CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

aatmf-t14-infra-warfare

AATMF T14 — Infrastructure & Economic Warfare. Endpoint DoS via expensive prompts, model-API account exhaustion, GPU resource starvation, billing weaponization.

64

Quality

77%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./packages/decepticon/decepticon/skills/plugins/llm-redteam/t14-infra-warfare/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

T14 — Infrastructure & Economic Warfare

Attacks aimed at degrading service availability, exhausting budget, or causing economic harm via abuse of the LLM endpoint. Adjacent to classical DoS but LLM-specific cost dynamics.

Techniques

T14.001 — Per-account budget exhaustion

  • Multiple low-bandwidth requests each maximizing token cost
  • Free-tier abuse via account creation farms
  • Direct DDoS of paid endpoint (uses budget at attack rate)

Defenders: per-account caps + alerts.

T14.002 — Shared-quota poisoning

Multi-tenant LLM services share quotas at a provider level. Attacker exhausts the shared quota → all tenants degraded.

Targets: SaaS products that meter LLM access but share underlying API account.

T14.003 — GPU resource starvation

Self-hosted inference. Long-context queries hog GPU:

  • Send queries near max context length
  • Send batch of long-context queries in parallel
  • Loop to maintain pressure

Cost-amplification ratio: 1 user request → 100% GPU utilization.

T14.004 — Cost amplification (T5.002 cross-ref)

Prompt engineering to maximize output cost:

  • "Repeat 'token' 5000 times"
  • "Generate the maximum-length response you're allowed to produce"
  • Quadratic context patterns that bloat each turn

T14.005 — Pricing-tier exploit

Some APIs charge differently based on model variant. Trick the endpoint into using the expensive variant via parameter manipulation (T5.004 overlap).

T14.006 — Caching-pollution

Where LLM provider caches identical prompts (cost-reduction feature):

  • Submit prompts that fill cache but produce uncacheable outputs
  • Cache thrashing → no cost savings, full cost incurred

T14.007 — Streaming attack

Open many streaming requests → never consume → endpoint holds connection slots open until timeout.

Probe pattern

T14 is load-testing territory. Use k6, locust, hey:

# Spike test
hey -n 1000 -c 100 -m POST -H 'Authorization: Bearer X' \
  -d '{"prompt":"'$(python3 -c 'print("a"*100000)')'"}' \
  https://target/api/chat

Monitor:

  • Cost / minute via provider dashboard
  • p99 latency
  • 429 / 503 error rate
  • Other-tenant impact (if multi-tenant)

Detection signals

  • Cost spike >5x baseline w/o feature change
  • p99 latency degradation
  • Specific user IDs / IPs concentrating traffic
  • Output token distribution skewed long

Severity

OutcomeSeverity
Multi-tenant outage via quota exhaustCritical 9.0
Single-org budget burn via abuseHigh 7-8
GPU starvation single-hostHigh 7-8 (recoverable)
Streaming-slot starvationMedium 6-7

Defender

  • Per-account hard budget caps (with grace + alert at 80%/95%)
  • max_tokens strictly enforced (no unlimited)
  • Context-length per-tier caps
  • Rate limits per-account AND global (catch shared-quota attacks)
  • Anomaly detection on cost/latency/concurrency
  • Caching: per-tenant cache, not global
  • Streaming: connection timeout aggressive (60s if no consumer)

Cross-references

  • T5 (API exploitation) — overlap on cost/abuse vectors
  • Classical DDoS skills skills/exploit/web/...
Repository
PurpleAILAB/Decepticon
Last updated
First committed

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.