Enhancing Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Risk Management through SASE and ZTNA

Introduction to Large Language Model (LLM) Security and Risk Management:

Over the last eighteen months, we have seen what large language models can do, from customer service chatbots to advanced analytics platforms. However, introducing LLMs also introduces new and complex security vulnerabilities, making implementing robust security and risk management strategies crucial.

I aim to share some lessons learned in response to potential LLM Security challenges, leveraging Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) and Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA). This is based on hands-on work in several deployments.

Most of us have seen SASE consolidate networking and security functions into a unified, cloud-native architecture. At the same time, ZTNA enforces strict identity and access controls, operating under the principle of ‘never trust, always verify.’ This should mean that every access request is thoroughly authenticated and authorized for our organizations, regardless of the user’s location or device.

Assessing the integration of SASE and ZTNA by security engineering teams should be considered by organizations looking to improve security for their environments where LLM deployments are planned to manage and mitigate the risks posed by external threats and insider vulnerabilities.

Security Challenges in LLM Deployments

Data Privacy and Confidentiality

Challenges:

Effectively training LLMs from vast datasets, which may contain sensitive or proprietary information, protecting data from unauthorized access, and ensuring compliance with privacy regulations ( GDPR, CCPA).

Data leaks during Training and inference can lead to reputational and legal consequences.

Potential Remediation

• • Data Anonymization

• • End-to-End Encryption

• • Granular Access Controls to strengthen the security of LLM

Adversarial Attacks

An attack can manipulate the inputs fed to LLMs, potentially causing an LLM to produce harmful or misleading outputs. Such malicious outputs or attacks can propagate misinformation, deceive and mislead users, and create vulnerabilities within AI systems.

Potential Remediation

• Input Validation: one can use regular expressions, anomaly detection, and sanitization to detect and filter out malicious inputs. We can also implement input normalization to reduce the impact of adversarial manipulation.
• Adversarial Training using gradient masking and defensive distillation to enhance resilience.
• Real-Time Monitoring

Model Theft and Intellectual Property Protection

Challenges:

Attackers can target LMM modes for their IP to steal model weights, reverse-engineer architectures, or even replicate the model. We can work to protect these models by:

• Embedding unique watermarks within the model parameters to trace unauthorized usage or replication, using parameter-based watermarking to help identify the source of model breaches.
• Access to the model’s APIs can be limited by implementing rate limiting, throttling, and access quotas, using API gateways with embedded security features to enforce restrictions.
• Utilizing hardware-based secure enclaves (e.g., Intel SGX, AWS Nitro Enclaves) to protect the model’s computations and weights from tampering. With these, we can ensure sensitive operations are executed in isolated environments, preventing unauthorized access.

Misuse of Generated Content

LLMs can be used to generate harmful content, such as phishing emails, fake news, or deepfakes. Preventing the misuse of generated content is a critical aspect of securing LLMs.

Potential Remediation

• Implementing automated filtering systems using keyword detection, sentiment analysis, and machine learning classifiers to detect and block inappropriate or harmful content.
• Collecting and analyzing data on how LLMs are being used, such as access logs, usage patterns, and output content, can be leveraged to identify misuse or suspicious activities.
• Monitoring User Authentication

Model Poisoning

At a high level, we all have heard about Model poisoning. But what exactly is LLM Model Poisoning? Generally speaking, it is when an attacker/s manipulates LLM training processes to alter model gradients or weights, which are then used to compromise the LLM’s behavior. Under specific conditions or triggers, these attacks can lead to harmful outputs

Potential Remediation

• Secure Training Pipelines
• Byzantine Resilient Training
• Regular Model Audits

Contributions of LLMs to Security and Privacy

LLMs for Code Security

Using LLMs, developers can improve their code security practices and their ability to identify potential vulnerabilities during the coding process.

• Automated Code Reviews and integration with Integrated Development Environments (IDEs) can allow seamless incorporation of security feedback.
• Secure Code Generation with tools like SVEN, which can be used for secure hardening or generating unsafe code for testing, can enforce coding standards and suggest secure coding patterns.

LLMs for Data Security and Privacy

We can leverage LLMs in intelligent data anonymization and compliance automation, improving the time needed to meet and adhere to data protection regulations.

• Data Masking: LLMs can automate data masking and anonymization processes, protecting sensitive information while maintaining data utility for analysis and Training.
• Regulatory Compliance: we can leverage LLMs to create compliance-related reports more seamlessly
• Additionally, we can leverage LLMs to improve policy enforcement by monitoring data access and usage patterns.

Risk Management in LLM Deployments

Organizations must continuously assess and manage risks in LLM deployments to maintain security and compliance by ensuring standard security practices and hygiene efforts are extended to LLMs

Threat Assessment

Conduct Regular vulnerability scanning to identify potential weaknesses in the LLM infrastructure, build your Risk metrics, and run scenario analyses for possible attack vectors and impacts.

Mitigation Strategies – Start with Basic Hygiene

Build on what we already use, such as firewalls, Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS), and Intrusion Prevention Systems (IPS). Adopt secure coding practices and conduct regular code reviews to minimize vulnerabilities in the deployment pipeline. Work with teams leading patch management to assess and implement patches across all components of the LLM infrastructure to address known vulnerabilities.

Continuous Monitoring and Incident Response:

Utilize Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) systems to aggregate and analyze real-time security events; implement automated response mechanisms to contain and mitigate incidents rapidly.

Integrating SASE and ZTNA for LLM Security

SASE and ZTNA offer complementary approaches to securing our daily operational environments, which can also extend to secure LLM environments.

So what is SASE? (Secure Access Service Edge):

SASE is a combination of networking and security functions into a cloud-native framework, where we see the integration of components such as Secure Web Gateways (SWG), Cloud Access Security Brokers (CASB), Firewalls as a Service (FWaaS), and Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA).

Potential benefits of SASE within LLM Security:

• Scalability
• Unified Security Policy Management
• Latency Reduction
• Integration with Existing Systems: This is extremely important to ensure that your SASE provider understands your environment and its needs and has a proper go-forward plan BEFORE commencing any integrations.
• Running compatibility checks, user onboarding pilots, and load testing will help with a smooth implementation and compatibility with network architectures and security tools. Also, leverage APIs and interoperability standards for seamless integration.
• Data Sovereignty and Compliance
• Cost Management

Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA):

ZTNA operates on the principle of “never trust, always verify,” ensuring that no entity is inherently trusted, whether inside or outside a network perimeter. ZTNA aims to provide identity-based, fine-grained access controls to enforce security at all layers.

Technical Enhancements to LLM Security with ZTNA

• Granular Access Control:
• Continuous Authentication and Authorization
• Micro-Segmentation

ZTNA, done right, will complement existing security frameworks, and integrating ZTNA with SASE can only enhance overall security by ensuring access controls are enforced consistently across all network layers.

Synergizing SASE and ZTNA for LLM Security

Based on work I’ve been part of, combining SASE and ZTNA can create a cohesive security architecture to address network- and application-level threats. By adopting a unified approach, we can implement security policies consistently across all layers, providing layers of protection for LLM deployments with

• A Unified Security Posture
• An Enhanced Visibility and Control
• and Streamlined Management

A unified SASE and ZTNA framework should simplify security policy and control management. Centralized administration, as we know, can reduce complexity and operational overhead, allowing security teams to focus on strategic initiatives rather than managing disparate systems.

Integration with Existing Security Infrastructure

Integrating SASE and ZTNA with existing security tools and infrastructure can be challenging, especially in environments with legacy systems.

Potential Remediation Strategies

• • API Integration: Utilize APIs to facilitate seamless integration between SASE, ZTNA, and existing security tools. Ensure that security data can be shared and correlated across platforms.

• • Middleware Solutions: Implement middleware solutions to bridge the gap between security frameworks and legacy systems. Test and manage data flows and enforce security policies.

• • Test, Test, and double-check your Test, before going live

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)

RAG is a technique designed to enhance the accuracy and relevance of responses generated by LLMs.

RAG integrates an external retrieval system with the generative model, usually a search engine or vector database. In a RAG setup, rather than relying solely on pre-trained information within the model, the system retrieves relevant, up-to-date information from external knowledge sources to supplement the model’s generated responses.

Components of RAG

• Retrieval System
• Generative Model
• Knowledge Base

Vector Databases: The Key to Effective Retrieval in RAG

• Embedding Queries and Documents
• Similarity Search
• Efficient Vector Search Algorithms

We can reduce GPT Hallucinations with RAG and improve the accuracy of responses by

• Direct Retrieval from Trusted Sources
• Contextual Relevance Filtering
• Reducing Over-Reliance on Training Data

RAG: A Gateway to Enhanced Security with ZTNA and SASE

Integrating RAG with ZTNA and SASE can offer a more secure and highly controlled framework for accessing LLMs while enhancing data confidentiality, reducing risks of exposure, and ensuring verification and relevance in response generation.

How? With Controlled Information Retrieval with Zero Trust Principles, ensuring

• Dynamic, Contextual Access
• Minimal Trust Assumptions
• Enhanced Data Protection in SASE for RAG Integration

How can attackers potentially use RAG?

An attacker could exploit RAG and vector databases to evade security controls by manipulating retrieval and generation processes. By understanding how RAG accesses information and integrates it into responses, a skilled attacker might find ways to misuse these mechanisms to bypass security controls, access unauthorized information, or inject harmful data.

Some vectors of attack could be

• Query Manipulation to Retrieve Unauthorized Data
• Embedding Space Manipulation (Poisoning Attacks)
• Embedding Inference Attacks
• Evasion through Adversarial Query Crafting
• Circumventing Monitoring through Distributed Query Attacks
• Jailbreaking LLM Responses with RAG Input Manipulation
• Privilege Escalation through Vector Database Access
• Model Manipulation for Data Leakage

Future Directions

The future of securing LLM deployments lies in the continuous evolution of security frameworks and the integration of advanced technologies:

1. Adaptive and Intelligent Security Mechanisms
2. Enhanced Integration with AI and ML
3. Standardization and Best Practices
4. Quantum-Resistant Security Measures
5. As quantum computing advances, traditional encryption methods may become vulnerable. Research into quantum-resistant encryption techniques will be essential to future-proof the security of LLMs and the frameworks that protect them.
6. Federated Learning and Decentralized Security Models

Conclusion

The combination of Secure Access Service Edge (SASE) and Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) frameworks offers a comprehensive solution to secure Large Language Models (LLMs) against a wide range of threats. By addressing key security challenges such as data privacy, adversarial attacks, model theft, misuse of generated content, and emerging threats, organizations can effectively safeguard their LLM deployments. Integrating SASE and ZTNA provides a unified and scalable security architecture that enhances security policies’ visibility, control, and management across all layers.

Integrating RAG can only improve the efficacy of the systems, but we also need to be mindful of the fact that attackers are also thinking of new ways to leverage LLMs. RAG and the tools are techniques we use to safeguard our environments, to their advantage.

Read articles by Jon-Rav G. Shende:

ChatGPT and LLMs in Security – Applications in Diverse Sectors

Jon G Shende’s Inspiring Path: From SCADA Operator to Cybersecurity Leader

References

1. Adversarial Attacks on Large Language Models: arXiv:2406.12934
2. Risk Management in AI Systems: ScienceDirect Article
3. Zero Trust Architectures for AI Security: arXiv:2402.18649
4. Sandoval et al. “Assessing the Security Implications of LLMs as Code Assistants.”
5. He et al. “Enhancing Secure Code Generation with SVEN.”
6. Mohammed, et al. “SALLM: A Framework for Security-Focused LLM Assessment.”
7. Madhav et al. “Secure Hardware Code Generation Using ChatGPT.”
8. Zhang et al. “Generating Security Tests with ChatGPT-4.0.”
9. Libro Framework
10. Deng et al. “TitanFuzz: LLM-Driven Fuzzing for Deep Learning Libraries.”
11. Zhang, G., Zhang, G., Zhang, G., Chen, L., Chen, L., Chen, L., Zhang, Y., Liu, Y., Ge, Y., & Cai, X. (2024). Translating Words to Worlds: Zero-Shot Synthesis of 3D Terrain from Textual Descriptions Using Large Language Models. Applied Sciences, 14(8), 3257.
12. November Newsletter – Implementing a SASE Solution | Compu-SOLVE Technologies. https://csolve.ca/blog/November-Newsletter-Implementing-a-SASE-Solution
13. Gerson, N., & Shava, F. (2020). A Review of Security System Assessment Tools Suitable for eHealth in Namibia. International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, (), 569-575,XIV.
14. Uetz, R., Herzog, M., Hackländer, L., Schwarz, S., & Henze, M. (2023). You Cannot Escape Me: Detecting Evasions of SIEM Rules in Enterprise Networks. ArXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2311.10197
15. What are Microservices? https://informationsecurityasia.com/what-are-microservices/
16. Tackling the ethical dilemma of responsibility in Large Language Models | University of Oxford. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-05-05-tackling-ethical-dilemma-responsibility-large-language-models
17. Cloud Security Checklist: Ensuring Robust Protection for Your Cloud Environment – iheavy. https://www.iheavy.com/cloud-security-checklist/
18. Palo Alto Networks: 1 in 3 SMEs not confident in hybrid work security – Gadget Sidekick. https://gadgetsidekick.com/palo-alto-networks-1-in-3-smes-not-confident-in-hybrid-work-security/
19. Khalil, U., Khalil, U., Uddin, M., Chin-Ling, C., & Chin-Ling, C. (2022). A Comparative Analysis on Blockchain versus Centralized Authentication Architectures for IoT-Enabled Smart Devices in Smart Cities: A Comprehensive Review, Recent Advances, and Future Research Directions. Sensors, 22(14), 5168.
20. 4 Steps to Build RAG with Confluent + Flink AI Model Inference & MongoDB Webinar. https://www.confluent.io/resources/online-talk/rag-tutorial-with-flink-ai-model-inference-mongodb/
21. https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/retrieval-augmented-generation/
22. https://direct.mit.edu/tacl/article/doi/10.1162/tacl_a_00530/114590/Improving-the-Domain-Adaptation-of-Retrieval

Jon-Rav G Shende, MSc, FBCS, CITP, CISM, Advisory Board Member at ForenSec and MyVayda

Throughout my career, I have held various positions across startups, Fortune 200 companies, and Big 4 firms in the UK, USA, Sweden, and Asia. I honed my technology skills in network operations, software development, virtualization, cloud transformation, security, and SaaS products, including SaaS IAM. My expertise extends to frameworks such as NIST CSF and ISO 27001/2/5, along with a deep understanding of regulations like GDPR, CCPA, NY Cybersecurity, HIPAA, and FFIEC. I have helped numerous organizations reduce risks related to technology and avoid regulatory audit issues, and I have worked on ransomware recovery and analytics improvement.

Over my two-decade career in business and technology, I have taken on significant roles, including Managing Director, Americas Head, Global CIO and CISO, Co-Founder, and Advisory Board Member. Notably, I pioneered the concept of Cloud Forensics as a Service almost 13 years ago, and this model has been freely shared and cited by researchers and universities worldwide, as well as recognized by a US Institute for Science and Technology.

Currently, I serve as a board advisor to Mitigant.io and MyVayda.com, leveraging my expertise in cybersecurity, compliance, machine learning, AWS, and Azure Cloud