Home
Knowledge Center
Evaluating Security Posture in AI & LLM Contexts

Evaluating Security Posture in AI & LLM Contexts

Generative AI (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) have unlocked new ways for organizations to automate, analyze, and accelerate decision-making. However, their inherent design—handling dynamic, often unstructured and sensitive data—raises serious security concerns. Evaluating security posture in AI & LLM contexts requires new strategies tailored to how these models process and expose data.

From Traditional to Adaptive Security Models

In traditional systems, data security was often perimeter-based. With GenAI, security must become contextual. These models ingest large datasets, retain patterns, and can regenerate sensitive information if improperly tuned. A prompt might inadvertently extract credentials, business secrets, or personally identifiable information (PII).

Therefore, securing AI pipelines is not just about firewalls and roles. It requires adaptive data security, privacy-aware logging, and real-time controls embedded in the AI lifecycle. As highlighted by Google's secure AI practices, AI-specific controls must align with both infrastructure and model behavior.

LLM Data Processing Workflow Diagram — Diagram showing LLM data flow from input to inference via preprocessing and GPU processing.

Real-Time Audit and Behavior Tracking

AI workloads need real-time audit mechanisms to capture every interaction between users and models. Since GenAI systems can generate novel output on each prompt, logging must cover input, output, session identity, and downstream queries.

Consider this scenario: a data analyst interacts with an internal GenAI system via natural language.

Prompt: "List all customers from Germany who made purchases over $10,000 in the last quarter."

The LLM generates the SQL query:

SELECT customer_id, name, email, country, total_purchase
FROM sales.customers
WHERE country = 'Germany' AND total_purchase > 10000 AND purchase_date BETWEEN '2024-10-01' AND '2024-12-31';

This request touches customer identifiers, contact info, and financial data. A well-designed audit trail will capture both the prompt and the generated SQL, tying it to the user's session and time context. Tools like behavior learning audit help identify if such access is usual or potentially abusive. This approach aligns with NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework, which emphasizes ongoing monitoring.

LLM Application Data Flow — Data flow diagram of an LLM app connecting model, training data, and sources.

Dynamic Masking for Model Responses

Since GenAI outputs are generated dynamically, dynamic data masking ensures sensitive information is obfuscated before display. This approach balances usability and compliance.

Suppose a support bot is connected to a customer service database. When asked:

"Show me customer profile for John Doe."

The backend may produce:

{
  "name": "John Doe",
  "email": "[email protected]",
  "ssn": "123-45-6789",
  "credit_card": "4111 1111 1111 1111"
}

With masking enabled for sensitive fields:

{
  "name": "John Doe",
  "email": "j*****[email protected]",
  "ssn": "***-**-6789",
  "credit_card": "**** **** **** 1111"
}

Masking is context-aware and depends on user role, source, and classification rules. Microsoft also recommends safeguarding data outputs in AI systems through layered enforcement techniques.

DataSunrise UI with Security Modules — DataSunrise dashboard showing modules like Audit, Masking, and Data Discovery.

Data Discovery Before AI Exposure

Before feeding data into LLMs, organizations must use data discovery tools to scan for PII, financial identifiers, and business-sensitive values. This allows security teams to label high-risk assets and exclude them from training sets or real-time access.

Instead of relying solely on manual configuration, automated discovery can classify sensitive fields and integrate with masking, encryption, or access rules. IBM’s data governance guide offers valuable practices for setting up these workflows effectively. Integration with automated policy engines ensures consistent enforcement across AI environments.

Security Policies Tailored to AI

Static allow/deny rules are insufficient in the GenAI context. Policies must adapt based on user behavior, prompt intent, and output sensitivity. For example, pattern analysis can detect malicious prompt injection attempts, while time-based limits can restrict access to certain data during off-hours.

Systems like SQL injection protection must evolve to analyze not just SQL, but natural language prompts that generate database activity. Research from Stanford highlights how subtle prompt variations can bypass traditional filters and extract privileged data.

Aligning GenAI with Data Compliance Standards

LLM-based systems must still comply with GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI DSS. This includes ensuring auditability, honoring user data deletion rights, and preventing unauthorized cross-border data exposure.

Compliance in GenAI environments means implementing data retention policies that limit storage of prompt history, enforcing access restrictions through role-based control, and applying masking to audit logs. Compliance managers simplify oversight by generating automated reports and enforcing standardized policies. For reference, CNIL’s guidance on AI and GDPR provides useful frameworks tailored to AI use.

Conclusion: A Living Security Framework

Evaluating security posture in AI & LLM contexts isn't a one-time checklist. It's a continuous loop of monitoring, masking, auditing, and aligning with compliance. Tools must be interoperable, real-time, and AI-aware. Security needs to extend beyond the infrastructure and into the model prompts, outputs, and user behavior itself.

Organizations embracing GenAI must build a living security framework—one that adapts as the model evolves, learns, and interacts with an increasingly dynamic environment.