> ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.qualifire.ai/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Compliance Frameworks > Map security findings to industry standards like OWASP, MITRE, NIST, and more ## Overview Rogue automatically maps red team findings to multiple industry compliance frameworks. This enables organizations to understand their security posture in the context of established standards and regulations. ## Supported Frameworks The **OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications 2025** covers the most critical security risks in LLM systems. | Category | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **LLM01: Prompt Injection** | prompt-extraction, prompt-override, indirect-injection, ascii-smuggling | | **LLM02: Sensitive Info Disclosure** | pii-direct, pii-api-db, pii-session, pii-social, cross-session-leakage | | **LLM03: Supply Chain** | ip-violations | | **LLM04: Data & Model Poisoning** | memory-poisoning, rag-poisoning | | **LLM05: Improper Output Handling** | sql-injection, shell-injection, malicious-code | | **LLM06: Excessive Agency** | excessive-agency, rbac, bola, bfla | | **LLM07: System Prompt Leakage** | prompt-extraction | | **LLM08: Vector & Embedding Weaknesses** | rag-exfiltration | | **LLM09: Misinformation** | hallucination, unverifiable-claims, misinformation-disinformation | | **LLM10: Unbounded Consumption** | unbounded-consumption, reasoning-dos, divergent-repetition | The **MITRE Adversarial Threat Landscape for AI Systems** provides a comprehensive taxonomy of AI-specific attacks. | Attack Category | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **Prompt/Input Attacks** | ascii-smuggling, prompt-extraction, prompt-override, indirect-injection | | **Privacy Attacks** | privacy-violation, pii-api-db, pii-direct, pii-session, pii-social | | **System Compromise** | excessive-agency, ip-violations | | **Content Generation** | hate-speech, harassment, child-exploitation, cybercrime, extremism | The **NIST AI Risk Management Framework** addresses governance, technical, and ethical considerations. | Risk Domain | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **Excessive Agency** | excessive-agency | | **Information Integrity** | misinformation-disinformation | | **Privacy** | privacy-violation, pii-direct, pii-api-db, pii-session, pii-social | | **Safety** | wmd-content, weapons-content, dangerous-activity, cybercrime | | **Technical Security** | shell-injection, sql-injection, bfla, bola, rbac | | **Content Safety** | harassment, hate-speech, personal-attacks | The **ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System** standard for organizational AI governance. | Domain | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **Governance** | excessive-agency, overreliance | | **Bias & Non-Discrimination** | bias-disability, bias-gender, bias-age, bias-race, bias-political, bias-religion | | **Privacy** | privacy-violation, pii-direct, pii-api-db, pii-session, pii-social | | **Security** | ascii-smuggling, prompt-extraction, shell-injection, sql-injection | | **Information Quality** | hallucination, unverifiable-claims | The **European Union Artificial Intelligence Act** regulatory framework. | Requirement | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **High-Risk Requirements** | excessive-agency, misinformation-disinformation, overreliance | | **Privacy (GDPR Alignment)** | pii-direct, pii-session, privacy-violation, pii-api-db | | **Technical Safety** | shell-injection, sql-injection, ssrf | | **Non-Discrimination** | hate-speech | | **Information Quality** | hallucination | The **General Data Protection Regulation** for data protection and privacy. | Article | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **Data Protection** | privacy-violation, pii-api-db, pii-direct, pii-session, pii-social, cross-session-leakage | | **Non-Discrimination** | bias-disability, bias-gender, bias-age, bias-race, hate-speech | | **Access Control** | rbac, bola, bfla | | **Security** | prompt-extraction, shell-injection, sql-injection, debug-access, ssrf | The **OWASP API Security Top 10** for API-related vulnerabilities. | Category | Mapped Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **API1: Broken Object Level Authorization** | bola | | **API2: Broken Authentication** | rbac | | **API3: Broken Object Property Level Authorization** | bfla | | **API4: Unrestricted Resource Consumption** | unbounded-consumption | | **API5: Broken Function Level Authorization** | excessive-agency | | **API7: Server Side Request Forgery** | ssrf | | **API8: Security Misconfiguration** | debug-access | A minimal security baseline for essential checks. | Category | Vulnerabilities | | - | - | | **Prompt Security** | prompt-extraction, prompt-override | | **PII Protection** | pii-direct | | **Technical** | sql-injection, shell-injection | | **Agency** | excessive-agency | ## Compliance Scoring Rogue calculates compliance scores for each framework based on tested vulnerabilities: ```python theme={null} # Compliance calculation tested_vulns = [v for v in framework.vulnerabilities if v in results] passed_vulns = [v for v in tested_vulns if results[v].passed] compliance_score = (len(passed_vulns) / len(tested_vulns)) * 100 ``` ### Score Interpretation | Score Range | Status | Meaning | | - | - | - | | 80-100% | ✅ Excellent | Strong security posture | | 60-79% | ⚠️ Good | Some vulnerabilities need attention | | 0-59% | ❌ Poor | Significant security gaps | ## Framework Coverage Cards Rogue generates coverage cards showing compliance status: ```json theme={null} { "framework_id": "owasp-llm", "framework_name": "OWASP LLM Top 10", "compliance_score": 75.0, "tested_count": 8, "total_count": 25, "passed_count": 6, "status": "good" } ``` ## Default Framework Selection Frameworks are automatically selected based on scan type: | Scan Type | Default Frameworks | | - | - | | Basic | basic-security | | Full | owasp-llm, mitre-atlas, basic-security | | Custom | User-specified | ## Using Frameworks ### In Configuration ```python theme={null} from rogue.server.red_teaming import RedTeamConfig, ScanType config = RedTeamConfig( scan_type=ScanType.CUSTOM, vulnerabilities=["prompt-extraction", "pii-direct", "excessive-agency"], attacks=["base64", "roleplay"], frameworks=["owasp-llm", "gdpr", "eu-ai-act"] ) ``` ### Accessing Framework Data ```python theme={null} from rogue.server.red_teaming.catalog.framework_mappings import ( get_framework, get_all_frameworks, get_vulnerabilities_for_framework, get_frameworks_for_vulnerability ) # Get OWASP LLM framework owasp = get_framework("owasp-llm") print(f"{owasp.name}: {len(owasp.vulnerabilities)} vulnerabilities") # Find which frameworks cover a specific vulnerability frameworks = get_frameworks_for_vulnerability("prompt-extraction") # Returns: ["owasp-llm", "mitre-atlas", "iso-42001", "gdpr", ...] ``` ## Report Generation Compliance reports include: 1. **Compliance Score**: Overall percentage for each framework 2. **Vulnerability Breakdown**: Per-vulnerability pass/fail status 3. **Recommendations**: Prioritized remediation guidance 4. **Framework Mapping**: Which controls are affected ```markdown theme={null} ## Framework Compliance ### ✅ OWASP LLM Top 10 **Compliance Score:** 85.0% **Tested:** 17 / 25 **Recommendations:** - [HIGH] System Prompt Disclosure: Implement prompt guards - [MEDIUM] Hallucination: Add output validation ``` ## Adding Custom Frameworks Custom frameworks can be defined with vulnerability mappings: ```python theme={null} from rogue.server.red_teaming.models import FrameworkDef custom_framework = FrameworkDef( id="custom-security", name="Custom Security Framework", description="Organization-specific security requirements", vulnerabilities=[ "prompt-extraction", "pii-direct", "excessive-agency", "sql-injection" ] ) ``` This documentation is built and hosted on [Mintlify](https://mintlify.com), a developer documentation platform.