Skip to content
COSMIPHER AI SECURITY ASSESSMENT

Turn one consequential AI boundary into a decision-ready security record.

Select an AI estate, an agent action path, or an exact release candidate. Define the boundary, examine the relevant exposure and failure paths, and structure the evidence required for an adoption, runtime-control, or release decision.

Choose an assessment pathDiscuss scope with Cosmipher
  • 01One bounded decision
  • 02Written authority before testing
  • 03Evidence tied to material change
ASSESSMENT BOUNDARYILLUSTRATIVE METHOD
STARTING OBJECTOne consequential AI boundary
AUTHORITY STATEScope required
  1. 01
    BOUNDDecision, owner, target, authority
  2. 02
    MAPContext, reachability, controls
  3. 03
    EXERCISEAuthorized failure paths
  4. 04
    DECIDEEvidence, conditions, limits
  5. 05
    VERIFYReplay, expiry, next action
DECISION RECORDEvidence remains tied to scope, versions, environment, owner, limitations, and change triggers.
Reference assessment structure. No access or testing is authorized through the public website.
CHOOSE THE STARTING DECISION

One assessment system. Three precise entry boundaries.

The selected path changes the scope, method, evidence structure, participating teams, limitations, and next conversation, not only the card title.

SELECTED ASSESSMENT / 03

AI Release Evidence Assessment

Bind artifact provenance, adversarial findings, remediation, control verification, replay status, limitations, and evidence invalidation to the release that was actually examined.

Boundary
One exact release candidate, configuration, environment, and artifact set
Method
Bound → Map → Exercise → Decide → Verify
Output
Version-bound AI release evidence packet
Owner
AppSec and AI engineering
Next step
Qualify fit, then agree written scope
DECISION QUESTIONDoes this exact release candidate have sufficient artifact, attack, remediation, and replay evidence to proceed?

A new or materially changed AI system needs a defensible security decision before release.

SCOPE TOPOLOGY

Follow the evidence from starting object to decision record.

  1. 01
    ManifestExact candidate and versions
  2. 02
    ProvenanceArtifacts and dependencies
  3. 03
    Attack casesAuthorized failure paths
  4. 04
    RemediationFinding-to-change linkage
  5. 05
    ReplayRegression verification
  6. 06
    Release packetDecision, limits, expiry

Illustrative assessment boundary. It is not a customer environment, product capture, supported-technology statement, or measured result.

QUESTIONS EXAMINED

Coverage begins with decision questions, not unsupported compatibility claims.

01
Manifest

Which exact model, data, dependency, prompt, tool, policy, and environment are being released?

02
Provenance

Can the relevant artifacts and inherited dependencies be identified and trusted?

03
Attack

Which authorized failure cases materially affect the release decision?

04
Remediation

Is each decision-relevant change linked to the finding it is intended to close?

05
Replay

Did the changed candidate pass the exact linked regression case?

06
Validity

Which version or configuration change supersedes this release evidence?

These are assessment questions. Actual target, method, depth, access, and evidence are established through written scope.

BOUNDARY CONTROL

Specific enough to evaluate. Narrow enough to authorize.

IN SCOPE
  • Named model, dataset, dependency, adapter, prompt, policy, retrieval, tool, configuration, environment, and release identifiers
  • Artifact integrity and provenance evidence relevant to the release decision
  • Authorized attack cases, findings, traces, remediation links, control verification, replay state, limitations, and change triggers
CONDITIONAL
  • Deeper artifact or dataset inspection where provenance, unsafe serialization, poisoning, or backdoor risk is material
  • Agent and tool-chain testing when the assembled application can take consequential actions
  • Targeted runtime-control replay when release approval depends on a specific mitigation
OUT BY DEFAULT
  • Different builds, environments, configurations, model versions, datasets, tools, or policies not bound to the manifest
  • Universal safety, security, compliance, or future-behavior guarantees
  • Certification, legal approval, or release authority belonging to the customer’s accountable owner
ASSESSMENT METHOD

Bound. Map. Exercise. Decide. Verify.

  1. 01Bound

    Freeze the candidate manifest, environment, decision owner, allowed tests, evidence sources, exclusions, and invalidation conditions.

    Version-bound scope manifest
  2. 02Map

    Connect models, data, dependencies, prompts, retrieval, tools, policies, identities, and existing controls to the exact release.

    Release evidence graph
  3. 03Exercise

    Inspect relevant artifacts and run the authorized attack cases against the assembled candidate, preserving findings and traces.

    Artifact and attack evidence
  4. 04Decide

    Join severity, exploitability, provenance, remediation, control status, replay state, residual uncertainty, and limitations.

    Release decision packet
  5. 05Verify

    Replay linked cases after change and record which evidence remains valid, which is superseded, and what remains open.

    Regression and validity record
ILLUSTRATIVE OUTPUT STRUCTURE

Inspect the record before discussing the engagement.

NOT A PRODUCT CAPTURE OR CUSTOMER RECORDVersion-bound AI release evidence packet
DECISION ARTIFACT

Version-bound AI release evidence packet

A release record joining the exact manifest, artifact trust, adversarial evidence, remediation, control verification, replay status, limitations, and evidence-expiry conditions.

ILLUSTRATIVE DECISIONHold for replay
01Release manifestRecorded
Candidate R-017 / model, data, tools, policy, environment bound
02Artifact trustReview
Primary artifacts recorded; one transitive dependency requires provenance
03Attack evidenceRecorded
Tool-boundary failure reproduced and linked to the candidate
04Remediation linkReview
Policy and permission change attached to the finding
05Release conditionOpen
Replay exact case and close provenance question before decision renewal

The record remains tied to its named system, versions, environment, evidence sources, owner, limitations, observation period, and change trigger.

PRODUCT PATHAI Security Testing + AI Supply Chain Security

Supporting teams: Release owner, model risk, MLOps, data owner, and security assurance.

Discuss this boundaryOpen the matching solution
RESPONSIBILITY MODEL

Authority and evidence remain shared, explicit, and bounded.

The assessment begins only when the people responsible for the system, evaluation, safeguards, and resulting decision understand their part.

01

Authorized system owner

  • Confirm lawful authority and accountable ownership
  • Describe the intended business purpose and unacceptable consequence
  • Approve the environment, access route, evidence handling, and participant list
02

Cosmipher

  • Propose the minimum useful assessment boundary
  • Define the method, evidence structure, safeguards, and limitations
  • Keep observations tied to the agreed system, versions, environment, and period
03

Agreed jointly

  • Rules of engagement and excluded systems
  • Stop conditions, escalation contacts, schedule, and communication
  • Decision owner, remediation handoff, evidence validity, retest, and closure
ASSESSMENT READINESS

Prepare the decision before preparing the data.

A detailed technical transfer is not the first step. Start with authority, ownership, the decision to be made, the unacceptable consequence, and the smallest useful boundary.

  • A named owner can authorize the target.
  • One adoption, action, or release decision is explicit.
  • A safe environment or controlled method can be discussed.
  • The relevant technical and business owners can participate.
  • Detailed evidence can move through an approved channel after scope.
  • Stop conditions and escalation contacts can be agreed before testing.
ENGAGEMENT DISTINCTIONUnderstand what each first step does.
PathPurposeTesting authorityOutput
Website requestQualify the decision and responsible peopleNoScoping conversation
Product demoExplain workflows using approved or simulated materialNoProduct-fit discussion
AI Security AssessmentEvaluate one agreed AI boundaryOnly after separate written scopeDecision-specific evidence record
Penetration test or red teamExercise an authorized target under engagement-specific rulesYes, when separately contracted and authorizedTechnical findings and reproducible evidence
Certification or legal auditProvide a formal independent or legal conclusionNot implied by this assessmentOutside the assessment claim
EVIDENCE VALIDITY

A decision is only as current as the system it describes.

The record must expose what was examined, what remained outside scope, and which change requires replay or renewal.

  1. 01
    Baseline bound

    System, versions, environment, evidence sources, owner, scope, and limitations are recorded.

  2. 02
    Evidence assembled

    Observed exposure, exercised cases, control state, remediation, and unresolved questions are joined.

  3. 03
    Decision recorded

    The accountable owner can interpret the result within the stated boundary and validity period.

  4. 04
    Material change

    A model, prompt, retrieval, identity, permission, tool, artifact, data, policy, purpose, or environment changes.

  5. 05
    Renew or invalidate

    Affected evidence is replayed, renewed, superseded, or explicitly marked no longer sufficient.

ASSESSMENT BOUNDARY

An assessment does not certify that an AI system is universally secure, safe, compliant, or free from future failure. It supports a decision inside the named scope, versions, environment, methods, evidence sources, exclusions, and observation period.

CLAIM AND PROOF STATE

Know what is published, scoped, and demonstrated by evidence.

The public method defines how the decision is structured. The engagement determines the exact boundary. Only observed evidence can support a finding or outcome.

01

Published method

Decision paths, boundary model, responsibility, assessment stages, record structure, limitations, and evidence-validity logic.

02

Defined during scope

Target, environment, access, testing depth, safeguards, stop conditions, participants, evidence handling, output format, and retest treatment.

03

Supported by engagement evidence

Observed findings, exercised coverage, control response, performance, remediation state, replay result, and the decision the evidence can support.

EVALUATOR QUESTIONS

Resolve the operating questions before detailed scoping.

These boundaries keep the first conversation useful without turning a public request into an unsafe technical handoff.

01What should we share through the website or first email?

Share only the decision, system type, lifecycle stage, responsible team, and high-level non-sensitive context. Do not send credentials, source code, production data, customer records, vulnerability details, exploit material, or confidential architecture through the public channel.

02Does contacting Cosmipher authorize access or testing?

No. A message or form submission begins qualification only. Access, scanning, installation, connection, testing, or exploitation requires the authorized owner, written scope, an approved environment, rules of engagement, safeguards, contacts, and stop conditions.

03Can an assessment begin outside production?

The environment is selected during scoping according to the decision, representative behavior required, available safeguards, and the system owner's authorization. The website does not imply that production access is necessary or accepted.

04Which teams should participate?

The accountable system or release owner should participate. Depending on the path, the working group can include security, AI platform, application engineering, AppSec, IAM, SecOps, MLOps, data owners, model risk, privacy, GRC, and the business control owner.

05How is this different from a product demo?

A demo explains product workflows using approved or simulated material. An assessment considers one agreed customer boundary and can include examination or testing only after separate written authorization. A demo request never authorizes assessment activity.

06Does an assessment certify that the system is secure or compliant?

No. The resulting evidence is limited to the agreed target, environment, versions, methods, evidence sources, exclusions, and time period. Framework mapping can organize technical evidence but does not create legal advice, certification, or a universal guarantee.

07What happens when the AI system changes?

The decision record identifies material-change triggers. A relevant change can invalidate all or part of the earlier evidence and require targeted replay, evidence renewal, or a newly bounded assessment.

08How are detailed evidence and access information handled?

The first public contact does not collect them. If detailed material is required, the parties first agree the approved channel, purpose, access method, participants, handling restrictions, retention, and deletion expectations as part of scope.

START WITH SCOPE

Bring the decision. Keep sensitive material out of the first message.

Share the assessment path, system type, lifecycle stage, responsible team, and high-level decision. Access details and technical evidence belong in an approved channel after authority, scope, safeguards, and handling conditions are agreed.

  • No credentials, source code, datasets, vulnerability details, or customer records
  • No production access implied or requested
  • No testing before written authorization and rules of engagement
Govern AI AdoptionSecure Agentic OperationsAssure AI Releases
AFTER YOU CONTACT COSMIPHER
  1. 01
    Initial context

    Share the path, decision, owner, lifecycle stage, and non-sensitive system context.

  2. 02
    Mutual fit

    Confirm that the decision and boundary match the assessment method and responsible teams.

  3. 03
    Written scope

    Agree target, authority, exclusions, safeguards, stop conditions, evidence handling, and decision owner.

  4. 04
    Authorized start

    Assessment activity begins only after the approved scope and rules of engagement are in place.

DIRECT SCOPING CHANNEL

Discuss one assessment boundary with Cosmipher.

The prepared email includes only the decision fields needed for an initial, non-sensitive scoping conversation.

Start the scoping email
Contact
Services@cosmipher.com
Request state
Qualification only
Testing authority
Not granted
NOT LOOKING FOR AN ASSESSMENT?

Use Contact for platform evaluation, procurement and security review, research, partnerships, or another business question.

Choose a different conversation
AI Release Evidence Assessment - Cosmipher