De

DeepTeam – Penetration Testing for LLMs

Hacker News

DeepTeam – Penetration Testing for LLMs

Hi HN, we’re Jeffrey and Kritin, and we’re building DeepTeam ( https://trydeepteam.com ), an open-source Python library to scan LLM apps for security vulnerabilities. You can start “penetration testing” by defining a Python callback to your LLM app (e.g. `def model_callback(input: str)`), and DeepTeam will attempt to probe it with prompts designed to elicit unsafe or unintended behavior. Note that the penetration testing process treats your LLM app as a black-box - which means that DeepTeam will not know whether PII leakage has occurred in a certain tool call or incorporated in the training data of your fine-tuned LLM, but rather just detect that it is present. Internally, we call this process “end-to-end” testing. Before DeepTeam, we worked on DeepEval, an open-source framework to unit-test LLMs. Some of you might be thinking, well isn’t this kind of similar to unit-testing? Sort of, but not really. While LLM unit-testing focuses on 1) accurate eval metrics, 2) comprehensive eval datasets, penetration testing focuses on the haphazard simulation of attacks, and the orchestration of it. To users, this was a big and confusing paradigm shift, because it went from “Did this pass?” to “How can this break?”. So we thought to ourselves, why not just release a new package to orchestrate the simulation of adversarial attacks for this new set of users and teams working specifically on AI safety, and borrow DeepEval’s evals and ecosystem in the process? Quickstart here: https://www.trydeepteam.com/docs/getting-started#detect-your... The first thing we did was offer as many attack methods as possible - simple encoding ones like ROT13, leetspeak, to prompt injections, roleplay, and jailbreaking. We then heard folks weren’t happy because the attacks didn’t persist across tests and hence they “lost” their progress every time they tested, and so we added an option to `reuse_simulated_attacks`. We abstracted everything away to make it as modular as possible - every vulnerability, attack, can be imported in Python as `Bias(type=[“race”])`, `LinearJailbreaking()`, etc. with methods such as `.enhance()` for teams to plug-and-play, build their own test suite, and even to add a few more rounds of attack enhancements to increase the likelihood of breaking your system. Notably, there are a few limitations. Users might run into compliance errors when attempting to simulate attacks (especially for AzureOpenAI), and so we recommend setting `ignore_errors` to `True` in case that happens. You might also run into bottlenecks where DeepTeam does not cover your custom vulnerability type, and so we shipped a `CustomVulnerability` class as a “catch-all” solution (still in beta). You might be aware that some packages already exist that do a similar thing, often known as “vulnerability scanning” or “red teaming”. The difference is that DeepTeam is modular, lightweight, and code friendly. Take Nvidia Garak for example, although comprehensive, has so many CLI rules, environments to set up, it is definitely not the easiest to get started, let alone pick the library apart to build your own penetration testing pipeline. In DeepTeam, define a class, wrap it around your own implementations if necessary, and you’re good to go. We adopted a Apache 2.0 license (for now, and probably in the foreseeable future too), so if you want to get started, `pip install deepteam`, use any LLM for simulation, and you’ll get a full penetration report within 1 minute (assuming you’re running things asynchronously). GitHub: https://github.com/confident-ai/deepteam Excited to share DeepTeam with everyone here – let us know what you think!

Share card

Actual performance

3points
Did not reach leaderboard

Launch Intel predictions

Analyze your own launch →
Indie HackersFits the IH revenue-focused audience · Strong signals: started, para · Missing: supports, reddit linkedin, podcasting
95%95% predicted probability of success on Indie Hackers, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
best fitHighest predicted score across all platforms for this description.
Product HuntOn track for Day 1 leaderboard · Strong signals: model, apps, user · Missing: mac, agents, macos
82%82% predicted probability of success on Product Hunt, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
TrustMRRFits verified-revenue profile · Strong signals: apps, users, way · Missing: mobile apps, ios, personal
59%59% predicted probability of success on TrustMRR, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
Hacker NewsStrong engagement from HN community · Strong signals: excited, exist, ide · Missing: https docs, just released, lua
52%52% predicted probability of success on Hacker News, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
nativeThis product was originally launched on this platform.
AppSumoMay struggle as an AppSumo deal · Strong signals: friendly, users · Missing: plus, platform, intuitive
36%36% predicted probability of success on AppSumo, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
Acquire.comPre-revenue stage for this audience · Strong signals: training · Missing: arr, mrr, revenue
16%16% predicted probability of success on Acquire.com, based on ML models trained on real launch data.
BetaListMay not resonate with beta-testers · Missing: web3, chat, crypto
0%0% predicted probability of success on BetaList, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

Incorrect prediction on native model

Similar products

Fr
Fruitstand – A Library for Regression Testing LLMs43%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Fruitstand – A Library for Regression Testing LLMs

Hacker News1
Ha
Harnessing LLMs for automated UI testing63%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Harnessing LLMs for automated UI testing

Hacker News8
GP
GPTCache – Redis for LLMs69%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

GPTCache – Redis for LLMs

Hacker News7
pr
prompttest – pytest for LLMs34%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

prompttest – pytest for LLMs

Hacker News2
Fu
Fuzzpy, a fuzzer for testing CPython33%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Fuzzpy, a fuzzer for testing CPython

Hacker News6
rs
rspec-snapshot – RSpec snapshot testing24%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

rspec-snapshot – RSpec snapshot testing

Hacker News1
A/
A/B Testing for Rails34%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

A/B Testing for Rails

Hacker News7
Ch
ChefSpec – RSpec testing for Chef Cookbooks33%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

ChefSpec – RSpec testing for Chef Cookbooks

Hacker News3
A/
A/B testing baked into RequireJS33%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

A/B testing baked into RequireJS

Hacker News1
A/
A/B testing in Golang with PlanOut30%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

A/B testing in Golang with PlanOut

Hacker News8