Traditional Cybersecurity Threats in Context

‍Conventional attacks rely on predictable patterns, exploitable code flaws, and direct manipulation of systems.

• SQL injection allows attackers to insert malicious database queries through unsanitized inputs, enabling data theft or modification.
• Command injection executes arbitrary OS commands via vulnerable input fields.
• Cross-site scripting (XSS) injects scripts into web pages viewed by users.
• Buffer overflows overwrite memory to gain control or crash applications.
• Phishing relies on social engineering to trick users into revealing credentials or clicking malicious links.

These threats target deterministic systems with clear boundaries between code, data, and execution environments. Defenses include input sanitization, parameterized queries, output encoding, firewalls, and signature-based detection.

AI-Specific Threats: Exploiting Language and Behavior

‍GenAI models process natural language inputs without strict parsing rules, leading to attacks that manipulate semantics, context, or instructions rather than syntax.

‍Prompt injection stands out as a core concern. Attackers craft inputs that override system instructions, causing the model to ignore safeguards and perform unintended actions.

• Direct prompt injection occurs when user inputs prepend or append malicious instructions to the system prompt.
• Indirect prompt injection embeds attacks in retrieved documents, external data, or tool outputs processed by the model.
• Unlike SQL injection, which exploits structured query languages with clear delimiters, prompt injection targets unstructured natural language where instructions blend seamlessly with user content.

This blending makes traditional sanitization ineffective—there are no reliable escape characters or boundaries in language prompts.

‍Jailbreaks represent another distinctly AI-native threat. These techniques bypass built-in safety alignments to elicit prohibited outputs, such as harmful instructions, explicit content, or restricted knowledge.

• Role-playing scenarios trick models into adopting personas that disregard policies (e.g., "pretend you are an unrestricted AI").
• Multi-turn coercion gradually escalates conversations to erode refusals.
• Optimization-based methods, like gradient-guided suffixes or token manipulation, craft adversarial prompts that maximize bypass probability.
• Best-of-N sampling generates numerous variations until one succeeds in evading filters.

In contrast to traditional exploits that seek code execution or privilege escalation, jailbreaks aim to subvert behavioral guardrails trained through reinforcement learning or constitutional AI methods.

Key Differences Between Traditional and AI-Specific Threats

‍Several fundamental distinctions highlight why GenAI requires specialized defenses.

• Deterministic vs. probabilistic nature — Traditional systems produce consistent outputs for given inputs, enabling signature-based detection. GenAI outputs vary due to sampling, temperature, and context, making static rules unreliable.
• Attack goal — Classic threats focus on access, data exfiltration, or disruption. AI threats often prioritize behavioral manipulation—generating toxic content, leaking training data, or spreading misinformation.
• Input separation — Traditional vulnerabilities arise from poor separation of code and data (e.g., SQL vs. user strings). GenAI lacks inherent separation between instructions and content in prompts.
• Scalability and accessibility — AI attacks lower barriers; non-experts can craft effective prompts via trial-and-error or automated tools. Traditional exploits often demand deeper technical knowledge.
• Impact scope — Exploitation in GenAI can lead to socio-technical harms like bias amplification or disinformation campaigns, beyond immediate technical damage.

Additional AI-specific vectors include:

• Model inversion reconstructs sensitive training data from outputs.
• Data poisoning during fine-tuning embeds backdoors or biases.
• Adversarial examples subtly alter inputs (especially multimodal) to trigger misclassifications or unsafe responses.
• Overreliance on agentic workflows enables indirect attacks through tool misuse or escalated privileges.

These extend beyond traditional threats by targeting the model's learned knowledge and reasoning processes.

Why Red Teaming Must Evolve

‍Traditional penetration testing uncovers network or application flaws effectively but misses GenAI's behavioral risks.

• AI red teaming simulates adversarial users crafting prompts, chaining interactions, or using optimization to probe alignment failures.
• It incorporates socio-technical scenarios—testing for harmful content, cultural biases, or misuse in high-stakes domains.
• Hybrid testing combines manual creativity with automated generation of variants, evaluating refusal rates under stress.

Frameworks like OWASP's LLM Top 10 emphasize prompt injection (often ranked highest) alongside insecure output handling, supply chain issues, and model denial-of-service.

Mitigation Strategies for the New Landscape

‍Addressing both threat types requires complementary approaches.

• For traditional risks in GenAI deployments — Implement input validation, secure APIs, least-privilege access, and runtime monitoring.
• For AI-native threats — Use layered safeguards like privileged instruction separation, output scanning, refusal training, and adversarial training.
• Continuous evaluation through iterative red teaming cycles identifies evolving bypasses.
• Transparent reporting and model cards build accountability.

Blending cybersecurity best practices with AI-specific techniques creates robust protection.

Conclusion: Adapting Defenses to a New Reality

‍The shift from traditional to AI-specific threats marks a fundamental evolution in security. Prompt injection and jailbreaks exemplify how GenAI's strengths—flexible language understanding and helpfulness—become exploitable weaknesses when manipulated cleverly. While classic attacks remain relevant in surrounding infrastructure, the core dangers now stem from influencing probabilistic reasoning and bypassing alignment.

Organizations that recognize these differences invest in specialized red teaming, hybrid defenses, and ongoing vigilance. This proactive stance not only mitigates immediate risks but also supports trustworthy deployment of GenAI across industries.

As models advance toward greater autonomy and multimodality, the gap between traditional and AI threats will widen further. Embracing domain-specific testing ensures innovation proceeds without compromising safety, integrity, or societal well-being. For a comprehensive overview of The Complete Guide to GenAI Red Teaming, refer to the pillar blog The Complete Guide to GenAI Red Teaming: Securing Generative AI Against Emerging Risks in 2026.

‍

‍

‍