SC-AI-018 · Model lifecycle

Robustness and adversarial testing (red teaming)

High effortCovered by ISO 27001: StrongSatisfies 8 obligations in 5 policies

What it means

  • Deliberately try to break the AI system the way an attacker or a careless user would, and fix what you find.
  • For GenAI: prompt injection, jailbreaks, getting the bot to leak system prompts or customer data, generating harmful or unlawful content, bypassing content labels.
  • For predictive models: adversarial inputs, data poisoning, manipulated documents, gaming the model (for example applicants learning which inputs get approval).
  • Frequency set by tier, plus extra runs triggered by major changes or new attack techniques.

Why it matters

  • RBI FREE-AI recommends red teaming at least half-yearly for medium and high risk AI, at least before deployment for low risk, plus trigger-based runs, with findings documented for audit and supervisors.
  • Normal testing checks the system works; red teaming checks it fails safely under attack.
  • GenAI attack techniques change monthly; last year's test is stale.

Checklist

  1. Set red teaming frequency by tier (for example half-yearly for medium and high, pre-deployment for low) and list trigger events.
  2. Build or buy a test library covering prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, harmful content, and model-specific attacks.
  3. Use people independent of the build team (internal security team or external specialists).
  4. Rate findings by severity and track fixes to closure; retest after fixes.
  5. Feed new attack patterns from threat intelligence into the test library.
  6. Keep reports for audit and supervisors.

Evidence examples

  • Red team report for the customer service chatbot (date, scope, attack categories, findings, severity).
  • Findings tracker with fix and retest dates.
  • Red teaming schedule mapped to AI inventory tiers.
  • External specialist engagement letter and scope.

Common pitfalls

  • Treating a standard web application pentest as AI red teaming; it usually misses prompt-level attacks.
  • One run before launch, never repeated.
  • Findings fixed with a prompt tweak and not retested.
  • Not testing vendor models in your configuration.

Satisfies

Standards crosswalk

Clause references only. Check the standard itself for the exact wording.

ISO/IEC 42001

  • 6.1.2 AI risk assessment
  • A.6.2.4 AI system verification and validation

ISO/IEC 27001

  • A.5.7 Threat intelligence
  • A.8.8 Management of technical vulnerabilities
  • A.8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance

SOC 2

  • CC4.1
  • CC7.1

Key takeaways

  • Attack your own AI on a tier-based schedule and after major changes.
  • Partial reuse from ISO 27001: security testing, vulnerability management and threat intelligence (A.8.29, A.8.8, A.5.7) give the process; AI attack techniques are new.
  • Keep reports; RBI FREE-AI expects them available to supervisors.

Find your gaps

Our free compliance gap assessment shows which of these controls you already run.

Start the gap assessment

Have us build it with you

Our AI Governance service implements controls like this one and produces the evidence auditors expect.

Explore AI Governance