Security professionals are now facing a heightened challenge as embodied AI technology moves from the laboratory to the purchasing stage. Unlike traditional software, these cyber-physical systems—such as robots or humanoids—integrate models with hardware and firmware, effectively broadening their attack surfaces. When vendors present compelling demos of these machines performing simple tasks, procurement teams often overlook the deeper security concerns that need to be addressed before acquiring such technology.
Previously regarded as a niche research issue, the risks associated with embodied AI systems have escalated significantly. Vendors are now seeking approval from security teams without providing the necessary audit evidence, transparency into their supply chains, or clarity on shared responsibilities. This makes it essential for security teams to adopt a profound understanding of what comprises these AI systems before they can be integrated into their environments.
Understanding the Attack Surface of Embodied AI
Embodied AI's unique challenge lies in its nature; once a model is embedded within a robot or device, it is no longer a simple software endpoint. These machines have intricate hardware, firmware, installation requirements, and remote access pathways. Each of these components introduces varying levels of potential vulnerabilities that standard software risk assessments may overlook.
When evaluating such systems, organizations should focus on five key questions: provenance, access, integrity, evidence, and accountability.
1. Provenance
To assess provenance, organizations need to ask, “What’s inside, and who controls it?” Many humanoid robots consist of numerous parts sourced from various suppliers, often lacking the visibility necessary for proper risk assessment. For instance, a humanoid’s operation hinges on electric motors, lidar units, battery packs, and other components, many of which come from unvetted supply chains. Properly addressing this requires organizations to implement a hardware bill of materials, including information about firmware and update authorities for each component, ensuring a holistic view of the system’s vulnerabilities.
2. Access
Understanding access involves evaluating who can reach the systems and how. Various stakeholders interact with these machines: installation teams, service providers, and software vendors. Each represents a potential entry point for an attacker. If remote teleoperation is part of the service model, it needs to be treated as a high-risk access point rather than an ancillary feature. Security teams should inventory all access paths, implement rigorous segmentation from production networks, and ensure strict controls over updates.
3. Integrity
Integrity revolves around ensuring that the machine operates as intended without external interference. The risk of sensor spoofing is particularly critical; an attacker manipulating the sensors could cause a robot to react inappropriately, leading to physical harm. Organizations must work with vendors to develop comprehensive threat models documenting how these vulnerabilities can be exploited and what measures are in place to detect such manipulations.
4. Evidence
Organizations should seek verifiable evidence regarding a machine’s performance rather than relying solely on vendor claims. This involves asking for independently validated metrics such as uptime, incident rates, and documented issues from actual deployments. Verifiable data is paramount for effective risk management, particularly given the absence of industry-wide audit standards for these systems.
5. Accountability
As with any technology integrating into operational spaces, the question of accountability is paramount. Who assumes risk in the event of a failure must be clearly defined in contractual agreements. Establishing rights to audits, timelines for incident disclosure, and liability for physical harm should be clearly outlined before any acquisition. Vendors who resist providing written commitments may indicate a lack of confidence in the system’s reliability.
These five aspects of evaluation converge on a fundamental question: who has access to the machine, and what capabilities do they possess? Initially, viewers may be captivated by product demos, but it’s imperative to delve deeper into potential risks the systems present.
Before integrating any embodied AI system into existing operations, stakeholders should demand adherence to these five critical security criteria:
- Provenance: Ensure a detailed hardware and firmware bill of materials with transparency on vulnerabilities.
- Access: Confirm a comprehensive map of access points, including stringent protocols for remote system management.
- Integrity: Develop a threat model addressing sensor manipulation risks and confirm appropriate logging measures are in place.
- Evidence: Request independently validated performance metrics from reliable deployments.
- Accountability: Formalize responsibilities, incident-response protocols, and liability clauses in vendor contracts.
Ultimately, the initial appeal of a product demonstration can distract from the far more pressing question: what does the security landscape look like for these machines once they are operational in your environment? It’s critical that you address these concerns proactively rather than reactively, ensuring safety and security before bringing any cutting-edge technology into your operations.
This article is part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Interested in joining?
