RINP // SERVICES
ComparisonWhat can the agent do, or what in the model do we trust - which is the right start?
The Generative AI Red Team and AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance do not produce the same evidence object. This page does not open which is better, but which is the right start for your pressure.
- Generative AI Red Team: a validated attack path in the runtime chain, agent behavior and a chain-breaking control.
- AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance: provenance, AI-ML-BOM, attestation and registry/pipeline trust.
- The two lines are not melted under one “AI security” roof; pressure determines the right start, not the category.
In which situation is which the right start?
The seven criteria below separate the decision between the Generative AI Red Team and AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance; the cells are neutral and the two columns carry equal weight - the page does not take sides, it opens the right-start question.
| Criterion | AIS-1Generative AI Red Team | AIS-2AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance |
|---|---|---|
| Decision question | Which chain really breaks at runtime, and which control stops it? | What in the model and the release pipeline do we really trust? |
| Primary evidence object | A validated attack path across the prompt → tool / RAG / MCP → data / action chain, or a control point that stops the chain. | Provenance along the model pipeline, AI-ML-BOM, attestation, registry/pipeline control and a hardening work list. |
| Ideal trigger | A GenAI product going live or a major release, adding a new tool/connector/MCP, an agent’s authority extending to write or execute, a suspicion of indirect prompt injection. | A new model version, onboarding a new provider or open-source model, a need for registry signing and attestation, customer-security-review or audit preparation. |
| Wrong fit | Expecting only a model-provenance or supply-chain review (routes to AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance); a SOC or 24/7 monitoring; uncontrolled aggressive testing on real user data; an “AI pentest” flattening. | Only a prompt or runtime agent test (routes to the Generative AI Red Team); a full application penetration test (routes to the Application Security Penetration Test); a legal license opinion; accuracy or fairness validation. |
| Customer prerequisite | Written authorization and rules of engagement, an agent-workflow list, a tool and connector inventory, an MCP server list, RAG data sources, a role and permission profile, a test environment and a test window. | Written authorization and rules of engagement, a model-artefact inventory, dataset provenance, registry and pipeline access, the build/CI authority layout, evidence-mode selection (Internal Assurance / Audit-Ready / Regulated). |
| Typical duration and rhythm | 2–4 weeks; varies by the number of agent workflows, tool and MCP complexity and action class; an optional focused or end-to-end re-test. | 2–3 weeks; varies by the number of model pipelines, registry and pipeline complexity and evidence mode; an optional monthly evidence-validation continuation model. |
| Neighbor routing | If runtime-chain (prompt, tool, RAG, MCP), agent-behavior or abuse-path evidence is needed, the Generative AI Red Team is the right start; the two lines are not combined under one “AI security” roof. | If model-trust-chain evidence (provenance, AI-ML-BOM, attestation, registry, deployment pipeline) is needed, AI Model Supply-Chain Assurance is the right start; the internal offensive-workflow leverage is not this line, it opens on a separate page. |
What this page does not do
This page does not answer "which is better?". The two lines produce different evidence objects on different chains, and presenting one as a sub-scope of the other is a wrong start. The right start depends on your pressure and your decision question.
- The two lines are not melted under one “AI security” roof, one delivery logic or one sample output; one produces runtime-chain evidence, the other model-trust-chain evidence.
- In the comparison matrix no service is emphasized; the two columns carry equal weight - the page is an editorial-protection surface.
- If both lines are needed in the same engagement, scope and order are determined in the discovery call; the runtime chain and the model trust chain can be planned in parallel or sequentially.
// DISCOVERY
Let’s clarify the right starting surface together.
In a 30-minute pre-discovery we determine the pressure, the evidence question and the right service line together; where appropriate, the two lines are designed as a parallel or sequential program.