In an era of self-driving processes and intelligent algorithms, red teams find themselves on a shifting battlefield. DevSecOps practices now embed AI and automation at every turn – from code commit hooks to runtime threat detection. Offensive security professionals are no longer just up against sysadmins and developers; they’re now contending with machine learning models and automated pipelines. The result is a blend of opportunity and challenge: AI can harden defenses, but it also introduces novel weaknesses. To stay ahead, red teams are evolving their tactics and mindset, blending classic hacker creativity with a new understanding of how AI systems think and fail.
AI in the DevSecOps Pipeline: A Double-Edged Sword
Today’s DevSecOps pipelines often include AI-driven code review, automated security scanners, and self-healing infrastructure scripts. On the one hand, these smart systems can catch known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations at speeds no human team can match. On the other, heavy reliance on automation can lull organizations into a false sense of security. As one security expert warned, blind trust in AI-driven defenses creates new blind spots that cybercriminals are already taking advantage of . For example, an AI-based intrusion detection system might excel at flagging known attack patterns, yet struggle with subtle, deceptive hacks that don’t fit its training . The red team’s job is now as much about probing the limits of these AI guardians as it is about exploiting traditional IT flaws. In effect, AI has become a double-edged sword – it hardens the fortress but also offers the savvy attacker (or red teamer) new cracks to pry open.
New Risks and Shadow Surfaces in AI-Driven Systems
AI brings with it a host of vulnerabilities that traditional security assessments might overlook. Offensive security teams are learning to hunt not just for open ports and unpatched servers, but for flaws in algorithms, data, and automated decisions. Below are some of the new risks and “shadow” attack surfaces emerging in AI-infused environments:
- Adversarial Inputs & Evasion: Some attacks involve feeding crafted inputs to AI models to exploit their blind spots. A piece of malware, for instance, can be tweaked ever so slightly so that an AI-based malware detector no longer recognizes it as malicious. These techniques, known as adversarial machine learning, have been shown to fool even advanced detection models . Red teams now simulate such stealthy tweaks, ensuring that an AI defender can’t be duped by inputs that a human might find suspicious.
- Model Poisoning: When AI systems learn from data (especially continuous learning systems), the data itself becomes an attack surface. In a model poisoning attack, an adversary intentionally corrupts the training data or feedback loop. By injecting specially crafted false data, attackers can influence what the AI model learns – perhaps teaching it to ignore certain attack behaviors or creating a “backdoor” in its decision making . Red teams are increasingly testing how resilient a company’s models are against such tainted data, since a poisoned model might confidently allow what it should have blocked.
- Over-Automation & Blind Trust: Automation is great for efficiency, but over-automation can lead to dangerous assumptions. If every code deploy and security check is handled by scripts and AI, teams might start assuming “the system will catch anything wrong.” This faith can be exploited. Imagine an automated code scanner that approves a deployment because it didn’t recognize the exploit buried in an unconventional piece of code. Attackers thrive on these novel methods. In fact, AI-centric security can miss subtle, context-specific threats, allowing attackers to bypass detection entirely . Red team exercises frequently reveal these edge cases – a reminder that human oversight is still crucial even in AI-driven pipelines.
- Shadow AI Systems: Not all AI in an organization is deployed with the security team’s knowledge. “Shadow AI” refers to AI tools and models adopted unofficially by teams or individuals without formal vetting . For example, a developer might secretly use a cloud AI service to expedite a task, inadvertently uploading sensitive code or data. These unsanctioned AI uses create a shadow attack surface – one that the defenders aren’t watching. The risk is that sensitive information could leak or that an unvetted AI integration could introduce a backdoor. A recent commentary noted that uncontrolled use of shadow AI can expose organizations to significant data leakage and security policy violations . Modern red teams actively search for these hidden AI entry points, knowing that attackers will eventually find and exploit what the organization doesn’t even realize it has.
Adversarial Attack: Outsmarting the AI Guardian
Picture a red team exercise at a company where an AI-powered system monitors network traffic for intrusions. This “AI guardian” uses machine learning to flag abnormal patterns in real-time. To the blue team, it’s a trusty sentry that never sleeps. To the red team, it’s an interesting challenge. In one test, red team engineers generate network requests that look almost normal – the deviations are so slight that a human might not notice – yet they are carefully calculated to fool the AI’s model. Sure enough, in the simulation, the AI fails to raise an alert. The malicious traffic glides through undetected.
How did they do it? By applying adversarial input techniques usually seen in academic research, the red team identified which features the AI was keying off of and then modulated their attack just enough to slip past the algorithm. This is the kind of exploit only possible in an AI-driven defense: the red team didn’t need to crack a password or exploit a buffer overflow, they simply gamed the pattern-recognition system. The exercise demonstrated a critical point to the organization’s leaders – attackers can and will outsmart AI if you don’t continually adapt. After all, if a dedicated team of testers can evade the AI watchdog with a bit of creative math, so can a cunning adversary. This example echoes real-world findings that attackers tweak phishing emails or malware in minor ways specifically to fool AI models . For the defenders, the lesson was clear: never assume an AI is infallible, and always plan for what happens when it’s tricked or bypassed.
Pipeline Penetration: Exploiting Automation’s Flaws
In another scenario, a red team targets the company’s automated DevSecOps pipeline itself. This pipeline automatically builds, tests, and deploys applications with minimal human intervention. It even uses an AI code analysis tool to review merge requests, proudly catching security issues before the code ever goes live. But as the red team discovered, automation can have blind spots. The team crafted a piece of code that performed a malicious action (creating a secret admin user during initialization) but they structured it in a way that looked innocuous to the AI code reviewer. Perhaps they broke the malicious logic into multiple functions or used naming conventions the AI wasn’t trained to flag. The AI rubber-stamped the code as safe.
Once that code was merged and the pipeline deployed the application, the red team now had their secret admin user live in the system – a foothold achieved without tripping a single traditional alarm. They also found that some pipeline scripts assumed all inputs were trustworthy. By inserting a poisoned configuration file into the build process (something the automated tests didn’t cover), the team managed to get the pipeline to run a command it shouldn’t, proving they could inject behavior into an otherwise locked-down continuous integration flow. This kind of overlooked vulnerability in an automated pipeline is exactly what modern red teams are looking for. It’s not about exploiting a known CVE in the code; it’s about exploiting the process and the assumptions developers made about their AI-driven tools. The takeaway for the company was profound: even a fully automated pipeline needs periodic human-led attacks to test its resilience. Just because all green lights are automated doesn’t mean the system is secure by default.
The New Red Team Mindset in an AI World
Faced with AI-enabled defenses and AI-laden infrastructure, red teams are undergoing a significant mindset shift. The traditional playbook of “scan, exploit, escalate” is expanding to include machine learning logic and data manipulation. Modern offensive security professionals find themselves part hacker, part data scientist. In fact, some organizations are building cross-functional red teams composed of both infosec experts and machine learning specialists, so they can tackle AI systems from all angles . This blending of skills is crucial – to effectively test an AI, you need to understand its training data, its algorithms, and its weaknesses just as intimately as you understand server misconfigurations or application flaws.
Another aspect of the new mindset is embracing automation on the offensive side. Red teamers are starting to fight fire with fire by leveraging AI themselves. For example, a red team might use a generative AI to brainstorm thousands of phishing email variants or to automate the discovery of subtle configuration issues across cloud environments. We are seeing the rise of autonomous or semi-autonomous “red team” agents that can crawl systems, deploy payloads, or fuzz inputs without constant human guidance . In other words, AI vs. AI engagements – where an AI defender is pitted against an AI-assisted attacker – are no longer science fiction. One high-profile tech company even launched an AI-driven red teaming initiative to continuously test its own AI models for weaknesses before real adversaries do . Such efforts illustrate how essential it has become for red teams to think two steps ahead in an AI-driven environment.
Perhaps the biggest shift is in philosophy: continuous, proactive assessment. In the past, a red team engagement might be a once-a-year event with a defined scope. Now, with systems changing at machine speed and attackers possibly using AI to find vulnerabilities faster, many organizations are moving toward continuous red teaming. Offense is becoming more agile and iterative. Red teams are adopting a mindset of constant learning and adaptation, much like DevOps itself. They are asking questions like: “If an AI system is making this decision, how could I mislead it?” or “What new attack surface did we create by adding this automated workflow?” This mentality keeps them probing beyond the obvious. It’s a recognition that security is no longer a set-and-forget affair; it’s a living, evolving challenge where human creativity and curiosity must partner with (and sometimes push against) artificial intelligence.
Conclusion: Staying Ahead of the Curve
The cat-and-mouse game between attackers and defenders has entered a new phase. AI and automation give defenders powerful tools, but also give attackers (and by extension, red teams simulating them) new targets and tactics. Offensive security teams are adapting by expanding their skill sets, embracing continuous testing, and approaching AI not as a silver bullet but as just another system to be rigorously challenged. For DevSecOps professionals and security leaders, the broad picture is clear: the fundamentals of security still matter, but the playbook is evolving fast. Red teams today might be writing adversarial machine learning scripts one day and prying into CI/CD configs the next, all while storytelling their findings to educate and drive change.
In this AI-driven environment, complacency is the enemy. The organizations that thrive will be those whose red teams (and security teams at large) stay curious and inventive. By treating AI as both an ally and an adversary, and by anticipating how a malicious actor might abuse the latest technology, offensive security experts ensure that innovation doesn’t outrun security. The battle may now be AI vs. AI as much as hacker vs. admin, but at its heart it’s the same game it’s always been: find the weakness before the bad guys do, and never stop learning from the hunt . The red teams that embrace this mindset are not just adapting – they are leading the way in securing our AI-powered future.
Sources: The insights and examples above draw on emerging best practices and scenarios discussed in the security community. Notable references include recent analyses of AI-driven security’s pitfalls , industry reports on shadow AI risks , and thought leadership on AI red teaming from experts and organizations at the forefront of this space . These sources underline a common theme – that while AI is transforming security, human-led offensive testing remains as critical as ever in identifying blind spots and shoring up defenses.
Leave a Reply