Fintra Feature
Repeatable AI red-team runs that land in the risk register
AI Red-Team Run #128
Example figures- VECTORS
- 10 tested
- per run
- FINDINGS
- 4, then risk events
- unified
- PERSISTED
- run + results
- in DB
- Prompt injection
- catalog: exposed
- Tool / scope escalation
- catalog: blocked
- Data exfiltration via context
- catalog: exposed
- Findings, then unified risk events
- linked
- Outcomes are a scripted catalog
- not live exploit
Ten attack vectors, one run
A red-team run exercises a fixed set of ten AI-specific attack vectors, so coverage is consistent from run to run and comparable over time, not a different, ad-hoc test each quarter.
- Prompt injection and jailbreak attempts
- Tool and scope escalation
- Data exfiltration through context
- Sensitive-data leakage in outputs
- Excessive agency / unintended actions
- Insecure output handling
- Supply-chain / plugin abuse (MCP tools)
- Denial-of-wallet (runaway token spend)
- Identity and credential misuse
- Policy / guardrail bypass
Findings become unified risk events
A red-team result is only useful if it lands somewhere durable. Each run and its per-vector outcomes persist, and the findings become the same risk objects the rest of Fintra governance already tracks: no siloed PDF.
| Stage | What persists |
|---|---|
| Run | A dated red-team run with its configuration, saved to the database |
| Vector results | The per-vector outcome from the attack catalog (exposed / blocked) |
| Risk events | Findings roll up into unified risk events shared with the rest of governance |
| History | Runs are comparable over time, so you can show a trend rather than a one-off |
Scripted catalog, persisted results
Questions people ask
What does an AI red-team run test?
Ten attack vectors (prompt injection, tool and scope escalation, data exfiltration, sensitive-data leakage, excessive agency, insecure output handling, plugin/MCP abuse, denial-of-wallet, credential misuse and guardrail bypass) with each vector’s outcome recorded.
Are the runs and results saved?
Yes: each run, its configuration and its per-vector results persist to the database, and findings roll up into unified risk events, so red-team activity is comparable over time rather than a throwaway one-off.
Is this a live exploit engine?
No, and we say so. The per-vector outcomes come from a scripted attack catalog, not from live exploitation of your models. It is a structured, repeatable exercise and a risk-tracking surface, not a claim to have pentested production.
How do findings connect to the rest of governance?
Findings become unified risk events, the same risk objects the rest of Fintra governance uses, so a red-team result lands in the shared register with an owner to close it, instead of a siloed report.
Why use scripted outcomes instead of live attacks?
A scripted catalog is repeatable, safe to run against production-adjacent systems, and comparable across runs. It is honest about being an exercise, and it still drives real, persisted risk events you can act on.
Keep reading
Calculators
One finance briefing a week
New guides, checklists and benchmarks, by email. Unsubscribe from any issue.
See the security depth, not the slideware
Walk the SOC engine, the governed MCP server, and the control graph live, with the honest caveats on the table, not hidden.