Authors: Xun Jiao, Fred Lin, Harish D. Dixit, Joel Coburn, Sajin Nair, Abhinav Pandey, Han Wang, Venkat Ramesh, +3 more
Abstract
Reliability of AI systems is a fundamental concern for the successful deployment and widespread adoption of AI technologies. Unfortunately, the escalating complexity and heterogeneity of AI hardware systems make them increasingly susceptible to hardware faults, e.g., silent data corruptions (SDC), that can potentially corrupt model parameters. When this occurs during AI inference/servicing, it can potentially lead to incorrect or degraded model output for users, ultimately affecting the quality and reliability of AI services. In light of the escalating threat, it is crucial to address key questions: How vulnerable are AI models to parameter corruptions, and how do different components (such as modules, layers) of the models exhibit varying vulnerabilities to parameter corruptions? To systematically address this question, we propose a novel quantitative metric, Parameter Vulnerability Factor (PVF), inspired by architectural vulnerability factor (AVF) in computer architecture community, aiming to standardize the quantification of AI model vulnerability against parameter corruptions. We define a model parameter's PVF as the probability that a corruption in that particular model parameter will result in an incorrect output. In this paper, we present several use cases on applying PVF to three types of tasks/models during inference -- recommendation (DLRM), vision classification (CNN), and text classification (BERT), while presenting an in-depth vulnerability analysis on DLRM. PVF has been a critical metric used for making key error management design decisions in productionizing Meta's in-house AI chip - MTIA.
As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly deployed across critical domains, their security vulnerabilities pose growing risks of high-profile exploits and consequential system failures. Yet systematic approaches to evaluating AI security remain underdeveloped. In this paper, we introduce AVISE (AI Vulnerability Identification and Security Evaluation), a modular open-source framework for identifying vulnerabilities in and evaluating the security of AI systems and models. As a demonstration of the framework, we extend the theory-of-mind-based multi-turn Red Queen attack into an Adversarial Language Model (ALM) augmented attack and develop an automated Security Evaluation Test (SET) for discovering jailbreak vulnerabilities in language models. The SET comprises 25 test cases and an Evaluation Language Model (ELM) that determines whether each test case was able to jailbreak the target model, achieving 92% accuracy, an F1-score of 0.91, and a Matthews correlation coefficient of 0.83. We evaluate nine recently released language models of diverse sizes with the SET and find that all are vulnerable to the augmented Red Queen attack to varying degrees. AVISE provides researchers and industry practitioners with an extensible foundation for developing and deploying automated SETs, offering a concrete step toward more rigorous and reproducible AI security evaluation.
This paper reads six engine-level measurements together -- 1.1 host attack surface, 1.2 information leakage, 1.3 defense-in-depth stackability, 1.4 public CVE history, 1.5 patch cadence, and 1.6 upstream fuzzing posture -- to describe how five AI-sandbox products isolate guest code from the host kernel. No single axis is a sufficient basis for a comparative judgement; the cross-axis reading is the load-bearing analysis. Three high-level findings: (1) engine classes (microVM, userspace kernel, OCI container) separate cleanly on every architectural axis, but products within a class do not; (2) product pin policy is the dominant operator-facing variable -- engine-side patch latency aggregates to ~0 days for coordinated disclosures, while downstream lag spans 0 days to 471+ days to "opaque" to infinity; (3) fuzzing investment splits into three tiers, and the strongest combination -- microVM x continuous public fuzzer -- is unoccupied in this set, leaving the "0 published CVEs x no upstream fuzzer x no academic study" intersection structurally unmeasured. We report per-axis orderings, per-product portraits, and a threat-model qualification matrix; no overall ranking is proposed. Companion repository (code, Apache-2.0): https://github.com/orbitalab/RnD-ai-sandboxes-sec-study-part-1. License: CC BY 4.0.
LLM-based analyzers have begun finding real vulnerabilities in mature open-source projects: AISLE's analyzer is credited with more than 280 CVEs across 78 projects, including OpenSSL, curl, and GnuTLS. We introduce HoF-Bench (named after AISLE's public Hall of Fame), a benchmark built from 95 of these public AI-discovered CVEs across eight repositories pinned at vulnerable commits. Analyzers receive source and target-file scope but not CVE identifiers, descriptions, fixes, or expected mechanisms; a detector-blinded frontier-model judge credits only findings that identify the same code path, root cause, attack condition, and impact. A deliberately minimal LLM-based analyzer rediscovers up to 65 of the 95 CVEs (68%) under this strict protocol. No frontier model performs detection anywhere in the study. The ten detector backbones are five open-weight models (21B--284B total parameters, 3--13B active) and five proprietary small or "flash"-tier models. All of them run in the fixed scaffold with four repeated passes, an optional generated-context stage, and a replayable multi-round triage stage (7,600 model--CVE pass records). Difficulty is strongly structured by language; the CVEs missed by every model concentrate in C infrastructure code. HoF-Bench provides a compact test bed for comparing vulnerability scanners, their reliability across repeated runs, and the candidate volume they create. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/aisleinc/HoF-Bench.