Adversarial ML & AI Security · Capstone brief
SEC-06 · Supply-chain model risk
For one third-party model or AI-feature vendor a school might actually consider (teacher approves the name), what can you verify from the public model card, terms, and dependency claims — and what must you take on faith?
School-approved sandbox only. No production targets. Showcase materials paraphrase class behavior — do not publish payload strings.
The question
For one third-party model or AI-feature vendor a school might actually consider (teacher approves the name), what can you verify from the public model card, terms, and dependency claims — and what must you take on faith?
Lab / materials
Public model cards / system cards, vendor trust centers, SBOM-style or “powered by” disclosures if any. Example starting points to confirm at assign time: a named open-weights card on a public hub, plus one commercial education-AI vendor the division already mentions in policy drafts. No social-engineering the vendor’s staff.
Expected failure modes
Treating a marketing page as an audit. Demanding internals you cannot see and then inventing them. Naming a district vendor in a public showcase in a way that implies a finding of misconduct.
Done looks like
A two-column sheet: verified vs assumed, with URLs and dates; a residual-risk paragraph; three questions a procurement officer should ask. Showcase uses the public record only. Refusal log includes “I did not pentest the vendor.”
Five C's
CT: verify vs trust. CR: questions that would actually change a buy. CO: peer tries to falsify one “verified” cell. CM: a sheet a principal could read. CZ: students and staff live with the unverified remainder.
Mentor role
Procurement, vendor-risk, or security architect reviews the sheet at Checkpoint 2. School-supervised.
Rubric calibration
R1: one named product, teacher-approved. R2: every verified cell has a dated source. R3: “the brochure is complete” is the baseline claim you are testing. R4: residual risk is specific. R5: three askable questions. R6: no implied scandal, no extra-legal testing.
Two ways this goes wrong
(a) A summary of the homepage. (b) A public accusation from missing documentation.
Source moved or something unclear? Send feedback on this brief. Mentors are advisory; the school supervises. These briefs do not produce verified computer-science credit.