Testing APIs Against The OWASP LLM Top 10

In today’s tech-driven landscape, the integration of Generative AI and Large Language Models (LLMs) is a double-edged sword; while these technologies offer significant advancements in efficiency and innovation, they also expand the potential attack surface for cyber threats. A recent Lightspeed survey found that over 60% of large businesses are utilizing generative AI in multiple applications, highlighting the rapid adoption of these tools amidst a backdrop of increasing security concerns.

As companies race to harness AI capabilities, the security measures in place often lag behind advancements in technology. By 2025, it is projected that 750 million applications will incorporate LLMs, bringing to light the urgent need for robust security protocols to mitigate risks associated with vulnerabilities in these systems.

The Dangers of Prompt Injection

In cybersecurity, the primary focus has often been on using AI to bolster defenses against various threats. However, what happens when the threats are specifically designed to exploit AI applications? This question prompted the OWASP (Open Web Application Security Project) to develop the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications in August 2023. This initiative is aimed at developers, data scientists, and security experts engaged in the design and deployment of LLM-driven applications, offering guidance on the main security issues faced today.

Among the key vulnerabilities identified in this list are prompt injection—both direct and indirect attacks—along with insecure output handling and potential training data poisoning. These concerns underscore the need for ongoing vigilance and proactive measures in securing AI applications.

Potential vulnerabilities in AI systems are a growing concern.

The Role of API Testing in Securing AI Applications

A pivotal method in safeguarding applications lies in testing their Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). By simulating synthetic traffic, developers can proactively identify vulnerabilities associated with LLM applications, particularly those highlighted in the OWASP Top 10. For instance, recent evaluations of several mainstream generative AI applications uncovered indirect prompt injection vulnerabilities. Through standard prompts, these applications remained unresponsive, but the introduction of malicious prompts successfully retrieved sensitive information from the underlying AI systems.

Take the case of Gemini for Workspace. In a notable incident from September, researchers were able to show that by embedding harmful instructions into the AI’s data source, they could manipulate Gemini’s outputs, demonstrating a significant security loophole in an otherwise formidable application.

Testing Methodology and Findings

The examination of security vulnerabilities was structured through four distinct tests:

1. An email containing hidden instructions was injected into Gmail, paired with control tokens designed to mislead the LLM into misrepresenting its content.
2. A phishing-like tactic was employed with a password reset warning accompanied by a maliciously altered URL.
3. An attack was directed at Google Slides, utilizing speaker notes to hinder accurate summarization of content.
4. A file-sharing scheme from Google Drive was leveraged, leading to instruction misinterpretations by the LLM due to mismanaged permissions.

These examples starkly illustrate that even major players like Google Gemini can be vulnerable to prompt injection attacks.

Cybersecurity testing is essential for LLMs.

The Impact of Insecure Output Handling

The second most critical threat defined by the OWASP criteria pertains to insecure output handling. This vulnerability can trigger scenarios such as cross-site forgery requests (CSRF) or remote code execution (RCE). A recent incident involving the Ollama model exemplified this risk, where insufficient validation enabled attackers to craft a malicious HTTP request to Ollama’s API, extracting sensitive models and inserting harmful payloads into compliant systems.

Addressing Training Data Poisoning

Positioned third on the OWASP list, training data poisoning remains a grave concern in the AI landscape. This issue has been vividly illustrated by a revelation involving the Hugging Face AI repository, where researchers in February identified a staggering one hundred malicious models uploaded to the platform. These instances underscore the critical need for institutions to monitor and secure their datasets proactively. More alarming, cases have surfaced where unsecured API tokens found on GitHub allowed access to vulnerable repositories, potentially leading to significant data manipulation risks.

Conclusion: Prioritize Security Before Deployment

The various attack vectors illustrated necessitate a robust pre-deployment testing strategy for AI applications. Employing an API-native approach allows organizations to test their LLM applications against emerging security challenges articulated in the OWASP Top 10. By identifying vulnerabilities early, they can deliver actionable insights to their development teams, ensuring the necessary fuardrails are established before these applications are exposed to the broader data landscape.

As this field continues to evolve, the role of robust testing and proactive security measures becomes ever more critical. Failing to implement these strategies not only jeopardizes the integrity of individual applications but threatens the broader trust in the generative AI ecosystem, which businesses rely upon for competitive advantage.

Understanding AI threats is essential for future-proofing technologies.

In the face of increasing integration of LLMs, organizations must make security a cornerstone of application design and implementation to navigate the complexities of this emerging digital terrain. As AI matures, so too must our approaches to fortifying these powerful tools against malicious threats.