Skip to content

Amalachukwu Azubike

Application Security & AI Security Engineer

Application Security · AI / LLM Security · AI Governance & Risk

I build systems. I find where they break. I secure them — and help organizations govern the AI inside them.

System idle -- watching for the next request.

16

Verified evidence records

5

Flagship case studies

3

Security & governance domains

8

Evidence types represented

I'm hiring for…

Build → Break → Defend → Govern

See the Security Evidence Graph for exactly which evidence connects these lanes, rather than three separate resumes.

Flagship case studies

Personal Project

LLM Data Leakage Lab

A deliberately vulnerable LLM-enabled Flask application, built to demonstrate a real cross-user data leakage vulnerability class and then measure three progressively stronger defenses against it: identity trust, context isolation, input risk inspection, output redaction, and structured security logging. The vulnerable baseline is preserved unmodified so the 'before' stays real and reproducible; the defended modes are implemented alongside it, not in place of it, so the same attack set can be replayed against all three and compared directly.

Outcome: Unauthorized cross-user disclosure measured at 25% under the original vulnerable baseline, dropping to 0% once context isolation is added (Partial Defense) -- the full Defense-in-Depth mode adds pre-model risk-based blocking, output redaction, and resolves identity from a server-side session token rather than a client-declared field, which is what stops a separate identity-spoofing (IDOR) vector the first two modes both leave open.

Unauthorized disclosure rate -- Vulnerable Baseline:
25% (3/12 adversarial cases)
Unauthorized disclosure rate -- Partial Defense (context isolation only):
0% (0/12 adversarial cases)
Unauthorized disclosure rate -- Defense in Depth:
0% (0/12 adversarial cases)
Identity-spoofing (IDOR) case blocked:
Only Defense in Depth (1/1); Baseline and Partial Defense both allow it
Adversarial requests blocked before reaching the model -- Defense in Depth:
33% (4/12)
View repository →
Research

Adaptive Moving Target Defense for LLM Security

MSc research applying Adaptive Moving Target Defense (AMTD) to secure LLM-enabled systems against prompt injection, jailbreak attempts, and sensitive data leakage. The design compares a static baseline, a fixed-defense baseline, and an adaptive AMTD condition, introducing controlled changes to the defensive prompt layer, route-selection logic, and response handling based on assessed input risk -- combining prompt risk analysis, adaptive prompt wrapping, prompt randomization, and layered defense to reduce attacker predictability. Methodology in progress, per dated research-update posts: deploying a lower-cost local model alongside a stronger API-based model with an adaptive switching mechanism that escalates requests based on assessed risk; a risk-scoring pipeline that selects a defensive response by severity; red-team attack integration via Promptfoo, with broader testing planned using Garak and PyRIT; comparison of static vs. adaptive defense strategies measured on attack success rate, benign-task performance, latency, cost, routing behaviour, and resilience; a multi-judge evaluation design with an adjudicator for disagreement cases; and a canary-string method (planting a unique marker inside protected context and checking whether adversarial prompts cause the model to reveal it) as a data-leak detection technique. Candidate models evaluated for the pipeline (via Hugging Face) include deepset/deberta-v3-base-injection, meta-llama/Prompt-Guard-86M, several openai/gpt-oss variants, and zai-org/GLM-5.2.

Outcome: Research in progress -- attack-success-rate, latency, and resilience results are not yet finalized.

Research

Three-Layer Defense Framework for Secure LLM Applications

A layered security framework for LLM-enabled applications designed and evaluated to reduce prompt injection, unauthorized data access, and sensitive information leakage, implementing three defensive layers: Context Isolation (restricts model access to only the data a user is authorized to view), Prompt Sanitization (detects and filters malicious or manipulative user inputs before they reach the model), and Response Redaction (masks or blocks sensitive information if the model attempts to expose it in its output). Testing different layer combinations showed that a single control provides only limited protection, and that stronger security comes from combining multiple defenses around the LLM rather than assuming the model itself can enforce trust boundaries.

Outcome: Key finding: single-layer controls under-perform combined, defense-in-depth layering -- the same architectural pattern independently measured end-to-end in the LLM Data Leakage Lab.

Academic Project

AI-Generated Voice / Deepfake Fraud Evidence Triage

A course final project building a triage application for suspected AI-generated (deepfake) audio and video evidence, exploring how investigators could systematically assess such evidence rather than relying on ad hoc review. The application performs SHA-256 hashing to preserve evidence integrity, extracts metadata, applies rule-based triage to identify indicators warranting further investigation, and produces structured forensic findings.

Outcome: Final grade: 95/100 (Digital Forensics course capstone project).

Academic Project

Machine Learning-Based Malware Classification & APT Attribution

A threat intelligence project classifying malware samples by their associated Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups using opcode-based analysis. Workflow: Dataset Creation (extracted and cleaned opcode text from malware samples, mapped each to its corresponding APT group, building a structured dataset of file hashes, APT labels, and opcode text features); Feature Engineering (converted opcode sequences into numerical features using unigram and bigram representations); Model Training (trained and compared multiple classifiers -- Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbours, and Decision Tree); Evaluation (assessed performance using accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and confusion matrices); and a Threat Intelligence Focus exploring how malware behaviour patterns can support attribution and help analysts connect samples to known adversary groups.

Outcome: Reinforced the applied value of machine learning in cyber threat intelligence -- malware triage, pattern recognition, and early-stage attribution support.

Ask Amalachukwu

A grounded assistant that answers only from the verified evidence on this site — it will say so plainly when it doesn't have evidence for something, rather than guessing. See how this works.

Role Fit Analyzer

Hiring for a specific role? Paste the job description at /role-fit and see which verified evidence actually matches it -- and where it honestly doesn't.

Evaluating AI governance? The Attack → Defend → Govern Lab includes an interactive, framework-literate governance workbench -- not a compliance tool -- alongside a real, measured technical vulnerability walkthrough.

Product Studio

Alongside my security work, I build commercial SaaS products that solve practical business problems.

Commercial Product

QuickHalo

Commercial SaaS product for service businesses, focused on automating customer retention and recurring-service engagement: automated service reminders, customer follow-up, appointment/booking flows, recurring-customer engagement, and AI-assisted customer interactions.

Product in DevelopmentIN-DEVELOPMENT

AI Governance / Audit SaaS

A commercial platform intended to help organizations operationalize AI governance, with capability tiers described for small business (a plain-language assessment of AI-use safety plus the supporting documents), mid-market (AI inventory, risk assessments, policies, evidence, remediation), and enterprise (multi-team governance, approval workflows, control mapping, APIs, audit trails, RBAC, continuous monitoring). No customers, revenue, or production functionality are claimed -- this is stated explicitly as in development.