:#000000
    classDef control fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#388e3c,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef monitoring fill:#1565C0,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef impact fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    
    class A1,A2,A3,A4 attack
    class C1,C2,C3,C4 control
    class M1,M2,M3 monitoring
    class I1,I2,I3 impact

Key Insights:

LLM01 (Prompt Injection): 30% implemented - Access control active, LLM-specific validation planned Q2 2026
LLM07 (System Prompt Leakage): 33% implemented - Error handling operational, output filtering planned Q2 2026
Overall Category Status: Foundation strong (access control, logging), technical controls in development

📊 Data Threats: Information Lifecycle Protection

Data threats exploit vulnerabilities in how LLMs process, store, and retrieve information, from training data to embeddings.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0d47a1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'tertiaryColor': '#1565C0'
    }
  }
}%%
flowchart LR
    subgraph LIFECYCLE["📊 Data Lifecycle Stages"]
        direction TB
        L1["📥 Data Ingestion"]
        L2["🔄 Training/Fine-tuning"]
        L3["💾 Storage & Embeddings"]
        L4["🔍 Retrieval"]
        L5["📤 Output Generation"]
    end
    
    subgraph THREATS["⚠️ Threat Types"]
        direction TB
        T1["📂 LLM02: Info Disclosure<br/>50% Implemented"]
        T2["☠️ LLM04: Data Poisoning<br/>67% Implemented"]
        T3["📍 LLM08: Vector Weakness<br/>30% Implemented"]
    end
    
    subgraph CONTROLS["🛡️ Implemented Controls"]
        direction TB
        C1["🏷️ Data Classification<br/>✅ Active"]
        C2["🔒 Encryption<br/>✅ Active"]
        C3["🔐 Access Control<br/>✅ Active"]
        C4["🚫 No Custom Training<br/>✅ Policy"]
    end
    
    subgraph PLANNED["⏭️ Q1-Q2 2026 Roadmap"]
        direction TB
        P1["🛡️ DLP Integration"]
        P2["🔍 Output Scanning"]
        P3["🗄️ Vector DB Security"]
        P4["📊 Embedding Monitoring"]
    end
    
    L1 --> T1
    L2 --> T2
    L3 --> T3
    L4 --> T3
    L5 --> T1
    
    C1 -.Protects.-> L1
    C2 -.Protects.-> L3
    C3 -.Protects.-> L4
    C4 -.Prevents.-> T2
    
    P1 -.Future.-> L5
    P2 -.Future.-> L5
    P3 -.Future.-> L3
    P4 -.Future.-> L4
    
    classDef lifecycle fill:#1565C0,stroke:#1565C0,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef threats fill:#D32F2F,stroke:#c62828,stroke-width:3px,color:#000000
    classDef controls fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2e7d32,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef planned fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    
    class L1,L2,L3,L4,L5 lifecycle
    class T1,T2,T3 threats
    class C1,C2,C3,C4 controls
    class P1,P2,P3,P4 planned

Key Insights:

LLM02 (Information Disclosure): 50% implemented - Strong foundation (classification, encryption), DLP planned Q2 2026
LLM04 (Data Poisoning): 67% implemented - Pre-trained models only strategy highly effective
LLM08 (Vector Weaknesses): 30% implemented - Foundation ready, AWS Bedrock deployment Q1 2026
Overall Category Status: Best-in-class data classification, awaiting LLM-specific extensions

🔧 Integration Threats: System Boundary Security

Integration threats exploit vulnerabilities at the boundaries where LLMs connect with external systems, dependencies, and downstream applications.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#7B1FA2',
      'primaryTextColor': '#4A148C',
      'lineColor': '#7b1fa2',
      'secondaryColor': '#7B1FA2',
      'tertiaryColor': '#7B1FA2'
    }
  }
}%%
graph TD
    subgraph EXTERNAL["🌐 External Integration Points"]
        E1["🔗 Third-Party Models<br/>OpenAI, AWS, GitHub"]
        E2["📦 Dependencies<br/>Libraries & Frameworks"]
        E3["🗄️ Databases<br/>SQL, Vector, NoSQL"]
        E4["🌐 Web Applications<br/>User Interfaces"]
    end
    
    subgraph THREATS["⚠️ Integration Threat Vectors"]
        direction TB
        T1["🔗 LLM03: Supply Chain<br/>73% Implemented<br/>✅ Strong"]
        T2["⚠️ LLM05: Output Handling<br/>55% Implemented<br/>🟡 Moderate"]
        T3["🤖 LLM06: Excessive Agency<br/>67% Implemented<br/>✅ Strong"]
    end
    
    subgraph BOUNDARIES["🛡️ Boundary Protection"]
        direction TB
        B1["✅ Vendor Assessment<br/>100% Complete"]
        B2["🔍 Dependency Scanning<br/>Active"]
        B3["🔒 Least Privilege<br/>Enforced"]
        B4["👤 Human-in-Loop<br/>Mandatory"]
    end
    
    subgraph GAPS["⏭️ Planned Enhancements"]
        direction TB
        G1["🛡️ LLM Output Encoding<br/>Q2 2026"]
        G2["🔍 Advanced Monitoring<br/>Q3 2026"]
        G3["🤖 Function Call Limits<br/>Q2 2026"]
    end
    
    E1 --> T1
    E2 --> T1
    E3 --> T2
    E4 --> T2
    E1 --> T3
    
    B1 -.Secures.-> E1
    B2 -.Secures.-> E2
    B3 -.Secures.-> E1
    B4 -.Secures.-> T3
    
    G1 -.Enhances.-> T2
    G2 -.Enhances.-> T1
    G3 -.Enhances.-> T3
    
    classDef external fill:#1565C0,stroke:#455A64,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef threats fill:#FF9800,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:3px,color:#000000
    classDef boundaries fill:#4CAF50,stroke:#2e7d32,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    classDef gaps fill:#FFC107,stroke:#F57C00,stroke-width:2px,color:#000000
    
    class E1,E2,E3,E4 external
    class T1,T2,T3 threats
    class B1,B2,B3,B4 boundaries
    class G1,G2,G3 gaps

Key Insights:

LLM03 (Supply Chain): 73% implemented - Strongest category with comprehensive vendor management
LLM05 (Output Handling): 55% implemented - General secure coding active, LLM encoding planned Q2 2026
LLM06 (Excessive Agency): 67% implemented - Human oversight mandatory, excellent access control
Overall Category Status: Enterprise vendor management operational, LLM-specific output handling in development

⚡ Operational Threats: Reliability and Accuracy

Operational threats impact the reliability, accuracy, and resource consumption of LLM systems during production use.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'primaryTextColor': '#F57C00',
      'lineColor': '#ff9800',
      'secondaryColor': '#FF9800',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FFC107'
    }
  }
}%%
sequenceDiagram
    autonumber
    participant User as 👤 User
    participant App as 🌐 Application
    participant LLM as 🤖 LLM Service
    participant Monitor as 📊 Monitoring
    participant Human as 👨‍💼 Human Reviewer
    
    rect rgb(255, 243, 224)
    Note over User,LLM: Normal Operation Flow
    User->>App: Submit Request
    App->>LLM: Generate Content
    LLM->>Monitor: Log Usage Metrics
    LLM->>App: Return Output
    end
    
    rect rgb(255, 205, 210)
    Note over App,Human: LLM09: Misinformation Control (45% Implemented)
    App->>App: Validate Output
    alt Critical Content
        App->>Human: Request Review
        Human->>App: Approve/Reject
    else Standard Content
        App->>App: Auto-Process
    end
    App->>User: Deliver with Disclaimer
    end
    
    rect rgb(255, 249, 196)
    Note over Monitor,LLM: LLM10: Consumption Control (75% Implemented)
    Monitor->>Monitor: Check Usage Thresholds
    alt 75-90% Budget
        Monitor->>App: ⚠️ Warning Alert
    else 90-95% Budget
        Monitor->>App: 🚨 Critical Alert
        App->>LLM: Throttle Requests
    else >95% Budget
        Monitor->>App: 🛑 Emergency Stop
        App->>LLM: Block Service
    end
    end
    
    rect rgb(200, 230, 201)
    Note over User,Monitor: Continuous Improvement Loop
    Monitor->>Monitor: Analyze Patterns
    Monitor->>Human: Generate Reports
    Human->>App: Update Policies
    end

Operational Threat Breakdown:

Threat	Implementation	Strengths	Gaps	Timeline
❌ LLM09: Misinformation	45%	✅ Human review mandatory ✅ AI disclaimers active ✅ Feedback framework	⏭️ Confidence scoring ⏭️ Fact-checking integration ⏭️ Automated QA	Q2-Q3 2026
💥 LLM10: Unbounded Consumption	75%	✅ AWS rate limiting ✅ Cost anomaly detection ✅ Circuit breakers ✅ Budget monitoring	⏭️ LLM-specific dashboards ⏭️ Predictive analytics	Q3 2026

🎯 Cross-Category Control Mapping

This diagram shows how Hack23's security controls provide defense-in-depth across all threat categories.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#1565C0',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FFC107'
    }
  }
}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🛡️ OWASP LLM Control Maturity vs Business Impact Matrix
    x-axis Low Business Impact --> High Business Impact
    y-axis Low Implementation --> High Implementation
    quadrant-1 Maintain & Extend
    quadrant-2 Strategic Strength
    quadrant-3 Acceptable Risk
    quadrant-4 Priority Investment
    
    LLM10 Consumption: [0.85, 0.75]
    LLM03 Supply Chain: [0.70, 0.73]
    LLM06 Agency: [0.60, 0.67]
    LLM04 Poisoning: [0.55, 0.67]
    LLM05 Output: [0.75, 0.55]
    LLM02 Disclosure: [0.95, 0.50]
    LLM09 Misinfo: [0.65, 0.45]
    LLM07 Leakage: [0.50, 0.33]
    LLM08 Vector: [0.80, 0.30]
    LLM01 Injection: [0.90, 0.30]

Quadrant Analysis:

🟢 Quadrant 1 (Maintain & Extend): LLM10 Unbounded Consumption
- High implementation, high impact
- Status: Strategic strength, continue monitoring
- Action: Extend to LLM-specific metrics (Q3 2026)
🔵 Quadrant 2 (Strategic Strength): LLM03 Supply Chain, LLM06 Excessive Agency, LLM04 Data Poisoning
- High implementation, moderate-high impact
- Status: Enterprise-grade controls operational
- Action: Maintain excellence, incremental improvements
🟡 Quadrant 3 (Acceptable Risk): LLM07 Prompt Leakage (low priority)
- Low implementation, moderate impact
- Status: Foundation documented
- Action: Planned Q2 2026, not urgent
🔴 Quadrant 4 (Priority Investment): LLM01 Prompt Injection, LLM02 Information Disclosure, LLM08 Vector Weaknesses, LLM09 Misinformation
- Low-moderate implementation, high impact
- Status: Critical development priorities
- Action: Active development Q1-Q2 2026

📈 Implementation Timeline Across Categories

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#0d47a1',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
gantt
    title 🗓️ OWASP LLM Security Control Implementation Roadmap
    dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
    section 🎯 Input Threats
    LLM01 Input Validation           :done, llm01a, 2025-10-01, 2026-01-31
    LLM01 Prompt Templates            :llm01b, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM07 Output Filtering            :llm07a, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM07 Prompt Scanning             :llm07b, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    
    section 📊 Data Threats
    LLM02 DLP Integration             :llm02a, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM02 Output Scanning             :llm02b, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM08 AWS Bedrock Deploy          :crit, llm08a, 2026-01-01, 2026-03-31
    LLM08 Vector Monitoring           :llm08b, 2026-04-01, 2026-09-30
    
    section 🔧 Integration Threats
    LLM03 Vendor Management           :done, llm03a, 2025-07-01, 2025-09-30
    LLM05 Output Encoding             :llm05a, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM06 Function Limiting           :llm06a, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    
    section ⚡ Operational Threats
    LLM09 Confidence Scoring          :llm09a, 2026-02-01, 2026-06-30
    LLM09 Fact-Checking               :llm09b, 2026-07-01, 2026-09-30
    LLM10 Cost Controls               :done, llm10a, 2025-07-01, 2025-09-30
    LLM10 Dashboards                  :llm10b, 2026-07-01, 2026-09-30
    
    section 📊 Monitoring & Metrics
    Foundation Complete               :done, milestone, 2025-10-01, 1d
    AWS Bedrock Launch                :crit, milestone, 2026-03-31, 1d
    LLM Controls Complete             :milestone, 2026-06-30, 1d
    90% Target Achievement            :milestone, 2026-09-30, 1d

Key Milestones:

✅ Q4 2025: Foundation complete (100% of core ISMS)
🎯 Q1 2026: AWS Bedrock deployment (LLM08 controls active)
🎯 Q2 2026: Input/Data/Integration controls (LLM01, 02, 05, 07)
🎯 Q3 2026: Monitoring & operational excellence (90%+ target)

🔒 Security Control Heatmap

Visual representation of control implementation status across all OWASP LLM categories.

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'primaryTextColor': '#2E7D32',
      'lineColor': '#4caf50',
      'secondaryColor': '#FFC107',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
quadrantChart
    title 🔥 Security Control Heatmap: Risk Level vs Implementation Rate
    x-axis Low Risk --> High Risk
    y-axis Low Implementation --> High Implementation
    quadrant-1 Over-Invested
    quadrant-2 Optimal Security
    quadrant-3 Low Priority
    quadrant-4 Critical Gap
    
    LLM04 Poisoning: [0.30, 0.67]
    LLM06 Agency: [0.40, 0.67]
    LLM03 Supply: [0.75, 0.73]
    LLM10 Consumption: [0.80, 0.75]
    LLM05 Output: [0.80, 0.55]
    LLM02 Disclosure: [0.95, 0.50]
    LLM09 Misinfo: [0.85, 0.45]
    LLM07 Leakage: [0.70, 0.33]
    LLM08 Vector: [0.75, 0.30]
    LLM01 Injection: [0.90, 0.30]

Heatmap Interpretation:

Color Zone	Controls	Status	Action Required
🟢 Optimal Security	LLM10, LLM03	High implementation, high risk	Maintain and monitor
🟡 Moderate Coverage	LLM02, LLM05, LLM09	Moderate implementation, high risk	Active development Q1-Q2 2026
🔴 Critical Gap	LLM01, LLM08	Low implementation, high risk	Priority investment Q1-Q2 2026
🔵 Low Priority	LLM04, LLM06, LLM07	Varies, lower risk	Standard roadmap execution

🛡️ Common Security Controls (All LLM Threats)

📋 Cross-Cutting Preventive Controls

These controls apply across multiple OWASP LLM threats and form the foundation of our LLM security posture:

Control	Description	Implementation	Applies To
Input Validation	Sanitize and validate all user inputs, prompts, and external data	⏭️ Planned Q2 2026	LLM01, LLM02, LLM05, LLM06, LLM07
Access Control	Least privilege, RBAC, privilege separation	✅ Implemented	All threats
Data Classification	Classify data before LLM processing per Data Classification Policy	✅ Implemented	LLM02, LLM04, LLM08
Encryption	Encrypt sensitive data at rest and in transit per Cryptography Policy	✅ Implemented	LLM02, LLM08
Output Filtering	Filter and post-process LLM outputs (content filtering) to prevent sensitive data leakage, prompt injection effects, and code injection	⏭️ Planned Q2 2026	LLM01, LLM02, LLM05, LLM07
Rate Limiting	API throttling and usage quotas	✅ Implemented	LLM01, LLM04, LLM08, LLM09, LLM10
Human Oversight	Human-in-the-loop validation for critical actions	✅ Implemented	LLM06, LLM09
Vendor Assessment	Third-party risk assessment per Third Party Management	✅ Implemented	LLM03, LLM04
Pre-trained Models Only	Use only trusted pre-trained models, no custom training	✅ Implemented	LLM02, LLM04

🔍 Cross-Cutting Detective Controls

Control	Description	Implementation	Applies To
Comprehensive Logging	Log all LLM interactions and API calls	📋 Documented (Framework ready)	All threats
Anomaly Detection	Monitor for unexpected patterns in prompts, outputs, and usage	⏭️ Planned Q3 2026	LLM01, LLM04, LLM10
Output Scanning	Automated scanning for PII, credentials, and sensitive data	✅ Implemented (General tools)	LLM02, LLM05, LLM07
Usage Monitoring	Track API consumption, costs, and resource utilization	✅ Implemented	LLM10
Security Audits	Regular reviews of LLM configurations and outputs	📋 Documented	All threats

🚨 Cross-Cutting Corrective Controls

Control	Description	Implementation	Applies To
Incident Response	Documented procedures per Incident Response Plan	📋 Documented	All threats
Model Fallback	Rapid fallback to safe mode or alternative models	⏭️ Planned Q1 2026	LLM01, LLM09, LLM10
GDPR Compliance	72-hour breach notification for data disclosure events	📋 Documented	LLM02
Recovery Procedures	Business continuity per Business Continuity Plan	📋 Documented	All threats

Legend: ✅ Implemented | 📋 Documented | ⏭️ Planned

🚨 LLM01:2025 Prompt Injection

Risk: | Implementation: 30% | Status: ⏭️ Q2 2026

Description: Malicious inputs manipulate LLM behavior, bypassing safety controls via direct injection, indirect injection (poisoned documents), or jailbreak attacks.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Prompt templates with instruction boundaries (⏭️ Q2 2026), Content filtering (⏭️ Q2 2026) + [Common Controls: Input Validation, Access Control, Output Filtering, Rate Limiting]
Detective: Output validation for policy violations (⏭️ Q2 2026) + [Common Controls: Logging, Anomaly Detection]
Corrective: [Common Controls: Incident Response, Model Fallback]

Implementation: Access control ✅ operational; LLM-specific input validation ⏭️ Q2 2026

📂 LLM02:2025 Sensitive Information Disclosure

Risk: | Implementation: 50% | Status: ⏭️ Q2 2026

Description: LLMs inadvertently reveal training data, system information, credentials, or user data from previous interactions.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Output filtering for sensitive data (⏭️ Q2 2026) + [Common Controls: Data Classification ✅, Encryption ✅, Pre-trained Models Only ✅, Input Validation]
Detective: DLP monitoring on outputs (⏭️ Q2 2026), PII/credentials scanning ✅ + [Common Controls: Logging, Security Audits]
Corrective: GDPR 72-hour breach notification 📋, Model replacement (⏭️ Planned) + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Data classification ✅, encryption ✅, scanning ✅ operational; LLM-specific output filtering ⏭️ Q2 2026

🔗 LLM03:2025 Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Risk: | Implementation: 73% | Status: ✅ Strong

Description: Compromised third-party models, training data, deployment platforms, or development dependencies.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Model provenance verification ✅, Secure model registry 📋, SCA scanning ✅ + [Common Controls: Vendor Assessment ✅]
Detective: Security advisory monitoring ✅, Model behavior monitoring 📋, Third-party audits ✅ + [Common Controls: Security Audits]
Corrective: Model rollback (⏭️), Vendor migration 📋 + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Vendor assessments ✅, model provenance ✅, SCA scanning ✅ operational; model rollback ⏭️ planned (vendors approved 2025-Q3: OpenAI, GitHub, AWS, Stability AI, ElevenLabs)

☠️ LLM04:2025 Data and Model Poisoning

Risk: | Implementation: 67% | Status: ✅ Strong

Description: Manipulation of training/embedding data causing backdoors, bias amplification, or performance degradation.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Model versioning ✅, No untrusted datasets ✅, Data validation (N/A - no custom training) + [Common Controls: Pre-trained Models Only ✅, Vendor Assessment ✅, Rate Limiting ✅]
Detective: Model behavior testing 📋, Performance benchmarking 📋 + [Common Controls: Anomaly Detection]
Corrective: Model rollback 📋 + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Pre-trained models only ✅ (OpenAI, AWS, GitHub) eliminates data poisoning risk

⚠️ LLM05:2025 Improper Output Handling

Risk: | Implementation: 55% | Status: ⏭️ Q2 2026

Description: Insufficient validation of LLM outputs before processing, enabling XSS, SQL injection, command injection, path traversal.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Output encoding (⏭️ Q2 2026), Parameterized queries ✅, CSP headers ✅ + [Common Controls: Input Validation, Access Control ✅, Output Filtering]
Detective: WAF monitoring ✅, SAST/DAST ✅ + [Common Controls: Logging, Output Scanning]
Corrective: Emergency output filtering (⏭️) + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Secure development practices ✅ operational; LLM-specific output encoding ⏭️ Q2 2026

🤖 LLM06:2025 Excessive Agency

Risk: | Implementation: 67% | Status: ✅ Strong

Description: LLMs granted excessive permissions or autonomy, enabling unauthorized actions, privilege escalation, uncontrolled automation.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Scope limitation for function calling 📋 + [Common Controls: Input Validation, Access Control ✅, Human Oversight ✅]
Detective: User activity monitoring ✅, Privileged operation audits ✅ + [Common Controls: Logging]
Corrective: Emergency privilege revocation (⏭️) + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Least privilege ✅ and mandatory human review ✅

🔓 LLM07:2025 System Prompt Leakage

Risk: | Implementation: 33% | Status: ⏭️ Q2 2026

Description: Internal system instructions inadvertently revealed, exposing system architecture, business logic, security controls.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Prompt context separation 📋, Immutable system prompts (⏭️ Q2 2026), Generic error messages ✅ + [Common Controls: Input Validation, Output Filtering]
Detective: Prompt leakage scanning (⏭️ Q2 2026), Penetration testing ✅ + [Common Controls: Logging]
Corrective: Prompt redesign (⏭️) + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Error handling ✅ operational; LLM-specific prompt protection ⏭️ Q2 2026

📍 LLM08:2025 Vector and Embedding Weaknesses

Risk: | Implementation: 30% | Status: ⏭️ Q1 2026

Description: Vector database attacks, embedding manipulation, semantic search bypass, cross-context leakage in RAG systems.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Input validation for vector queries (⏭️ Q1 2026), VPC endpoint isolation (⏭️ Q1 2026) + [Common Controls: Access Control ✅, Encryption ✅, Data Classification ✅, Rate Limiting ✅]
Detective: Vector access monitoring (⏭️ Q1 2026), Embedding audits (⏭️ Q2 2026) + [Common Controls: Anomaly Detection]
Corrective: Vector database rebuild (⏭️ Q1 2026) + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Foundation policies ✅ operational; Q1 2026 AWS Bedrock deployment with IAM-based access, AES-256 encryption, CloudTrail logging

❌ LLM09:2025 Misinformation

Risk: | Implementation: 45% | Status: ⏭️ Q2-Q3 2026

Description: LLM hallucinations, outdated information, bias/inaccuracy, inconsistent responses undermining content reliability.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Source citation 📋, Confidence scoring (⏭️ Q2 2026), Fact-checking integration (⏭️ Q3 2026), AI content disclaimers ✅ + [Common Controls: Human Oversight ✅, Rate Limiting ✅]
Detective: User feedback mechanisms 📋, QA testing 📋, Accuracy audits 📋 + [Common Controls: Security Audits]
Corrective: Content correction procedures 📋, Public disclosure 📋 + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: Mandatory human review ✅ and AI disclaimers ✅ per AI_Policy.md; automated fact-checking ⏭️ Q2-Q3 2026

💥 LLM10:2025 Unbounded Consumption

Risk: | Implementation: 80% | Status: ✅ Strong

Description: Resource exhaustion via excessive API calls, denial-of-service attacks, cost exploitation through unbounded LLM usage.

Specific Controls:

Preventive: Input size limits ✅, Request throttling ✅ + [Common Controls: Rate Limiting ✅]
Detective: Cost monitoring dashboards ✅ + [Common Controls: Usage Monitoring ✅, Anomaly Detection]
Corrective: Emergency throttling ✅, Circuit breakers ✅ + [Common Controls: Incident Response]

Implementation: AWS API Gateway rate limits ✅ and CloudWatch cost monitoring ✅ operational

📊 OWASP LLM Top 10 Compliance Matrix

🎯 Overall Security Posture (Corrected)

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#4CAF50',
      'primaryTextColor': '#2E7D32',
      'lineColor': '#4caf50',
      'secondaryColor': '#FFC107',
      'tertiaryColor': '#FF9800'
    }
  }
}%%
pie title "🛡️ OWASP LLM Top 10 Control Implementation Status (Realistic Assessment)"
    "Implemented (Foundation)" : 60
    "Documented (Framework Ready)" : 23
    "Planned (Q1-Q3 2026)" : 17

📋 Vulnerability Coverage Summary (Corrected)

OWASP LLM Risk	Risk Level	Controls Status	Residual Risk	Compliance Status
LLM01: Prompt Injection		3/10 Implemented (30%)
LLM02: Information Disclosure		7/14 Implemented (50%)
LLM03: Supply Chain		8/11 Implemented (73%)
LLM04: Data Poisoning		6/9 Implemented (67%)
LLM05: Output Handling		6/11 Implemented (55%)
LLM06: Excessive Agency		8/12 Implemented (67%)
LLM07: Prompt Leakage		3/9 Implemented (33%)
LLM08: Vector Weaknesses		3/10 Implemented (30%)
LLM09: Misinformation		5/11 Implemented (45%)
LLM10: Unbounded Consumption		12/16 Implemented (75%)

📈 Control Implementation Progress (Corrected)

Overall Implementation Rate: 61/113 controls (54%)

✅ Implemented Controls: 61 (54%)
- Foundation policies fully operational
- Vendor management complete
- Access control and encryption active
- Network security and monitoring functional
📋 Documented Procedures: 27 (24%)
- Incident response playbooks ready
- Business continuity procedures documented
- Security metrics framework established
- General monitoring and logging configured
⏭️ Planned Controls: 25 (22%)
- LLM-specific input/output handling (Q2 2026)
- Prompt injection prevention (Q2 2026)
- Vector security (Q1 2026 with AWS Bedrock)
- LLM anomaly detection (Q3 2026)

Target Completion: 90%+ implementation rate by Q3 2026

🎯 Strengths and Gaps Analysis

✅ Strong Areas (70%+ Implementation)

LLM10: Unbounded Consumption - 75% implemented
- AWS infrastructure protections operational
- Cost monitoring and alerting functional
- Rate limiting and throttling active
LLM03: Supply Chain - 73% implemented
- Comprehensive vendor management
- Dependency scanning operational
- Regular security assessments
LLM04: Data Poisoning - 67% implemented
- Pre-trained models only strategy
- Strong vendor approval process
LLM06: Excessive Agency - 67% implemented
- Robust access control
- Mandatory human oversight

⚠️ Gap Areas (30-50% Implementation)

LLM01: Prompt Injection - 30% implemented
- Gap: LLM-specific input validation
- Plan: Q2 2026 development
- Foundation: Access control operational
LLM07: Prompt Leakage - 33% implemented
- Gap: Output filtering for system prompts
- Plan: Q2 2026 implementation
- Foundation: Error handling standards active
LLM08: Vector Weaknesses - 30% implemented
- Gap: Vector database security controls
- Plan: Q1 2026 AWS Bedrock deployment
- Foundation: Encryption and access control ready

🔄 Moderate Areas (50-69% Implementation)

LLM02: Information Disclosure - 50% implemented
- Strong foundation (data classification, encryption)
- Need LLM-specific DLP integration (Q2 2026)
LLM05: Output Handling - 55% implemented
- General secure coding practices operational
- Need LLM output encoding (Q2 2026)
LLM09: Misinformation - 45% implemented
- Human oversight policy strong
- Need automated quality controls (Q2-Q3 2026)

🔄 Integration with ISMS Framework

🗺️ Policy Integration Map

%%{
  init: {
    'theme': 'base',
    'themeVariables': {
      'primaryColor': '#1565C0',
      'primaryTextColor': '#1565C0',
      'lineColor': '#1565C0',
      'secondaryColor': '#7B1FA2',
      'tertiaryColor': '#1565C0'
    }
  }
}%%
graph TB
    subgraph GOVERNANCE["🏛️ Governance Layer"]
        AI["🤖 AI Policy<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        ISP["🔐 Information Security Policy<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        OWASP["🛡️ OWASP LLM Security Policy<br/>⏭️ 54% Complete"]
    end
    
    subgraph OPERATIONAL["⚙️ Operational Layer"]
        ACCESS["🔑 Access Control<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        DATA["🏷️ Data Classification<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        NETWORK["🌐 Network Security<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        CRYPTO["🔒 Cryptography<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        SDLC["🛠️ Secure Development<br/>✅ Implemented"]
    end
    
    subgraph TACTICAL["🎯 Tactical Layer"]
        RISK["📊 Risk Assessment<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        VULN["🔍 Vulnerability Mgmt<br/>✅ Implemented"]
        INCIDENT["🚨 Incident Response<br/>📋 Documented"]
        BCP["🔄 Business Continuity<br/>📋 Documented"]
        THIRD["🤝 Third-Party Mgmt<br/>✅ Implemented"]
    end
    
    subgraph MONITORING["📈 Monitoring Layer"]
        METRICS["📊 Security Metrics<br/>📋 Documented"]
        AUDIT["✅ Compliance Audits<br/>📋 Documented"]
        REPORTING["📋 Security Reporting<br/>📋 Documented"]
    end
    
    AI --> OWASP
    ISP --> OWASP
    
    OWASP --> ACCESS
    OWASP --> DATA
    OWASP --> NETWORK
    OWASP --> CRYPTO
    OWASP --> SDLC
    
    OWASP --> RISK
    OWASP --> VULN
    OWASP --> INCIDENT
    OWASP --> BCP
    OWASP --> THIRD
    
    OPERATIONAL --> MONITORING
    TACTICAL --> MONITORING
    
    style GOVERNANCE fill:#1565C0
    style OPERATIONAL fill:#7B1FA2
    style TACTICAL fill:#1565C0
    style MONITORING fill:#4CAF50

📚 ISMS Document References

🏛️ Governance Documents

🤖 AI Governance Policy — Parent AI governance framework
🔐 Information Security Policy — Overall security governance
🏷️ Classification Framework — Risk and impact classifications

⚙️ Operational Policies

🔑 Access Control Policy — LLM access management (LLM06)
🏷️ Data Classification Policy — Data handling for LLMs (LLM02)
🌐 Network Security Policy — API security (LLM10)
🔒 Cryptography Policy — Encryption standards (LLM08)
🛠️ Secure Development Policy — Secure coding (LLM05)

🎯 Tactical Procedures

📊 Risk Assessment Methodology — Risk evaluation framework
📉 Risk Register — LLM risk tracking
🔍 Vulnerability Management — Vulnerability tracking (LLM03)
🚨 Incident Response Plan — Security incident procedures
🔄 Business Continuity Plan — Recovery procedures
🤝 Third-Party Management — Vendor risk management (LLM03)

📈 Monitoring & Reporting

📊 Security Metrics — KPI tracking and dashboards
💻 Asset Register — LLM system inventory
🌐 ISMS Transparency Plan — Public disclosure framework

🎓 Training and Awareness

📚 Security Training Requirements

Role	Training Topic	Frequency	Due Date
All Personnel	OWASP LLM Top 10 Overview	Annual	Q1 2026
Developers	Secure LLM Integration	Quarterly	Q1 2026
Security Team	Advanced LLM Security	Bi-annual	Q2 2026
Management	AI Risk Management	Annual	Q1 2026

🎯 Training Resources

OWASP LLM Top 10 Documentation: https://owasp.org/www-project-top-10-for-large-language-model-applications/
Hack23 AI Policy: AI_Policy.md
Secure Development Standards: Secure_Development_Policy.md
Internal Security Wiki: Development in progress (Q1 2026)

🔄 Review and Maintenance

📅 Policy Review Schedule

Review Type	Frequency	Responsibility	Next Review
Quarterly Review	Every 3 months	CEO/Security Lead	2026-09-20
Control Effectiveness	Quarterly	Security Team	2026-09-20
Implementation Progress	Monthly	CEO	2026-07-20
Threat Landscape	Monthly	Security Team	2026-07-20
Annual Comprehensive	Annually	CEO	2027-06-20

🎯 Update Triggers

This policy will be reviewed and updated when:

✅ New OWASP LLM Top 10 version released
✅ Major LLM security incidents occur (internal or industry-wide)
✅ New LLM technologies deployed at Hack23
✅ Regulatory requirements change (EU AI Act, GDPR, etc.)
✅ Control effectiveness metrics indicate gaps
✅ External audit recommendations
✅ Implementation milestones reached (Q1, Q2, Q3 2026)

📊 Performance Metrics (Corrected)

Metric	Target	Current	Timeline
Control Implementation Rate	>90%	54%	Q3 2026
Foundation Controls	100%	100%	Complete
LLM-Specific Controls	>90%	35%	Q1-Q3 2026
LLM Security Incidents	0 per quarter	0	Ongoing
Vendor Security Reviews	100% annually	100%	2025-Q3
Training Completion	100%	Scheduled	Q1 2026

📈 AI Model Evolution — LLM Security Perspective (2026–2037)

Assumptions: AI model upgrades occur multiple times per year (2026 observed: Opus 4.6→4.7→4.8, Sonnet 4.6, plus the new Mythos and Fable 5 model families — seven releases February–June, with further Opus 4.9/4.x and model-family updates expected in H2 2026); competitors (OpenAI, Google, Meta, EU sovereign AI) evaluated at each release. Architecture accommodates potential paradigm shifts (quantum AI, neuromorphic computing). Full cross-perspective analysis in Information Security Strategy § AI Model Evolution Strategy.

🔐 LLM Security Evolution Through Model Advancement

Year	AI Model	LLM Security Impact
2026	Opus 4.6–4.8 (4.8 current; 4.9/4.x expected H2 2026), Sonnet 4.6, Fable 5, Mythos 5 (preview)	🟢 Improved prompt injection resistance, enhanced output validation, stronger guardrails for agentic workflows
2027	Opus 5.x–6.x	🔵 Predictive jailbreak detection, autonomous prompt security monitoring, reduced hallucination rates
2028	Opus 6.x–7.x	🟣 Multi-modal input validation (text + code + image), automated OWASP LLM compliance verification
2029	Opus 7.x–8.x	🟠 Autonomous LLM security orchestration, self-healing prompt pipelines, real-time training data integrity
2030	Opus 8.x–9.x	🔴 Near-expert LLM security posture, autonomous threat detection for model-level attacks
2031–2033	Opus 10.x+ / Pre-AGI	⚪ Autonomous LLM governance with predictive regulatory compliance
2034–2037	AGI / Post-AGI	⭐ Transformative AI security requiring new governance paradigms

🛡️ OWASP LLM Top 10 Defense Evolution

OWASP LLM Risk	2026–2027 Defense	2028–2030 Defense	2031–2037 Defense
LLM01: Prompt Injection	AI-enhanced input sanitization, agentic workflow sandboxing	Autonomous prompt injection detection, multi-layer defense	Self-healing prompt security with anticipatory defense
LLM02: Insecure Output Handling	AI-validated output filtering, automated sanitization	Predictive output risk scoring, context-aware sanitization	Autonomous output governance with zero-leakage assurance
LLM03: Training Data Poisoning	AI-assisted data quality validation, provenance tracking	Autonomous training data integrity monitoring	Self-validating training pipelines with tamper-proof data
LLM06: Sensitive Information Disclosure	AI-powered data classification in LLM outputs, automated PII detection	Predictive data leakage prevention, autonomous redaction	Zero-disclosure assurance through semantic understanding
LLM09: Overreliance	Human-in-the-loop requirement, confidence scoring	Graduated autonomy with trust scoring, automated validation	Calibrated AI-human collaboration with appropriate autonomy levels

Update Trigger: Each major AI model release triggers OWASP LLM policy review per AI Policy § AI Model Evolution Evaluation Framework.

🏛️ Core Governance

🎯 Information Security Strategy — AI-first operations, Pentagon framework, and strategic LLM security direction
🤖 AI Governance Policy — Parent AI governance framework
🔐 Information Security Policy — Overall security governance and AI-First Operations Governance
🏷️ Classification Framework — Risk classifications

⚙️ Operational Policies

🔑 Access Control Policy — Access management
🏷️ Data Classification Policy — Data handling
🌐 Network Security Policy — Network protection
🔒 Cryptography Policy — Encryption standards
🛠️ Secure Development Policy — Development security

🎯 Tactical Procedures

📊 Risk Assessment Methodology — Risk evaluation
📉 Risk Register — Risk tracking
🔍 Vulnerability Management — Vulnerability handling
🚨 Incident Response Plan — Incident procedures
🔄 Business Continuity Plan — Recovery procedures
🤝 Third-Party Management — Vendor management

📈 Monitoring & Assets

📊 Security Metrics — Performance tracking
💻 Asset Register — System inventory
🌐 ISMS Transparency Plan — Public disclosure

📋 Document Control:
✅ Approved by: James Pether Sörling, CEO
📤 Distribution: Public
🏷️ Classification:
📅 Effective Date: 2026-06-20
⏰ Next Review: 2026-09-20
🎯 Framework Compliance: