Skip to content

Enterprise / AI application testing

Test the application—not just the model.

Examine how an agreed AI application behaves across its interface, prompts, connected data, and permitted actions. Use findings to make practical remediation decisions.

Discuss your needs

Service overview

A system-level view of the use case.

A model's response is only part of an AI-enabled workflow. Authentication, APIs, retrieval, integrations, and human review affect what the application can expose or do.

This service starts with an authorized application scope and defined questions. It is relevant to teams building, integrating, or expanding AI-enabled business applications.

Agree the boundaries first

  • Applications, APIs, models, and integrations in scope.
  • Test accounts and permitted environments.
  • Data-handling and evidence restrictions.
  • Rules of engagement and stop conditions.

Scope and deliverables

Define findings your team can act on.

Scenario selection

Relevant application behavior

Select agreed scenarios around access, sensitive information, connected actions, or instruction handling.

Document observations

Evidence in context

Describe observed behavior, reproduction conditions, and relevant limitations within the authorized test.

Inform remediation

Prioritized next steps

Discuss findings and improvement recommendations against the agreed use case and business impact.

If the main question is whether systems enforce your AI-use rules, AI policy & control evaluation connects policy expectations to specific technical scenarios. Broader application testing remains a distinct scope.

Engagement process

Authorize. Evaluate. Review.

  1. Establish authorization and objectives.

    Confirm ownership, access, dependencies, test constraints, and permitted targets.

  2. Evaluate agreed scenarios.

    Examine application behavior within the agreed rules. Record meaningful observations and testing limits.

  3. Review findings and ownership.

    Discuss remediation priorities and which team owns each next step. Any changes or retest are agreed separately.

Scope and limitations

What this engagement does not imply.

  • No guarantee that all weaknesses or future behaviors will be found.
  • No model-safety certification or compliance determination.
  • No testing of third-party systems without appropriate permission.
  • No automatic source-code review, remediation, production change, or ongoing monitoring.
Can OWASP guidance be part of the work?

Relevant OWASP application or AI guidance can inform agreed scenarios. Specific coverage or framework mapping must be established in scope rather than implied by a general reference.

Can prompt injection be examined in more detail?

Yes, where appropriate to the application and authorization. The specialist prompt-injection page describes the questions and limitations of that testing area.

Related pages

Continue the conversation.

service

AI policy & control evaluation

Compare AI policy expectations with agreed permissions, configurations, and authorized behavior tests to identify enforcement gaps and practical improvements.

Explore specialist

Prompt-injection testing

Explore authorized prompt-injection testing for AI applications, including instruction boundaries, connected tools, and output limitations.

Explore Hypothetical use case

When AI policy meets connected systems

Explore a hypothetical internal AI assistant connecting customer records, documents, and an external provider, with conflicting policy and access boundaries.

Explore

Discuss your needs

A useful next step starts with your environment.

Discuss the decision, systems, and boundaries that matter. We can establish what work is appropriate before making commitments.

Discuss your needs ↗