Book an Appointment
AI Threat Modeling · MAESTRO Framework

Understand where your AI is exposed — before someone attacks it.

Classical threat modeling methods were built for deterministic software — Agentic AI demands more. We apply MAESTRO and OWASP Agentic Threats systematically to your architecture: layer by layer from foundation model to ecosystem, with real risk prioritisation.

MAESTRO 7-layer methodologyArchitecture-specific, not genericISO 42001 & EU AI Act ready
7 layers
MAESTRO framework · foundation to ecosystem
Architecture-aware
Your concrete architecture, not a standard recipe
Risk-based
Prioritisation by impact + likelihood
Compliance
ISO 42001 · EU AI Act · NIST AI RMF
Video

AI Threat Modeling Maestro at a glance

The problem

Classical threat modeling does not understand what makes AI dangerous.

STRIDE was built for deterministic software. PASTA for classical risk analysis. Both are valuable — but they fall short as soon as you want to model an AI system that responds non-deterministically, autonomously selects tools and builds memory.

This creates a gap: controls get built on suspicion rather than on understood threats. MAESTRO closes that gap — as a 7-layer framework Cloud Security Alliance built specifically for Agentic AI. Combined with OWASP Agentic Threats and NIST AI RMF, it produces a threat model that fits what you are actually building.

Definition

What is MAESTRO threat modeling?

A structured threat analysis of your AI architecture — layered, architecture-specific and risk-based. Built specifically for Agentic AI systems that classical methods don't cover.

Seven-layer view

MAESTRO models your AI architecture across seven layers — from foundation models through data, frameworks, infrastructure to the agent ecosystem. Each layer has its own threats — and its own controls.

Layer-specific + cross-layer

Threats don't only emerge inside a single layer — the most dangerous ones run across the system. Memory poisoning starts at data, acts in reasoning, manifests in tool use. MAESTRO makes those chains visible.

Prioritisation by real risk

Not every theoretical threat is a relevant one. We rate impact and likelihood against your concrete architecture — and deliver a roadmap that fits your actual risks.

Use cases

When a MAESTRO threat model makes sense

Four typical situations where a structured threat model makes the difference between a thought-through and a reactive security strategy.

Before architecture decisions
Which components? Which tools? Which memory strategy? A threat model before you build saves weeks of refactoring later — and prevents architectural mistakes that get expensive in production.
ISO 42001 risk management
ISO 42001 requires a documented AI risk assessment (Annex A.6.1.2). MAESTRO provides the structured methodology — auditable and traceable.
EU AI Act high-risk conformity
Article 9 demands a continuous risk management system for high-risk AI. We deliver the substantive threat model that system builds on.
Before multi-agent extensions
Each additional agent reshapes the attack surface. Before you turn a single-agent system into a multi-agent one, you should know which new threats appear.
Approach

How we work.

Four structured phases — from architecture analysis through layer mapping to a prioritised mitigation roadmap.

1
Architecture walkthrough
Understand components, map data flows, define trust boundaries. Workshops with your teams — not a desk model.
Methods: C4 Model · data flow diagrams · component inventory
2
MAESTRO layer mapping
Project the seven layers onto your concrete architecture — from foundation models to the agent ecosystem. Every component finds its place.
Frameworks: MAESTRO (CSA) · OWASP Multi-Agentic Threat Modeling
3
Threat identification
Per layer and cross-layer: which threats are actually relevant in your architecture? Mapping to OWASP T1–T15 as a shared language.
Frameworks: OWASP Agentic Threats T1–T15 · NIST AI RMF · MITRE ATLAS
4
Risk rating & mitigation
Prioritisation by impact and likelihood. Concrete controls per threat — aligned to ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF, directly actionable.
Output: Risk matrix · Mitigation roadmap
Deliverables

What you get.

Concrete, comprehensible deliverables — as living documents, not drawer paper.

Visualised threat model
Your architecture, modelled per MAESTRO — with components, data flows, trust boundaries and layer mapping. A living document, not drawer paper.
Layer-specific threat landscape
Per layer: which threats are relevant, which are not, and why. With mapping to OWASP Agentic Threats T1–T15 as a shared language.
Risk matrix
Rating of every identified threat by impact and likelihood — the basis for ISO 42001 risk management and EU AI Act conformity.
Mitigation roadmap
Prioritised measures with concrete technical recommendations — aligned to ISO 42001 controls, NIST AI RMF and OWASP best practices.
Positioning

Not every threat model answers the same question.

Classical threat modeling, LLM threat catalogs and MAESTRO complement each other — they don't replace each other.

Software-centric
Classical threat modeling (STRIDE)
"What classical software threats are present?"
  • Spoofing, tampering, repudiation, info disclosure, DoS, elevation
  • Built for deterministic software
  • Answers the classical, not the AI-specific
Model-centric
LLM threat catalogs
"What risks does the LLM itself carry?"
  • Prompt injection, insecure output, training data poisoning
  • Focus on the language model as a component
  • Answers the model, not the architecture
Architecture-centric
MAESTRO threat modeling
"Which threats hit my AI architecture as a whole?"
  • 7 layers: foundation · data · frameworks · infrastructure · observability · security · ecosystem
  • Cross-layer attacks and multi-agent threats made visible
  • Answers the system — and what to protect
Valeri Milke — Founder & CEO VamiSec GmbH
Valeri MilkeFounder & CEO · VamiSec GmbH
Your contact

"A good threat model changes architecture decisions before they become expensive bad decisions. MAESTRO is the framework Agentic AI actually deserves."