A current survey of 500 safety professionals by HackerOne, a safety analysis platform, discovered that 48% consider AI poses probably the most vital safety threat to their group. Amongst their biggest considerations associated to AI embody:
Leaked coaching information (35%).
Unauthorized utilization (33%).
The hacking of AI fashions by outsiders (32%).
These fears spotlight the pressing want for corporations to reassess their AI safety methods earlier than vulnerabilities turn out to be actual threats.
Should-read safety protection
AI tends to generate false positives for safety groups
Whereas the complete Hacker Powered Safety Report received’t be accessible till later this fall, additional analysis from a HackerOne-sponsored SANS Institute report revealed that 58% of safety professionals consider that safety groups and menace actors may discover themselves in an “arms race” to leverage generative AI techniques and strategies of their work.
Safety professionals within the SANS survey mentioned they’ve discovered success utilizing AI to automate tedious duties (71%). Nevertheless, the identical members acknowledged that menace actors may exploit AI to make their operations extra environment friendly. Particularly, respondents “had been most involved with AI-powered phishing campaigns (79%) and automatic vulnerability exploitation (74%).”
SEE: Safety leaders are getting pissed off with AI-generated code.
“Safety groups should discover the perfect purposes for AI to maintain up with adversaries whereas additionally contemplating its present limitations — or threat creating extra work for themselves,” Matt Bromiley, an analyst on the SANS Institute, mentioned in a press launch.
The answer? AI implementations ought to bear an exterior overview. Greater than two-thirds of these surveyed (68%) selected “exterior overview” as the best solution to establish AI security and safety points.
“Groups are actually extra life like about AI’s present limitations” than they had been final 12 months, mentioned HackerOne Senior Options Architect Dane Sherrets in an electronic mail to TechRepublic. “People convey a whole lot of necessary context to each defensive and offensive safety that AI can’t replicate fairly but. Issues like hallucinations have additionally made groups hesitant to deploy the know-how in crucial programs. Nevertheless, AI continues to be nice for rising productiveness and performing duties that don’t require deep context.”
Additional findings from the SANS 2024 AI Survey, launched this month, embody:
38% plan to undertake AI inside their safety technique sooner or later.
38.6% of respondents mentioned they’ve confronted shortcomings when utilizing AI to detect or reply to cyber threats.
40% cite authorized and moral implications as a problem to AI adoption.
41.8% of corporations have confronted pushback from workers who don’t belief AI selections, which SANS speculates is “resulting from lack of transparency.”
43% of organizations presently use AI inside their safety technique.
AI know-how inside safety operations is most frequently utilized in anomaly detection programs (56.9%), malware detection (50.5%), and automatic incident response (48.9%).
58% of respondents mentioned AI programs battle to detect new threats or reply to outlier indicators, which SANS attributes to an absence of coaching information.
Of those that reported shortcomings with utilizing AI to detect or reply to cyber threats, 71% mentioned AI generated false positives.
Anthropic seeks enter from safety researchers on AI security measures
Generative AI maker Anthropic expanded its bug bounty program on HackerOne in August.
Particularly, Anthropic desires the hacker group to stress-test “the mitigations we use to stop misuse of our fashions,” together with attempting to interrupt by the guardrails supposed to stop AI from offering recipes for explosives or cyberattacks. Anthropic says it’s going to award as much as $15,000 to those that efficiently establish new jailbreaking assaults and can present HackerOne safety researchers with early entry to its subsequent security mitigation system.
