Adversarial AI testing
We conduct adversarial testing of your AI: we deliberately attack it like a malicious actor — try to bypass guardrails (jailbreak), induce a harmful answer, prompt injection, data leakage, make it go out of bounds — to find vulnerabilities BEFORE others do. Honestly upfront: testing FINDS weak spots but CANNOT prove their complete absence ('not found' ≠ 'they do not exist'); AI attacks constantly evolve, so it is not a one-off check but a regular practice; and found vulnerabilities then need closing (guardrails — 905).
Adversarial AI testing — overview
Adversarial AI testing (close to AI red-teaming — 907) is checking your AI's resilience to malicious use: we act as the attacker and systematically try to 'break' the system — bypass limiters (jailbreak), force it to output harmful/forbidden content, conduct prompt injection, achieve a leak of the system prompt or data, make an agent perform an undesirable action, provoke a hallucination in a dangerous context. The result is a report of found vulnerabilities with priorities and recommendations. Honestly about the fundamental limitation, this is key: testing can SHOW the presence of vulnerabilities but CANNOT prove their complete absence. 'We could not break it' does not equal 'it is impossible to break' — this is a basic security principle (absence of found holes ≠ absence of holes). So we honestly report what we found and what we checked rather than pass off 'passed the test' as 'the AI is safe'. Honestly about attack evolution: AI bypass techniques constantly evolve, new jailbreak methods appear. So one-off testing becomes outdated — for real security a regular practice is needed, especially after model/prompt changes. Honestly about the link: testing finds problems, but closing them is guardrails (905) and refinement; one without the other is incomplete. We honestly show this cycle (test → fix → retest). Honestly about the effect: it substantially raises security by revealing real holes before attackers, but it is risk reduction, not an invulnerability guarantee. Honestly about access and ethics: we test only your AI with your permission, responsibly. Honestly about access: access to the AI application is needed. An important boundary: this is testing/vulnerability finding; their elimination — guardrails 905; broader red-teaming — 907; bias checking — 909. Picture this: instead of 'waiting until attackers break the AI' — finding and closing holes in advance, regularly. The base price starts from 55,000 ₽ (depends on depth and scope).
Problems we solve
- It is unknown whether your AI can be 'broken' and how.
- Guardrails exist but are not tested for real bypass.
- Risk that attackers find a vulnerability before you.
- After a model/prompt change security is not rechecked.
What's included in the Adversarial AI testing service
- Attacks on AI: jailbreak, prompt injection, leaks, going out of bounds
- Systematic vulnerability finding for your scenarios
- A report with priorities and closing recommendations
- Honest boundaries (we find but do not prove the absence of holes)
- Indicating regularity (attacks evolve)
- The test → fix (guardrails 905) → retest cycle
- Responsible testing (only with permission)
- Handover and review with you
What you get
- Found AI vulnerabilities before attackers
- A prioritized report with recommendations
- A basis for strengthening protection (guardrails 905)
- Honest boundaries (risk reduction, not an invulnerability guarantee)
How the work goes: steps
- We define threat scenarios and testing boundaries; collect access
- We systematically attack the AI, record vulnerabilities
- We give a report and fix plan, honestly set boundaries (regularity) with you
Why PDV Expert
- Fixed price and timeline — no surprises on the invoice.
- Report and recommendations in plain language — clear without a technical background.
- In touch at every step and answering questions about the result.
FAQ
If the test is passed — is my AI definitely safe?
No, and this is fundamentally honest: testing can show vulnerabilities but not prove their complete absence. 'We could not break it' does not equal 'it is impossible to break' — the absence of found holes does not mean there are no holes. We honestly report what we checked and what we found rather than pass off 'passed the test' as 'the AI is invulnerable'. It is risk reduction, not a safety certificate.
Is it enough to test once?
No, honestly: AI bypass techniques constantly evolve, new jailbreak methods appear. One-off testing becomes outdated. For real security a regular practice is needed, especially after a model or prompt change. We honestly build in regularity and retests rather than sell a one-off check as 'safe forever'.
Will you close the vulnerabilities too?
Testing finds and prioritizes vulnerabilities, while closing them is refinement and guardrails (905). It is a linked cycle: test → fix → retest. We honestly show both parts: one without the other is incomplete (finding holes and not closing them is not enough; setting protection blindly without tests is risky). We can run the whole cycle or hand the report to your team.
About the provider
The «Adversarial AI testing» service is provided by PDV Expert — a team specialising in «Site quality». We work under contract and deliver a written report with recommendations.