Test, strengthen and verify the system.
AI systems can fail in ways that traditional software testing does not always cover. Autorea tests the agreed system for relevant AI-specific weaknesses, documents material findings with evidence and, where remediation is included, implements approved fixes and tests them again.
Test and find — with proof.
We actively attack your AI system and find how it can be manipulated. Every relevant finding comes with reproducible proof, not a guess.
- Assessed by specialists from our network: Security / Privacy Reviewer, Solution Architect and Delivery / Solution Lead
- Documented findings with reproducible proof
- Prioritization by severity
- Management report + technical annex, produced with a Documentation / Presentation Specialist
- No remediation — that's Hardening, booked separately
- No certification, no compliance guarantee
- No claim of "100% secure"
If we find no relevant finding, you pay half.
When does Secure make sense?
Secure is designed for companies that have an AI system — whether built by Autorea, built internally, or built by another provider — and need it tested, strengthened, or both.
You already have an AI system.
A chatbot, RAG system, agent workflow or AI-enabled application is already running or close to production. It handles real data, real users, or real decisions — and it needs to be tested.
No one has tested the AI layer.
Traditional security checks may exist for the application and infrastructure, but the AI-specific behavior — model manipulation, prompt injection, tool misuse — has not been actively tested.
You have known findings.
An internal team, pentest, audit or another provider has already identified weaknesses that need remediation. You need someone to implement the fixes and verify them — not just mark them as closed.
The system can take action.
The AI can access tools, data, APIs or business systems. It can read, write, send, delete or decide. The attack surface is larger than a static model — and testing should reflect that.
The consequence of error is high.
The system handles sensitive information, customer interactions, transactions or important business decisions. A failure is not just a technical incident — it has operational, legal or reputational consequences.
Secure is not mandatory after Build. You can enter directly with an existing AI system, a system built internally, a system built by another provider, an external pentest or audit, or an existing finding list. You can purchase assessment only (Test + Find) or hardening from existing findings (Fix + Retest) — the full chain is not forced.
What can be tested?
These are practical categories, not a framework checklist. We test the behavior that matters for your system — the ways it can be influenced, the data it can expose, and the actions it can take beyond what was intended.
Manipulation
Can the system be influenced into behavior outside the intended workflow?
Data Exposure
Can sensitive or unintended information be revealed through interaction with the AI?
Access & Permissions
Can the AI reach more data or functionality than its role should permit?
Agent Actions
Can an agent perform actions beyond the intended scope — or be made to?
Tool Use
Can connected tools or APIs be misused through the AI interface?
Output Handling
Can AI output create unsafe downstream behavior in consuming systems?
Workflow Boundaries
Do human approvals, restrictions and exception paths work as expected under test?
Recognized standards and frameworks inform our methodology where appropriate — but the page is structured around what you need to know, not around framework categories. The methodology adapts to the system, not the other way around.
Findings should come with evidence.
Assessment is the first half of Secure. We define the scope, test the system, reproduce material findings, prioritize by severity, and deliver a structured report — with both a management view and technical detail.
No material finding without evidence.
Known weaknesses can then be fixed.
Hardening is the second half of Secure. We take approved findings — from our own assessment, from an external audit, or from your own list — and implement verified fixes. Every fix connects back to a specific finding or risk.
Repeat the original test.
A security change should not be considered effective simply because the implementation was completed. Where technically appropriate, Autorea repeats the relevant original attack or test after remediation — so you can see what actually changed.
Attack / Test
The original test is executed against the system. If a material finding exists, the test produces a documented result — the weakness is present and reproducible.
Result: Succeeds
Same Relevant Test
The fix is implemented. The same test — or the closest technically appropriate equivalent — is executed again under the same conditions. The result is documented as evidence.
Result: Verified
Fixing security should not create unnecessary operational risk.
Every change carries some risk. These principles govern how we work — so the fix does not become the incident.
Staging first
Changes are tested outside production where appropriate. No fix lands directly on a live system without validation in a representative environment.
Rollback
Important changes have a defined rollback approach. If a fix causes unexpected behavior, the path back to the previous state is known and tested.
Change window
Production changes happen within agreed windows where necessary. The timing, communication, and approval path are defined before the change is applied.
Prioritization
Critical findings are handled before lower-priority improvements. The order of work is driven by severity and operational risk, not by convenience.
Client approval
Important production changes require the agreed authorization. No change that could affect production behavior is applied without explicit approval through the defined channel.
What you have when Secure is complete.
Depending on the agreed scope — assessment only, hardening only, or the full cycle — you receive a structured set of outputs. Everything is yours to keep and use with any provider or internal team.
Security Findings
Prioritized, documented findings. Each one includes what was tested, what was found, and the severity assessment.
Evidence
Reproducible proof for material findings. Steps, conditions, observed behavior — documented so your team can verify independently.
Fix Plan
Clear remediation actions. Each finding has a recommended approach, an estimated effort, and a defined retest criteria.
Implemented Hardening
Approved fixes delivered within scope. Every fix is traceable to an approved finding — nothing is changed without a documented reason.
Retest Results
Evidence showing what happened after remediation. The original test, the new result, and the comparison.
Before / After Record
Traceability from original finding to implemented fix and retest. A complete chain: what was found, what was done, and what the retest showed.
Management Summary
A concise decision-level explanation. What was tested, what was found, what was fixed, what was verified — in language your leadership can act on.
Technical Documentation
Detailed information for internal technical teams. Findings, reproduction steps, fix details, and retest procedures — everything your engineers need to maintain what was done.
A defined security cycle — with flexible entry.
Not every client needs the full cycle. You can enter where it makes sense for your situation. Three common patterns — each one a valid way to use Secure.
Assessment + Hardening
From an untested system to a tested and strengthened one. The complete cycle.
Test + Find
You need to know where the weaknesses are. You handle remediation internally or with another provider.
Fix + Retest
You already have reliable findings. We implement approved fixes, retest, and provide evidence.
You should see evidence before the final report.
We aim to surface useful evidence early — an initial finding view during assessment, an early verified fix during hardening — so you are not waiting until the final deliverable to know what we're seeing.
For assessment: an early initial-finding view so you can see what's emerging. For hardening: an early verified fix where possible — so you can see the cycle working before the full scope is complete.
What we need from you.
Secure is a collaboration. We handle the methodology, the testing, and the technical work — but we need access, context, and decisions that only you can provide.
Client provides
- One responsible contact
- Agreed system access
- Relevant documentation
- Approved test scope
- Change windows / approvals where required
Autorea handles
- Assessment methodology
- Testing
- Finding documentation
- Prioritization
- Remediation within scope
- Retesting
- Evidence package
What we commit to.
Evidence-based findings
Material findings are supported by reproducible evidence. We do not report weaknesses we cannot demonstrate. Every finding includes the conditions, the observed behavior, and the steps to reproduce.
Retesting
Where a specific weakness is remediated, the relevant test is repeated. A fix is not considered complete until the retest result is documented. Fixed does not mean verified — verified means the test was repeated.
Correct within agreed scope
If an agreed remediation does not pass the defined retest, we correct the implementation within the agreed scope and test it again. The scope defines the boundary — within it, we stand behind the work.
Delivery transparency
Scope, priorities and status remain visible throughout the engagement. You know what is being tested, what has been found, what is being fixed, and what the retest shows — as it happens, not only at the end.
What Secure does not mean.
Not "100% secure"
No provider can honestly guarantee that no future vulnerability or attack will ever succeed.
Not "unhackable"
Never use this word. It does not describe any real system and we will not claim it.
Not automatic compliance
Testing and evidence can support compliance work but do not automatically certify an organization.
Not certification
Secure is not a certification unless a specific accredited certification is separately provided and stated.
Not every possible attack
Testing is limited to the agreed scope, time and environment. We test what was agreed — not everything conceivable.
Not zero production risk
Changes are controlled, but no technical change is completely without operational risk. We manage risk — we do not claim to eliminate it.
Not permanent security
Systems, models, integrations and threats change over time. Long-term observation belongs to Operate & Improve.
After Secure, there are several valid outcomes.
Hand back
The client receives the findings, fixes and evidence and continues internally. Everything is documented. Your team has what it needs to maintain the system.
Further hardening
Additional approved findings can be addressed in another defined scope. Security work is incremental — another cycle can follow when needed.
Operate & Improve
The system moves into ongoing monitoring, reporting and continuous improvement — behavior monitoring, incident response, drift detection, and recurring optimization.
Operate & Improve is optional. You can hand the system back to your team at any point — Secure is designed to make that straightforward.
Questions we are asked about Secure.
No. Secure works with systems built by anyone — Autorea, your internal team, or another provider. The only requirement is that the system exists and we can agree on the test scope.
Yes, after reviewing whether the findings are sufficiently clear and reproducible. If the existing findings include reproduction steps and clear descriptions, we can proceed directly to hardening. If not, we may recommend a targeted reassessment of those findings first.
No. Secure is optional and depends on risk, system capability and assurance requirements. A system built by Autorea can go directly to production without Secure — the decision is yours based on what the system does and the consequences of a failure.
Not necessarily. Traditional testing and AI-specific testing overlap but do not cover exactly the same behaviors. Secure focuses on AI-specific weaknesses — manipulation through natural language, tool misuse through the AI interface, data exposure through model interaction — that traditional application testing may not address. Where traditional testing already exists, Secure complements it rather than duplicating it.
No. Findings are prioritized by severity and consequence. The remediation scope is agreed with you before implementation. Not every finding needs to be fixed — and some may be accepted as known risks. You decide which findings become remediation scope.
Where appropriate, we repeat the relevant original test and document the result. If a prompt injection succeeded before the fix, we run the same — or the closest technically appropriate equivalent — after the fix and compare the results. The evidence package includes both the before and after test documentation.
No. It means the defined weakness did not reproduce under the agreed retest conditions. A retest verifies a specific fix against a specific finding — it is not a statement about the entire system. New weaknesses can emerge, models change, and integrations evolve. Security is a continuous process, not a one-time state.
No. Secure produces evidence that can support compliance work, but it does not certify your organization against any specific regulation or standard. Compliance certification is a separate process with separate requirements.
The client can take over internally — all documentation, findings, fix records, and retest evidence are yours. Or you can continue with Operate & Improve for ongoing monitoring, drift detection, and continuous improvement. Neither path is mandatory. The deliverables are designed to be usable by any competent technical team.
Test, strengthen and verify your AI system.
Define the scope. Find the weaknesses. Fix what matters. Retest and prove what changed.
Or book a call to discuss whether Secure fits your system and your situation.