Multi-Vector Adversarial Testing of an AI-Orchestrated Zero Trust Methodology on Constrained Edge Hardware
Source abstract
Abstract
This paper is the empirical validation companion to our prior methodology paper introducing the Automated Zero Trust Risk Management with DevSecOps Integration (AZTRM-D) methodology, conducted through multi-vector adversarial testing on physical NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano hardware. AZTRM-D unifies DevSecOps automation, the NIST Risk Management Framework, and Zero Trust architecture with AI orchestration via Cybectr Sentinel, featuring six AI subsystems with formal specifications. Testing spanned three progressive hardening stages across seven attack categories under a blind three-tester protocol with inter-rater agreement analysis. Factory-default devices were fully compromised in under five minutes. After full hardening, zero successful breaches were recorded across any tested vector. The CI/CD pipeline achieved a vulnerability detection rate of 96.8% (Wilson 95% CI: [0.891, 0.991]). Sentinel delivered 94.1% precision, 91.8% recall, and 4.2 min average detection time within 12–18% CPU overhead on edge hardware. A 14-capability comparative analysis against five established frameworks found seven capabilities unique to AZTRM-D. The 93.7% adversarial detection rate is reported against DiCE-generated counterfactual inputs and is bounded by the black-box threat model used in evaluation; gradient-based white-box attack evaluation is documented as a scoped Stage 4 future-work item. All three testers are affiliated with Cybectr LLC, the developer of AZTRM-D and Cybectr Sentinel; this conflict of interest is the most significant limitation of the present work, and independent third-party laboratory validation is the highest-priority Stage 4 deliverable.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Security and Verification in Computing · Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs) and Hardware Security · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431, USA
Cybectr LLC, Ellicott City, MD 21043, USA
References (79)
Show source-provided references
1. Coston, I., Hezel, K.D., Plotnizky, E., and Nojoumian, M. (2025). Enhancing Secure Software Development with AZTRM-D: An AI-Integrated Approach Combining DevSecOps, Risk Management, and Zero Trust. Appl. Sci., 15.10.20944/preprints202506.1423.v1 ↗
2. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2018). Guide for Applying the Risk Management Framework to Federal Information Systems: A Security Life Cycle Approach, Technical Report NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-37r2.
3. Rose, S., Borchert, O., Mitchell, S., and Connelly, S. (2020). Zero Trust Architecture, Technical Report 800-207.10.6028/NIST.SP.800-207-draft2 ↗
4. NVIDIA Corporation (2026, May 01). NVIDIA Jetson Orin Developer Kit. Available online: https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/jetson-orin.
5. Reimers, N., and Gurevych, I. (2019, January 3–7). Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Hong Kong, China.10.18653/v1/D19-1410 ↗
6. Schulman, J., Wolski, F., Dhariwal, P., Radford, A., and Klimov, O. (2017). Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms. arXiv.
7. Lundberg, S.M., and Lee, S.I. (2017, January 4–9). A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach, CA, USA.
8. Chen, T., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939785 ↗
9. Liu, F.T., Ting, K.M., and Zhou, Z.H. (2008, January 15–19). Isolation Forest. Proceedings of the 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM), Pisa, Italy.10.1109/ICDM.2008.17 ↗
10. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., Küttler, H., Lewis, M., Yih, W.t., and Rocktäschel, T. (2020, January 6–12). Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. Proceedings of the Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
11. Joint Task Force (2020). Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems and Organizations, Technical Report SP 800-53 Rev. 5.
12. Mothilal, R.K., Sharma, A., and Tan, C. (2020, January 27–30). Explaining Machine Learning Classifiers through Diverse Counterfactual Explanations. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT), Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3351095.3372850 ↗
13. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2023). NVD API 2.0 Documentation.
14. Yamaguchi, F., Golde, N., Arp, D., and Rieck, K. (2014, January 18–21). Modeling and Discovering Vulnerabilities with Code Property Graphs. Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, San Jose, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2014.44 ↗
15. Kipf, T.N., and Welling, M. (2017, January 24–26). Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Toulon, France.
16. Fan, J., Li, Y., Wang, S., and Nguyen, T.N. (2020, January 29–30). A C/C++ Code Vulnerability Dataset with Code Changes and CVE Summaries. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR), Seoul, Republic of Korea.10.1145/3379597.3387501 ↗
17. Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G.G., and Lee, S.I. (2018). Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles. arXiv.
18. Madry, A., Makelov, A., Schmidt, L., Tsipras, D., and Vladu, A. (May, January 30). Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attacks. Proceedings of the International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), Vancouver, BC, Canada.
19. Goodfellow, I.J., Shlens, J., and Szegedy, C. (2015). Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examples. arXiv.
20. Papernot, N., McDaniel, P., Goodfellow, I., Jha, S., Celik, Z.B., and Swami, A. (2017, January 2–7). Practical Black-Box Attacks against Machine Learning. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.10.1145/3052973.3053009 ↗
21. Carlini, N., and Wagner, D. (2017, January 22–24). Towards Evaluating the Robustness of Neural Networks. Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), San Jose, CA, USA.10.1109/SP.2017.49 ↗
22. Wild Patterns: Ten Years After the Rise of Adversarial Machine Learning10.1016/j.patcog.2018.07.023 ↗
23. Tenable, Inc. (2026, March 08). Nessus Professional Datasheet. Available online: https://www.tenable.com/data-sheets/nessus-professional.
24. Forsgren, N., Humble, J., and Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The Science of Lean Software and DevOps, IT Revolution Press.
25. Royce, W.W. (1970, January 25–28). Managing the Development of Large Software Systems. Proceedings of the IEEE WESCON, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
26. Schwaber, K., and Sutherland, J. (2026, March 08). The Scrum Guide. Available online: https://scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2020/2020-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf.
27. Kim, G., Debois, P., Willis, J., and Humble, J. (2016). The DevOps Handbook: How to Create World-Class Agility, Reliability, and Security in Technology Organizations, IT Revolution Press.
28. Shylesh, S. (2017, January 23–24). A study of software development life cycle process models. Proceedings of the National Conference on Reinventing Opportunities in Management, IT, and Social Sciences, Mumbai, India.10.2139/ssrn.2988291 ↗
29. Martin, J. (1991). Rapid Application Development, Macmillan Publishing.
30. A comprehensive research analysis of software development life cycle (SDLC) agile & waterfall model advantages, disadvantages, and application suitability in software quality engineering
31. Horne, D., and Nair, S. (2021). Introducing zero trust by design: Principles and practice beyond the zero trust hype. Advances in Security, Networks, and Internet of Things, Springer.
32. Chahar, S., and Singh, S. (2024, January 21–23). Analysis of SDLC Models with Web Engineering Principles. Proceedings of the 2024 2nd International Conference on Advancements and Key Challenges in Green Energy and Computing (AKGEC), Ghaziabad, India.10.1109/AKGEC62572.2024.10868694 ↗
33. Olorunshola, O.E., and Ogwueleka, F.N. (2022). Review of system development life cycle (SDLC) models for effective application delivery. Proceedings of the Information and Communication Technology for Competitive Strategies (ICTCS 2020) ICT: Applications and Social Interfaces, Springer.10.1007/978-981-16-0739-4_28 ↗
34. Howard, M., and Lipner, S. (2006). The Security Development Lifecycle: SDL, A Process for Developing Demonstrably More Secure Software, Microsoft Press.
35. OWASP Foundation (2020). OWASP Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM) Version 2.0, OWASP Foundation. Technical Report.
36. Synopsys, Inc. (2023). Building Security In Maturity Model (BSIMM14), Synopsys. Technical Report.
37. Souppaya, M., Scarfone, K., and Dodson, D. (2022). Secure Software Development Framework (SSDF) Version 1.1: Recommendations for Mitigating the Risk of Software Vulnerabilities, Technical Report SP 800-218.10.6028/NIST.SP.800-218 ↗
38. RTCA, Inc. (2011). Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification (DO-178C), RTCA, Inc.. Technical Report DO-178C.
39. Microsoft Corporation (2012). Microsoft Security Development Lifecycle (SDL) Version 5.2, Microsoft Corporation. Technical Report.
40. Lipner, S. (2004, January 6–10). The Trustworthy Computing Security Development Lifecycle. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC 2004), Tucson, AZ, USA.
41. Comparative Study of Different SDLC Models10.22214/ijraset.2021.38736 ↗
42. de Vicente Mohino, J., Bermejo Higuera, J., Bermejo Higuera, J.R., and Sicilia Montalvo, J.A. (2019). The application of a new secure software development life cycle (S-SDLC) with agile methodologies. Electronics, 8.10.3390/electronics8111218 ↗
43. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) (2024, August 12). Zero Trust Maturity Model v2, Available online: https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-04/zero_trust_maturity_model_v2_508.pdf.
44. Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DoD CIO) (2024, August 12). DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Strategy Guide, Available online: https://dodcio.defense.gov/Portals/0/Documents/Library/DoDEnterpriseDevSecOpsStrategyGuide.pdf.
45. Tassey, G. (2002). The Economic Impacts of Inadequate Infrastructure for Software Testing, Technical Report Planning Report 02-3.
46. Boehm, B.W. (1981). Software Engineering Economics, Prentice-Hall.
47. McConnell, S. (2004). Code Complete: A Practical Handbook of Software Construction, Microsoft Press. [2nd ed.].
48. IBM Systems Sciences Institute (2008). Relative Costs to Fix Software Defects, IBM Corporation. Technical Report.
49. Gupta, A., Gupta, P., Pandey, U.P., Kushwaha, P., Lohani, B.P., and Bhati, K. (2024, January 9–11). ZTSA: Zero Trust Security Architecture a Comprehensive Survey. Proceedings of the 2024 International Conference on Communication, Computer Sciences and Engineering (IC3SE), Ghaziabad, India.10.1109/IC3SE62002.2024.10593067 ↗
50. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (2023). Zero Trust Maturity Model Version 2.0, Technical Report.
51. Anomaly Detection: A Survey10.1145/1541880.1541882 ↗
52. A Lightweight Transformer Based on Feature Fusion and Global-Local Parallel Stacked Self-Activation Unit for Bearing Fault Diagnosis10.1016/j.measurement.2024.115068 ↗
53. Random Forests10.1023/A:1010933404324 ↗
54. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., and Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning, MIT Press.
55. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). “Why Should I Trust You?”: Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
56. FIRST.Org, Inc. (2019). Common Vulnerability Scoring System v3.1: Specification Document, Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST). Technical Report.
57. Learning Security Strategies Through Game Play and Optimal Stopping
58. Human-Level Control Through Deep Reinforcement Learning10.1038/nature14236 ↗
59. Lillicrap, T.P., Hunt, J.J., Pritzel, A., Heess, N., Erez, T., Tassa, Y., Silver, D., and Wierstra, D. (2016, January 2–4). Continuous Control with Deep Reinforcement Learning. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), San Juan, PR, USA.
60. DSwinIR: Rethinking Window-Based Attention for Image Restoration10.1109/TPAMI.2025.3646016 ↗
61. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2010). Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation: The XTS-AES Mode for Confidentiality on Storage Devices, Technical Report NIST Special Publication 800-38E.
62. Computing Inter-Rater Reliability and Its Variance in the Presence of High Agreement10.1348/000711006X126600 ↗
63. High Agreement But Low Kappa: I. The Problems of Two Paradoxes10.1016/0895-4356(90)90158-L ↗
64. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data10.2307/2529310 ↗
65. NVIDIA Corporation (2024). NVIDIA JetPack SDK Documentation, NVIDIA Corporation. Available online: https://developer.nvidia.com/embedded/jetpack.
66. Kohlios, C.P., and Hayajneh, T. (2018). A comprehensive attack flow model and security analysis for Wi-Fi and WPA3. Electronics, 7.10.20944/preprints201809.0524.v1 ↗
67. Sheng, H., Xuanqi, W., Chang, Z., Jiacheng, W., Pingxia, D., and Yuwei, W. (J. Syst. Eng. Electron., 2026). AIGC Video Detection Based on the Fusion of Spatial-Frequency-Optical Flow Multi-Modal Features, J. Syst. Eng. Electron., in press.10.23919/JSEE.2026.000049 ↗
68. Strom, B.E., Applebaum, A., Miller, D.P., Nickels, K.C., Pennington, A.G., and Thomas, C.B. (2018). MITRE ATT&CK: Design and Philosophy, The MITRE Corporation. Technical Report MP180360R1.
69. Bermejo Higuera, J., Abad Aramburu, C., Bermejo Higuera, J.R., Sicilia Urban, M.A., and Sicilia Montalvo, J.A. (2020). On Combining Static, Dynamic and Interactive Analysis Security Testing Tools to Improve OWASP Top Ten Security Vulnerability Detection in Web Applications. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10041360 ↗
70. National Security Agency (2026). Zero Trust Implementation Guideline Discovery Phase, Version 1.0. PP-25-3989.
71. National Security Agency (2026). Zero Trust Implementation Guideline Phase One, Version 1.0. PP-25-4750.
72. National Security Agency (2026). Zero Trust Implementation Guideline Phase Two, Version 1.0. PP-25-4758.
73. Pornin, T. (2013). Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA), Internet Engineering Task Force. Technical Report RFC 6979.10.17487/rfc6979 ↗
74. SPIFFE Project (2022). SPIFFE and SPIRE: Production-Ready Workload Identity, Cloud Native Computing Foundation. Available online: https://spiffe.io/docs/latest/spiffe-about/overview/.
75. Rescorla, E. (2018). The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Technical Report RFC 8446.10.17487/RFC8446 ↗
76. fail0verflow (2010, January 27–30). Console Hacking 2010: PS3 Epic Fail. Proceedings of the 27th Chaos Communication Congress (27C3), Berlin, Germany. Demonstrated Recovery of Sony PlayStation 3 ECDSA Private Key Through Nonce Reuse; Published Keys Released by George Hotz on 3 January 2011.
77. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2024). Module-Lattice-Based Key-Encapsulation Mechanism Standard, Technical Report FIPS 203.
78. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2024). Module-Lattice-Based Digital Signature Standard, Technical Report FIPS 204.
79. National Institute of Standards and Technology (2024). Stateless Hash-Based Digital Signature Standard, Technical Report FIPS 205.