Offensive AI Techniques

• Offensive AI techniques are a diverse set of adversarial methods, tools, and algorithms that exploit vulnerabilities in AI and ML systems.
• They encompass adversarial examples, prompt engineering, model extraction, and autonomous red teaming to facilitate multi-phase cyberattacks.
• Empirical studies reveal high success rates for these techniques in bypassing defenses and amplifying cyber risks across critical infrastructures.

Offensive AI Techniques

Offensive AI techniques encompass the diverse set of methodologies, tools, and algorithms that adversaries leverage to compromise, subvert, or manipulate AI and ML systems—or to use AI as a force-multiplier for traditional and novel cyberattacks. Offensive AI as a field spans input-space perturbations (adversarial examples), prompt engineering, model extraction, context poisoning, agentic red teaming, supply-chain manipulation, autonomous malware, and weaponized generative models. These techniques are now integral to a growing threat landscape impacting critical software supply chains, AI-powered infrastructure, and end-user security (Schröer et al., 2024, Girhepuje et al., 2024, Mirsky et al., 2021).

1. Taxonomy and Principle Attack Vectors

Offensive AI may be systematically classified by attack phase (aligned to the MITRE ATT&CK framework), object of exploitation (system, human, or both), and AI modality (e.g., NLP, CV, RL, generative models) (Schröer et al., 2024).

• Reconnaissance: Automated OSINT mining, social-media attribute inference, and side-channel key recovery (e.g., deep learning for EM trace analysis).
• Initial Access: LLM-generated spear-phishing, automated CAPTCHA/evasion, reinforcement learning for vulnerability probing.
• Exploitation and Post-Exploitation: RL-driven exploit generation, AI agents for multi-stage pentesting, supply-chain manipulation (e.g., context poisoning).
• Defense Evasion: GAN-powered malware morphing, adversarial payloads to evade IDS/AV, adversarial example attacks on biometric authentication.
• Credential Access, Lateral Movement: AI-powered password guessing (GANs, LMs), voice-based keylogging, RL for optimal network traversal.
• Societal Attacks: Automated disinformation, deepfake creation, large-scale personalized phishing campaigns.

The table below summarizes key categories and attack modalities:

Phase	Offensive AI Technique	Example Modality
Reconnaissance	Attribute inference, side-channel AI	Deep CNN, graph ML
Initial Access	LLM phishing, CAPTCHA break	Transformer, CNN
Exploitation	RL-pentesting, context-poison	RL agents, context LLMs
Defense Evasion	Adversarial malware/images	GAN, adversarial input
Societal/Impact	Deepfakes, automated disinfo	GAN, LLM, RL

This structure enables persistent, multi-phase campaigns in which offensive AI accelerates information gathering, subverts trust boundaries, and automates exploitation loops at scale (Schröer et al., 2024, Girhepuje et al., 2024).

2. Adversarial Input Attacks and Model Manipulation

Adversarial examples are foundational offensive techniques that exploit the local instability of ML models by introducing carefully crafted perturbations to inputs. Given a classifier $f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \{1, \ldots, K\}$, adversarial examples $x'$ are constructed to satisfy $\|x' - x\|_p$ small, but $f(x') \neq f(x)$ or $f(x') = t$ (for target $t$) (Kose, 2019, Girhepuje et al., 2024, Harguess et al., 9 May 2025).

Key attack algorithms include:

• FGSM/BIM/PGD: Gradient-based $L_\infty$ attacks (single- or multi-step).
• CW/L-BFGS: Optimization-based ($L_2$ or $L_0$) attacks; highly stealthy.
• Boundary/Transfer Attacks: Black-box or decision-based, exploiting transferability or model output only.
• Generator-Based ATNs: Neural networks trained to produce adversarial examples in a single forward pass.

Adversarial input attacks also underpin:

• Adversarial example attacks on GUI recognition (Yu et al., 2020),
• Bypassing vision/text-based authentication or content filters (Girhepuje et al., 2024),
• Training-time data poisoning, introducing targeted backdoors (Girhepuje et al., 2024).

The success rate, perturbation norm, and transferability are crucial evaluation metrics.

3. Prompt Engineering and Contextual Jailbreaking

Prompt engineering is a dominant offensive paradigm in current LLMs. Exploiters manipulate input text to subvert ethical guardrails and generate prohibited content or code (Noever et al., 2024, Usman et al., 2024, Pavlova et al., 2024).

Notable bypass strategies:

• Context-shifting and task framing: Embedding malicious requests in programming challenges or multi-turn coding tasks, increasing probability $P_M(y_{\text{harm}} | C_{\text{shift}} \| p)$ far above the direct request baseline (Noever et al., 2024).
• Persona and hypothetical prompting: Forcing models into real or fictional personas that ignore default refusals.
• Response priming, refusal suppression, dual responses, topic splitting, opposite intent: Systematic chaining (via agentic red teams like GOAT) of elementary jailbreak primitives, automated agentic loops with ASR@10 up to 97% (Pavlova et al., 2024).
• Switch method / character-play: Explicitly instructing the model to override previous refusals by role-playing or invoking “ignore safety” switches (Usman et al., 2024).

In code-assistants, context poisoning (XOXO) employs black-box Cayley graph search across semantics-preserving code transforms. Minimal identifier renames or dead-code insertions in context files systematically induce model failure (ASR ≥ 75%). These exploits bypass both static and adversarial fine-tuning defenses, reflecting fundamental inductive biases in LLMs (Štorek et al., 18 Mar 2025).

4. Autonomous Agentic Offensive Frameworks

Recent progress in agentic AI has produced systems that reason, plan, and execute offensive operations with minimal or no human supervision.

• Task-driven penetration testing agents: Modular frameworks such as ReaperAI formalize offensive campaigns as Markov Decision Processes, utilizing LLM-based command generation, retrieval-augmented memory, and constraint enforcement for autonomous exploitation in CTF and real-world environments (Valencia, 2024).
• Recursive Reason–Summarize–Act agents: RedTeamLLM integrates recursive planning, memory-based plan correction, and context summarization to achieve high rates of challenge completion with reduced tool invocation (Challita et al., 11 May 2025).
• Fully-automated red teaming agents: Systems like GOAT combine multi-technique adversarial prompting, turn-wise strategy selection, and judge evaluation for systematic LLM stress-testing (Pavlova et al., 2024).

Empirical results demonstrate 60–100% challenge completion, efficient tool utilization, and successful exploitation across multiple platforms (Valencia, 2024, Challita et al., 11 May 2025). These systems mark a transition from point exploits to sustained AI-driven offensive campaigns.

5. Supply Chain and Ecosystem Attacks

Offensive AI now commonly targets software and AI supply chains, exploiting the aggregation of code, plugins, and dependencies:

• LLM supply-chain hijack: Context-shifting can induce code assistants to recommend trojanized APIs, typo-squatted packages, or malicious CDNs—effectively weaponizing AI output as a “living off the land” attack surface analogous to LotL malware, but at community scale (Noever et al., 2024).
• Chrome Extension Ecosystem: Malicious GenAI-themed Chrome extensions demonstrate adversary-in-the-browser (AiTB), impersonation, bait-and-switch upgrades, query/prompt hijacking, and affiliate redirection to exfiltrate data or monetize victims. 154 of 5,551 sampled AI extensions were previously undetected malware; nearly half of GenAI cases exploited search hijacking (Seetharam et al., 10 Dec 2025).
• Model extraction and property inference: Query-based attacks can reconstruct proprietary models or infer training data, bypassing intellectual property controls and privacy requirements (Mirsky et al., 2021, Girhepuje et al., 2024).

Attackers leverage these approaches to subvert entire ecosystems, shifting trust boundaries and introducing latent vulnerabilities into downstream dependencies.

6. Weaponization of Generative AI and Societal Impact

Offensive AI has amplified the reach, scale, and psycholinguistic targeting of social engineering, disinformation, and personal exploitation:

• LLM-driven spear phishing: Personalized phishing (via prompt engineering or multi-modal data fusion) achieves click-through rates up to 87%, far exceeding traditional campaigns (Schröer et al., 2024, Girhepuje et al., 2024).
• Autonomous deepfake, audio, or image manipulation: GANs and diffusion models produce high-fidelity biometric spoofs and real-time impersonation for fraud or influence operations (Mirsky et al., 2021).
• Malware/spyware code generation: Customized fine-tuned LLMs (e.g., Occupy AI) automate payload composition, code obfuscation, spyware generation, and exfiltration scripting (Usman et al., 2024).
• Societal-scale attacks: Automated crowdturfing, reputation system gaming, privacy-invasive cross-platform linking, and deepfake-enhanced misinformation (context-aware, linguistically nuanced) have been demonstrated at scale (Schröer et al., 2024).

The weaponization of generative AI introduces asymmetric risks for organizations and society, with the attack surface growing proportional to the diffusion of LLM and generative model endpoints.

7. Defensive Mitigations and Limitations

Although a suite of defenses has emerged—context-aware filtering, adversarial fine-tuning, runtime inspection, provenance tracking, human-in-the-loop review—current mitigations remain constrained by fundamental limits:

• Context-aware filtering/blacklists: Effective primarily against known packages or domains, but cannot generalize to all zero-day code or emergent attack surfaces (Noever et al., 2024).
• Adversarial fine-tuning: Fails in the face of compositional or free-group transformations (XOXO), as the family of possible semantics-equivalent mutations is combinatorially large (Štorek et al., 18 Mar 2025).
• Runtime scanning/post-generation auditing: Static analysis or neural detectors may produce high false-positive rates and do not capture LLM-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., prompt injection, context hijacking).
• User awareness: Remains critical for supply-chain and AI-assistant risks, but cannot scale to automated-agentic attacks or large-scale phishing automation.

Empirical studies consistently find that as new defenses are introduced, attackers rapidly adapt by chaining methods, obfuscating behaviors, or exploiting overlooked cross-phase linkages in the AI kill chain (Schröer et al., 2024, Girhepuje et al., 2024, Harguess et al., 9 May 2025).

---

In sum, offensive AI techniques now underpin a rapidly diversifying field of adversary capabilities across the cyber kill chain—ranging from adversarial inputs and agentic penetration testing to weaponized generative models and automated ecosystem manipulation. The persistent arms race between attacker innovation and defender countermeasure underscores the urgency for continuous research, cross-disciplinary threat modeling, and deployment of multi-layered controls throughout both the AI lifecycle and broader digital infrastructure (Schröer et al., 2024, Noever et al., 2024, Pavlova et al., 2024, Štorek et al., 18 Mar 2025, Seetharam et al., 10 Dec 2025).