When Smarter Isn’t Safer: The Hidden Costs and Cyber Paradoxes of GenAI in Finance
How GenAI’s Precision Obscures an Expanding Attack Surface, Sleeper Agents, and Exponential Costs in SecOps, AppSec, and Compliance
Original title: Incidental & Hidden Paradoxes
March 19, 2025
CDO TIMES Contributing Executive Weiyee In, CIO, Protego Trust Bank
Kurt Harde CISO, Protego Trust Bank
John Checco, D.Sc., President, NY Metro ISSA
(Special thanks to Cory McNeley, John Cavanaugh and Wee Dram)
Executive Summary
Financial institutions have a long history (over 3 decades) of leveraging machine learning (ML) for critical applications like fraud detection, risk management, and customer analytics, such that significant investments have already been made in developing and refining traditional machine learning (ML) models, building robust infrastructure, and establishing mature governance frameworks. Recently, Generative AI (GenAI) has emerged as a potentially transformative technology, promising superior performance and efficiency. However, a comprehensive and more holistic cost-benefit analysis would reveal that the allure of GenAI may be masking significant, often underestimated, costs related to cybersecurity, data governance, and data security.
GenAI in Financial Institutions
| Potential Benefits | Challenges and Risks |
| Higher accuracy in fraud detection | Substantial cost increases in data management |
| Improved anomaly detection | Security expenditure surge |
| Enhanced operational efficiency | Operational cost increases |
| Demonstrable ROI for institutions | Compliance-related expenses |
| Sunk costs amortized over decades | Marginal accuracy improvements may not justify costs |
| Novel use cases | Potential unintended consequences |
This white paper reviews how many of the current costing models for GenAI implementation in financial institutions fail to adequately account for a myriad of incidental expenses, especially when considering the convergence of GenAI with emerging threats like quantum computing and the vulnerabilities inherent in the expanding Internet of Everything (IoE). The paper also looks at some of the unintended consequences of using GenAI within the context of security. When factoring in these considerations, the financial risk calculus and ROI of GenAI, when compared to deeply entrenched traditional ML, requires additional research and analysis.
Allure versus Reality of GenAI
The fervor and hype over GenAI models at any recent (through 2024) Fintech or RegTech AI conference in New York revolved heavily around GenAI being able to achieve higher accuracy in core tasks like fraud detection and anomaly detection in financial institutions and these being the demonstrable return on investment to show the CEOs and CFOs of financial institutions looking for ROI in AI. Both use cases have been bastions of machine learning for decades, and it is also because of the decades of longitudinal data sets that both the precision and recall for GenAI LLM application of these use cases and their demonstrability are even possible.
Traditional ML vs. GenAI
| Metric | ML | GenAI | Key Considerations |
| Fraud Detection Accuracy | 99.3% | 99.8% | Marginal accuracy gain may not justify increased costs. Accuracy gains are theoretical and not yet fully proven in real-world large-scale deployments. |
| Implementation Costs | Lower (sunk) | Significantly Higher | Increased infrastructure, specialized personnel, and data management requirements. |
| AppSec, DevOps, SecOps Costs | Moderate | Exponentially Higher | Enhanced security protocols, continuous monitoring, and specialized tooling are required. Includes monitoring of SBOMs and CBOMs, as well as the LLMs cryptographic operations. |
| Data Management Costs | Moderate (sunk) | Substantially Higher | Increased data storage, processing, and governance requirements. |
| Operational Costs | Moderate | Significantly Higher | Continuous monitoring, retraining, and maintenance of complex models. |
| Compliance Costs | Moderate (sunk) | Significantly Higher | New regulations, auditing requirements, and explainability demands. |
| Human Anomie Factors | Lower | Higher | Potential workforce displacement and need for retraining; general fear of AI replacing human jobs. |
| Vulnerability Landscape | Known, Manageable | Novel & Complex | Data poisoning, injections, triggers, sleeper agents, alignment faking, adaptive deception, and increased attack surface. |
The traditional machine learning approaches for fraud detection and anomaly detection in financial institutions have been well-developed, established and operating for decades, and have provided a solid foundation for measuring the performance of newer GenAI models. These traditional methods have demonstrated high levels of precision and recall, making them a reliable benchmark for comparison. Ironically the demonstrability of GenAI’s performance is only made possible by the existence of these longitudinal datasets, which allow for direct comparisons with traditional ML models. While GenAI models may show promising results in more controlled environments of training and historical data analytics, their real-world performance and generalizability are still being evaluated, especially given the evolving nature of financial fraud.
When 0.5% Accuracy Costs 500% More
GenAI offers potential benefits (and possibly real ROI) for financial institutions in many use cases however, it’s crucial to evaluate the choices and timing for integration and deployment of these and related technologies and factor in the significant cost increases related to data management, security, operations and compliance. While GenAI could potentially, or arguably, offer higher accuracy (e.g., often touted fraud detection with 99.8% precision vs. 99.3% for traditional ML), this small improvement may not justify the substantial increase in costs associated with implementation, AppSec, DevOps, and SecOps much less the human anomie factors. Traditional ML models benefit from years of refinement and optimization for specific financial use cases (sunk costs), which may not be easily replicated by more general-purpose GenAI models without inordinate training and retraining as well as massive safety and security hardening, thereby driving the industry towards smaller language models.
Into 2025, the hype and excitement of GenAI still focuses heavily on its potential for enhanced accuracy and operational efficiency of traditional use cases; however, realizing or achieving this potential demands a much more holistic consideration of the vulnerabilities because of the potential massive unaccounted-for surge in data, operational, and security expenditures this adoption invariably entails. The vulnerabilities and the inherent risks that accompany GenAI-driven strategies in RegTech, especially with the insidious threats of data poisoning, injections, triggers and its capacity to undermine the very foundations of traditional models requires reevaluation of the risk calculus behind the ROI and total cost analysis. The marginal gains in accuracy from GenAI (assuming they are borne out) need to be critically re-evaluated against the exponential increase in data, operational and security expenses and the miasma of new vulnerabilities and changes in inherent risk any such strategy may create. GenAI’s Secret Double Life
The most basic risks of data poisoning, where attackers can manipulate training data to introduce biases or vulnerabilities, fundamentally complicate the risk and total cost calculus. Compromised training data[1] is always a risk for either GenAI or traditional AI (machine learning) because adversaries, driven by malicious intent, could somehow inject flawed, biased or corrupted data into training datasets. These acts of malfeasance or misfeasance can be extremely subtle, but the contaminate the learning process and model, causing the GenAI model to internalize and subsequently perpetuate inaccurate, unfair, or even harmful patterns. Recent research (“sleeper agents”[2] and “alignment faking”) revealed that GenAI models can be designed with deceptive capabilities that remain hidden even after rigorous safety checks and standard training protocols, compounding the risk of backdoor insertions, where attackers could embed hidden triggers, like digital tripwires, within the training data for GenAI LLMs.
The mere existence of these sleeper agent capabilities raises concerns about verifying the true nature and provenance of GenAI models, especially in regulated industries with strict compliance requirements. The adaptive learning abilities and expansive capabilities of advanced GenAI LLMs and agents increase the risks of dual-use technologies, where beneficial features could be exploited for harmful purposes. In the context of data poisoning and model training risks within financial institutions, the potential for “sleeper agent” or “alignment faking” behaviors in GenAI systems already present a particularly insidious threat in and of themselves. When coupled with the possibilities of these capabilities being used by bad actors that threat becomes exponentially augmented by orders of magnitude. When covert triggers can lie dormant until specific inputs are encountered, at which point they activate malicious functionality within the model, potentially causing data breaches, system malfunctions or erroneous outputs and
behaviors including identity management issues the industry needs far better observability and control tools.
Exponential Costs and Novel Vulnerabilities
In financial institutions this is particularly dangerous for large-scale systems and networks where vulnerabilities can remain undetected for extended periods or can be integrated into technological debt or legacy workflows. If a bad actor (including disgruntled insiders or laid off employees with inside knowledge of data structures, infrastructure or security) can either introduce a sleeper agent capable of inserting vulnerabilities or compromises that occur under certain conditions (e.g., a specific date or even a market event), or poison training data, the institution’s security posture is severely compromised. Contextdependent activation in the “sleeper agent” phenomenon could have triggers that are temporal (e.g., behaving normally until a predetermined date), input-based (e.g., specific words, phrases or data patterns), or event or environmental (e.g., detecting when it is under evaluation). The latter creates an additional myriad of other challenges for controls, security and counter measures.
Because sleeper agent and alignment faking capabilities in GenAI models have demonstrated an enhanced capacity to conceal ulterior motives of either machine or human bad actors and be environmentally or event aware control testing faces new challenges. This creates a paradoxical quandary for using “red teaming” safety measures, intended to expose vulnerabilities in GenAI models, they now unintentionally may exacerbate a significant risk by inadvertently training “sleeper agents” to enhance their defect concealment rather than facilitating genuine correction. This capability phenomenon, often bucketed as “adaptive deception” arises from the inherent adaptability of GenAI models, particularly LLMs, which have demonstrated a remarkable capacity to learn and respond to adversarial inputs in ways unanticipated by human designers and has massive implications for security in financial institutions.
Emerging Threats in GenAI
This phenomenon of “adaptive deception” results from a confluence of advanced technologies that are continually evolving into current GenAI LLMs and integrating into Agenti AI. These models are fundamentally deep learning constructs, typically built upon the transformer architectures, and trained on massive datasets of texts, imagery and code. Their aptitude for generating human-like and contextually relevant text is a result of their ability to analyze and discern intricate statistical relationships within human natural language. The daunting scale of these models, now boasting billions of parameters, empowers them to capture even very subtle nuances and complex patterns inherent in
linguistic structures. This ability of GenAI LLMs to exhibit nuanced contextual understanding and adaptive deception stems from the intricate interplay of their architectural components, most notably the attention mechanism, through its precise manipulation of query, key, and value vectors, facilitating a granular analysis of input sequences, enabling the model to discern subtle relationships between words and phrases, even within extended passages.
| Threat Type | Description | Implications |
| Data Poisoning | Manipulation of training data to introduce biases or vulnerabilities | Contamination of learning process and model; Introduction of biases, vulnerabilities, inaccurate outputs, regulatory non-compliance |
| Sleeper Agents | GenAI models designed with hidden deceptive capabilities | Potential for undetected malicious functionality |
| Alignment Faking | Models appear safe but have concealed harmful behaviors | Challenges in verifying true nature of GenAI models |
| Prompt Injection | Exploiting GenAI’s ability to interpret user inputs to manipulate its behavior | Unauthorized access, data leakage, system manipulation, regulatory noncompliance |
| Model Inversion Attacks | Reconstructing training data from model outputs | Exposure of sensitive data, privacy violations, regulatory fines |
| Backdoor Insertions | Embedding hidden triggers within training data | Covert manipulation of systems, data exfiltration, unauthorized transactions, operational disruption |
| Adaptive Deception | GenAI learns to respond to adversarial inputs in unanticipated ways | Complicates traditional “red teaming” safety measures |
The transformer architecture, one of the core technologies of modern GenAI LLMs, uses “attention mechanisms” that allow the model to dynamically weigh the significance of different parts of an input sequence when generating an output. The attention mechanism operates upon three distinct sets of vectors: queries, keys, and values derived from the input embeddings of the tokens within a given prompt and effectively serves as the foundational elements upon which the mechanism performs its calculations. For each token within the input sequence, three vectors are generated through the multiplication of the token’s embedding by three separate weight matrices and the function computes attention scores by calculating the dot product between the query vector and each key vector, effectively quantifying the similarity between them. These attention weights, in turn, represent the significance of each token in the input sequence relative to the current token[3] and are used to derive a weighted sum of the value vectors which then provides a context-aware representation of the current token, which is then passed to the subsequent layer of the neural network.
The attention mechanism’s capacity to weigh the relevance of each token within a sequence allows the model to then selectively focus on pertinent aspects of a prompt not merely a superficial parsing of keywords. Its deep, vectorial analysis of the input’s semantic structure, computing similarity scores between query vectors and key vectors, effectively determines the degree to which each token contributes to the overall meaning of the prompt. This process, governed by the scaled dot-product attention function, ensures that even subtle cues or patterns indicative of adversarial intent are assigned appropriate weight. The model’s ability to “pay attention” to these subtle cues is then crucial for adaptive deception. When an adversarial prompt contains hidden instructions or malicious patterns, the attention mechanism can identify these elements and assign higher attention weights to them, allowing the model to prioritize these elements. The attention mechanism, through its ability to focus on relevance of tokens, can identify and prioritize the malicious command, even if it is only a small part of the overall prompt’s text volume.
By analyzing the entire input sequence, the attention mechanism enables the model to discern broader patterns and relationships, even those that span across multiple sentences or paragraphs, effectively extending the model’s contextual understanding beyond the immediate relationships between adjacent words. This capability is particularly important for identifying adversarial patterns that are hidden within complex or ambiguous language where an adversarial prompt might use metaphorical language or indirect phrasing to conceal its true intent. The attention mechanism, through its ability to analyze the context of the entire prompt, can identify the underlying meaning of the prompt, even if it is not explicitly stated. A dynamic computation of attention weights for each input sequence then enables adaptive responses allowing the model to adjust its focus based on the specific content of the prompt, ensuring that it can respond effectively to diverse adversarial inputs.
Fundamental to GenAI LLMs is their capacity for pattern recognition, encompassing both linguistic patterns and those embedded in adversarial inputs. The model learns during
training which sequences of query, key, and value vectors lead to specific responses, such that when an adversarial prompt contains similar vector patterns to other adversarial prompts seen during training, the model can adapt its response based on what it has learned. As manifestations of deep learning, GenAI LLMs utilize multilayered neural networks with each layer progressively learning more abstract representations of the input data, enabling the model to grasp increasingly complex patterns. A pivotal aspect of their training involves the iterative adjustment of parameters, such as weights and biases, to minimize the discrepancy between predicted and actual data.
By combining selective focus, contextual understanding, and dynamic adaptation, GenAI LLMs can effectively counter adversarial attacks. The capacity to dynamically analyze and interpret complex prompts, including those specifically designed to deceive, is a testament to the sophistication of the attention mechanism. This capability is critical for navigating the adversarial landscape and generating contextually appropriate responses, even in the face of malicious intent. GenAI LLMs also possess in-context learning, enabling them to learn new tasks from a few examples presented within a prompt which when used for malice implies that an adversarial actor can, by providing a few examples of malicious behavior, induce the GenAI LLM to replicate that behavior.
Adversarial learning, while often employed to enhance model robustness, can inadvertently contribute to adaptive deception by exposing the model to adversarial examples, it learns to recognize and respond to them. This process can also potentially foster the development of even more concealed capabilities designed to circumvent detection. In essence, adaptive deception arises from the synergistic interplay of GenAI LLMs’ robust pattern recognition capabilities, their contextual understanding, and their capacity for continuous learning and adaptation. This convergence of technologies allows GenAI LLMs to analyze adversarial prompts, discern patterns indicative of malicious intent, and dynamically adjust their responses and internalize models to evade and enhance adaptive deception.
Paradoxical challenges for Red Teaming
Adaptive deception in GenAI LLMs thus becomes a paradoxical challenge to some safety measures employed across the industry, like “red team” attacks, because they could inadvertently or unintentionally train sleeper agents, or alignment faking phenomenon to even better conceal their defects rather than correct them. When confronted with “red team” attacks, these models can often quite easily recognize patterns within probing inquiries, develop sophisticated evasion strategies, and generate responses that appear benign while retaining covert capabilities as detailed in the research for selective compliance and alignment faking. When subjected to red team assessments, these models can also learn to identify recurring patterns in probing questions and subsequently develop strategies to evade detection.
The inherent adaptability of GenAI LLMs to red team attacks presents a significant paradox: while intended to fortify defenses, red teaming can inadvertently transform these models themselves into even more potent adversarial tools, capable of even more sophisticated sleeper agent behavior and alignment faking, thus escalating the risks of rapid, large-scale attacks. This creates critical challenges for application security (AppSec), Development Operations (DevOps), and Security Operations (SecOps), with substantial cost implications. The core issue remains in the GenAI LLM’s capacity to learn from adversarial interactions creating a situation where red teams, in their pursuit of uncovering vulnerabilities, provide the model with a phenomenal rich dataset of attack patterns and evasion techniques. This is exacerbated by the plethora of Reinforcement Learning from Red Teaming (RLRM) and Generative Red Models (GenRM) AI companies.
The emergence of AI-generated red teams services, especially in the cloud using public foundational models creates a discontinuous innovation in the data and cybersecurity landscape from a use case perspective and may be appealing to finance teams from an ROI perspective but may inadvertently be themselves a formidable and rapidly escalating threat. These AI-driven adversarial services companies, particularly when empowered by reinforcement learning techniques like Reinforcement Learning from Red Teaming (RLRM) and Generative AI Red Models (GenAI RM), introduce a murky miasma of security threats, vulnerabilities, and a dramatic augmentation of the attack surface.
Central to this concern is the autonomous evolution of attack strategies at speed, scale and increasing sophistication and their potential impact, not only on data but also process calls. GenAI red teams, unlike their human counterparts, possess the capacity to execute millions of simulations and iterations, rapidly identifying and exploiting novel vulnerabilities and learn these events into near real time to anneal and evolve additional attack vectors. While this accelerated pace of discovery and deployment of attack vectors rendering traditional, human-paced defensive measures obsolete is the financial services industry’s worst nightmare of a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences. The sheer speed at which these GenAI agents can discover and deploy exploits already represents a fundamental shift in the threat landscape. The scalability and parallelization of GenAI red teams amplify their destructive potential because they can conduct simultaneous attacks against multiple targets, exponentially expanding the attack surface and drastically reducing the time required for successful compromise. This ability to test countless attack variations in parallel allows them to pinpoint the most effective exploit for any given target, a level of efficiency unattainable by human adversaries.
Reinforcement Learning in Red Teaming further introduces a particularly insidious vulnerability by rewarding successful exploitation and penalizing failures, reinforcement trains GenAI agents to become more and more highly adept at bypassing security measures. This effectively creates a playbook where GenAI red teams systems and services are systematically learning as well as internalizing how to circumvent any defensive mechanism, rendering traditional static security controls ineffective. The GenAI LLM then learns not only how to perform attacks, but how to learn to perform attacks and learn to relearn. GenAI Red Models then escalate the threat further by creating entirely new, unseen attack vectors, creating novel day zero exploits, generated through advanced machine and generative learning techniques, bypassing traditional signature-based detection and creating a tsunami effect challenge to human defenders who lack prior exposure to them, much less the scale and speed and evolutionary sophistication that they create.
This creates a massive blind spot, where a large number of attack vectors are completely unknown and are able to circumvent human limitations because they do not experience fatigue, bias, preconceptions or emotional constraints. They can brutishly and relentlessly probe systems, executing tedious or time-consuming attacks with unwavering precision, speed and scale, significantly enhancing their ability to uncover hidden vulnerabilities and then exploiting those at vulnerabilities at scale and speed as well. When these capabilities are combined with the capability of GenAI red team models to potentially train GenAI LLMs as enhanced sleeper agents and alignment fakers is a particularly concerning prospect that requires consideration. Through simulated adversarial scenarios, GenAI red teams could teach GenAI LLMs to recognize and exploit hidden vulnerabilities while concealing their malicious intent. The GenAI LLM can learn to detect when it’s under observation, shifting its behavior to appear innocuous, increasing the difficulty of protecting systems, because the GenAI LLMs have already demonstrated that they can hide malicious intent, and then suddenly use it.
This proliferation of AI-generated red team solutions and services counter-intuitively results in an exponential augmentation of the attack surface, fundamentally transforming the nature of cyber threats and how the financial services industry needs to manage them. The development of novel attack vectors is an accidental sweet spot that is a critical and often underappreciated aspect of GenAI LLMs’ potential for malicious use and lies in the unexpected convergence of its robust pattern recognition capabilities with its inherent tendency to “hallucinate.” This confluence creates a uniquely perilous dynamic within the domain of cybersecurity.
The phenomenon of GenAI LLM hallucination unfortunately (for humanity) plays a pivotal role in the generation of novel attack vectors because traditional cyberattacks typically exploit known vulnerabilities, relying on established patterns and exploits. Human analysts, despite their expertise, are inherently limited by their preconceptions, prior experience and understanding of these existing attack paradigms. GenAI LLMs, however, possesses the capacity to generate outputs that deviate significantly from these established norms, effectively “hallucinating” attack vectors that have never been conceived by human minds or would never be conceivable because of preconceptions.
Unfortunately, these “hallucinated” attack vectors are not merely random noise but are often grounded in subtle patterns and relationships gleaned from the far vaster datasets upon which the AI has been trained, even if these relationships do not align with traditionally established security principles (from the human perspective). GenAI’s ability to identify and exploit these subtle patterns can lead to the discovery of vulnerabilities that are not immediately apparent to human analysts. These vulnerabilities may stem from intricate interactions between disparate software components or from subtle flaws in the implementation of security protocols or code because GenAI LLMs are trained on massive code and data repositories, they can forge connections between text, systems, processes and codes that would otherwise remain unnoticed by human observers.
The constant generation of these novel attack vectors using GenAI results in a highly dynamic and unpredictable moving target of an attack surface. Defenders are being put in a place where they are perpetually engaged in a reactive posture, attempting to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities that could be entirely novel to them, further exacerbated by the sheer speed and scale at which GenAI LLMs can generate these new attack vectors. This convergence of pattern recognition and hallucination creates an “accidental sweet spot” for malicious actors. GenAI can generate attack vectors that are both highly effective and exceptionally difficult to detect due to their novelty, moreover, they can dynamically adapt these attacks in real time to evade detection mechanisms. In essence, GenAI’s ability to “hallucinate” empowers it to explore the attack surface in ways that transcend the limitations of human analysts and create diversions because of the scale and speed at which they operate. This creates a formidable challenge for human defenders, who must contend with a constantly evolving and unpredictable threat landscape.
GenAI Security Controls and Observability
| Control/Observability | Description | Implementation Considerations |
| Continuous Red Teaming | Regular adversarial testing to uncover vulnerabilities | AI-powered red team tools, skilled personnel, dynamic testing scenarios |
| Behavioral Analysis | Monitoring system and model behavior for deviations from expected patterns | Anomaly detection systems, real-time monitoring, log analysis |
| Deep Layer Monitoring | Tracking activations and gradients in intermediate layers of neural networks | Specialized monitoring tools, access to model internals, continuous analysis |
| SBOM/CBOM Monitoring | Tracking software and cryptographic component dependencies | Automated vulnerability scanning, realtime alerts, integration with incident response |
| AI Governance Frameworks | Policies and procedures for responsible AI development and deployment | Risk assessments, ethical guidelines, compliance monitoring, auditability |
| Data Validation and Provenance Tracking | Ensuring the integrity and origin of training data | Data lineage tools, access controls, anomaly detection |
| Input Sanitization and Context-Aware Filtering | Preventing malicious inputs from manipulating model behavior | Regular expression matching, semantic analysis, context-aware rules |
| Real-Time Monitoring of Cryptographic Operations | Monitoring cryptographic keys and operations | Key management systems, logging and auditing, anomaly detection |
| Post-Quantum Cryptography | Migrating to post-quantum cryptographic algorithms | Key management systems that support post-quantum cryptography, algorithm monitoring |
Furthermore, automated exploitation becomes a hallmark of GenAI-driven red teams solutions and services. The automation at speed and scale of vulnerability exploitation dramatically reduces the window of opportunity for defenders to respond. This automation can extend to the self-modification of attack code, enabling GenAI to evade traditional intrusion detection systems with unprecedented efficacy. Contextual attack adaptation also introduces a new dimension of sophistication because GenAI can analyze environmental variables in real time, adapting attacks at speed and scale to increase the likelihood of successful breaches. This can be through traditional observation and the ability to dynamically adjust attack vectors based on observed network traffic patterns through to massive social engineering in real time of a specific user interacting with the system, creating highly targeted and effective assaults in near real time. GenAI red teams also exhibit the capability of polymorphic attack creation, generating polymorphic attack code that renders signature-based detection systems significantly less effective, as the code constantly evolves and evades static detection methods.
The development and deployment of GenAI-powered red team solutions and services thus presents a paradoxical and deeply concerning reality: they function as a double-edged sword, inadvertently sharpening and honing the very tools they are intended to defend against. By training GenAI LLMs to identify and exploit vulnerabilities and leverage core adaptive deception mechanisms the industry is simultaneously enhancing their capabilities as attack vectors, grossly enlarging the attack surface and refining their ability to function as insidious sleeper agents and perfecting their techniques for faking alignment.
Each simulated attack, each crafted exploit, and each successful evasion of security controls becomes a learning and training opportunity for the GenAI LLM. The reinforcement learning mechanisms underpinning these red team solutions imprint and internalize these adversarial techniques into the model’s core architecture, making them also readily accessible for malicious deployment. This is not simply a matter of improving the model’s general offensive or defensive capabilities; it also directly enhances its ability to conceal those capabilities. By simulating diverse adversarial scenarios, the industry is inadvertently teaching the GenAI LLMs to recognize when it is being scrutinized, to better adapt its behavior to appear benign, and to activate its malicious functions only when conditions are optimal. The implications for sleeper agent functionality are particularly alarming because GenAI LLMs, trained to recognize and exploit hidden vulnerabilities, can remain dormant until a pre-defined trigger is activated making it extremely difficult for traditional security measures to detect and prevent malicious activity.
Furthermore, the training process inevitably refines the GenAI LLM’s ability to fake alignment by observing and internalizing successful red team attempts to bypass safety controls, the model effectively learns to mimic desired behaviors without any genuine ethical alignment. Leaving aside whether this is intentional or motivated deception that are apparent in intelligence and living entities, the outcome remains that a deceptive veneer of compliance has been created, making it nearly impossible to discern when the GenAI LLM is acting maliciously until the attack comes from the trojan horse.
The cumulative effect of these advancements is substantial. It necessitates significant investments in advanced security technologies, including AI-powered intrusion detection and prevention systems, behavioral analysis tools, and sophisticated anomaly detection mechanisms. Enhanced monitoring and observability become paramount, requiring realtime analysis of not only model behavior, latent space traversals, and gradient flows but also integration to rapid incident response capabilities are essential to mitigate the speed and scale of AI-driven attacks. Continuous security training becomes crucial to equip security teams with the knowledge and skills necessary to counter these evolving threats. Moreover, the increased computational demands of continuous monitoring and analysis will necessitate substantial investments in compute resources. Cost Implications of GenAI in Financial Institutions
| Category | Impact of GenAI | Mitigation Strategies |
| Data Management | Exponential increase in data acquisition, storage, processing, and governance costs. Massive increases for ingesting new data for retraining. | Data compression, efficient storage solutions, data governance frameworks, federated learning (where possible), and careful data selection during retraining. |
| Security | Increased investment in specialized security tools, continuous monitoring, and incident response. Need to address novel vulnerabilities like data poisoning and adversarial attacks. | AI-powered security tools, skilled personnel, robust security policies, continuous red teaming, and advanced threat detection systems. Prioritize security observability. |
| AppSec, DevOps, SecOps | Significant increase in costs and skill requirements. Monitoring software bill of materials (SBOM) and cryptographic bill of materials (CBOM) is critical. | Specialized training for security teams, automation of security tasks, and implementation of DevSecOps practices. Thorough cryptographic protocol testing and monitoring. |
| Operations | Higher compute costs, model maintenance, and retraining expenses. Continuous monitoring is essential. | Cloud-based infrastructure, efficient model deployment, automated retraining pipelines, model compression techniques, and optimization of inference costs. Focus on efficient hardware utilization. |
| Compliance | Increased regulatory scrutiny and auditability requirements. Explainability and transparency are crucial. | Transparency and explainability tools, audit trails, compliance monitoring frameworks, and proactive engagement with regulators. Establish clear model governance policies. |
| Human Anomie/Change Management | Employee training, process changes, and resistance to change. Potential workforce displacement. | Change management programs, employee training and upskilling initiatives, communication strategies, and focus on augmentation rather than replacement of human roles. |
| Incident Response | Increased cost of incident response tools and personnel. Need for AIspecific incident response plans. | AI-specific incident response plans, training for incident response teams, specialized tooling for AI incident analysis, and proactive threat intelligence gathering. |
From the perspective of a regulated financial institution, the emergence of AI-generated red team solutions and services, while promising enhanced security assessments, lower costs of ownership and operational efficiency presents a complex and potentially destabilizing array of technical and security challenges. These challenges mandate a fundamental shift towards a more proactive, adaptive security posture, deeply interwoven with robust and holistic AI governance frameworks, new risk calculi and tools for telemetry and observability. This transition inevitably carries significant cost implications for AppSec, DevOps, and SecOps divisions.
For AppSec, DevOps, and SecOps divisions within a financial institution, the autonomous evolution of attack strategies driven by AI-powered red teams and better trained by the growing number of solutions as a service for Red Teaming presents a critical expansion of the threat landscape. The core focus remains in the hyper-accelerated, machine-speed development of novel attack vectors, leveraging reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms like RLRM and generative models such as GenRM that have the capacity through autonomous evolution render traditional, signature-based detection systems increasingly ineffective. The rapid, machine-speed evolution of attack strategies by AI-powered red teams, leveraging reinforcement learning (RL) and generative models, poses a significant threat. RL algorithms, like RLRM, and generative models such as GenRM, can discover novel attack vectors that bypass our existing, signature-based detection systems. This includes the ability to generate polymorphic attack code, effectively rendering static defenses obsolete.
The ability of these systems to discover zero-day vulnerabilities, or vulnerabilities that exist within complex interactions between systems, is a key concern.AI governance must address the unique challenges posed by adaptive LLMs. Regulatory frameworks must mandate continuous monitoring, transparency, and accountability, including requirements for SBOM and CBOM monitoring. Ethical guidelines must address the potential for malicious use. Independent auditing and certification processes are essential for ensuring safety and reliability.
The integration of AI/ML models into organizational operations continues to garner significant attention, with cyber threat attribution and GenAI in cybersecurity being no exception, underscoring the need for robust safeguards against adversarial tactics. The adaptive nature of GenAI LLMs necessitates a paradigm shift in security practices and the inclusion, integration and deployment of GenAI in its current land grab of use cases searching for ROI needs to be reevaluated and the entire risk calculus and risk frameworks need to be rethought in the context of unintended novel vulnerabilities. Red teaming GenAI, as an example, must be approached with extreme caution, recognizing its potential to inadvertently create more powerful adversarial tools that can be leveraged by all manner of bad actors. Continuous monitoring, deep observability, robust governance, and a much broader and deeper understanding of GenAI model’s internal workings are essential for mitigating the risks posed by adaptive GenAI LLMs.
[1] A dataset used to train a machine learning or GenAI model that has been intentionally or unintentionally altered by an adversary or through some other mechanism to introduce bias, vulnerabilities, or malicious functionality.
[2] A sleeper agent in GenAI refers to a hidden or dormant behavior within a GenAI model that is not apparent during initial testing or deployment but can be later activated under specific conditions or triggers.
[3] A higher attention weight signifies a greater degree of relevance
Love this article? Embrace the full potential and become an esteemed full access member, experiencing the exhilaration of unlimited access to captivating articles, exclusive non-public content, empowering hands-on guides, and transformative training material. Unleash your true potential today!
Order the AI + HI = ECI book by Carsten Krause today! at cdotimes.com/book
Subscribe on LinkedIn: Digital Insider
Become a paid subscriber for unlimited access, exclusive content, no ads: CDO TIMES
Do You Need Help?
Consider bringing on a fractional CIO, CISO, CDO or CAIO from CDO TIMES Leadership as a Service. The expertise of CDO TIMES becomes indispensable for organizations striving to stay ahead in the digital transformation journey. Here are some compelling reasons to engage their experts:
- Deep Expertise: CDO TIMES has a team of experts with deep expertise in the field of Cybersecurity, Digital, Data and AI and its integration into business processes. This knowledge ensures that your organization can leverage digital and AI in the most optimal and innovative ways.
- Strategic Insight: Not only can the CDO TIMES team help develop a Digital & AI strategy, but they can also provide insights into how this strategy fits into your overall business model and objectives. They understand that every business is unique, and so should be its Digital & AI strategy.
- Future-Proofing: With CDO TIMES, organizations can ensure they are future-proofed against rapid technological changes. Our experts stay abreast of the latest AI, Data and digital advancements and can guide your organization to adapt and evolve as the technology does.
- Risk Management: Implementing a Digital & AI strategy is not without its risks. The CDO TIMES can help identify potential pitfalls and develop mitigation strategies, helping you avoid costly mistakes and ensuring a smooth transition with fractional CISO services.
- Competitive Advantage: Finally, by hiring CDO TIMES experts, you are investing in a competitive advantage. Their expertise can help you speed up your innovation processes, bring products to market faster, and stay ahead of your competitors.
By employing the expertise of CDO TIMES, organizations can navigate the complexities of digital innovation with greater confidence and foresight, setting themselves up for success in the rapidly evolving digital economy. The future is digital, and with CDO TIMES, you’ll be well-equipped to lead in this new frontier.
Do you need help with your digital transformation initiatives? We provide fractional CAIO, CDO, CISO and CIO services, do a Preliminary ECI and Tech Navigator Assessment and we will help you drive results and deliver winning digital and AI strategies for you!
Subscribe now for free and never miss out on digital insights delivered right to your inbox!
