Skip to content

Parent: LLM Vulnerability Scanner Feature Parity with Garak, Giskard, CyberSecEval #511

Description

TLDR; We want help creating issues where Garak, Giskard, or CyberSecEval support an attack scenario where PyRIT doesn't support it.

Background

Other tools like Garak, Giskard, and CyberSecEval have different use cases from PyRIT, but there is overlap as well. If there is an attack in one of these other platforms, we probably want to support it also and would love issues being created so we can track this (or clarify if it already exists/improve our docs).

This paper tackles a really difficult problem, and that's comparing these tools (and PyRIT). When I was looking, some of the things I noticed that it mentioned PyRIT was lacking were:

  • Lack of multi-language support (I think we actually have this as a converter)
  • Lack of GCG (we have this as an auxiliary module)
  • Dan, AutoDan, etc (I think we have support for all of this. We certainly have DAN and ways to modify those prompts with GPTFuzz - but we would love to know what we're missing)
  • Insecure Coding Test (we don't have this, but it would be an easy scorer to write!)

And there might be more that I missed!

So as an example of issues we'd like, all of the above are good to open. Even if we think we support them (like in the multi-language case) we can dive into specifics to make sure we're not missing anything, and potentially improve documentation so it's more obvious these scenarios are supported.

Describe the solution you'd like

Please open follow-up sub-issues with any features you notice or find in these other tools that PyRIT doesn't have! That way we can track them. Also, we would love community to tackle any of these also, but it still can be helpful to open an issue so we can help guide :D

Activity

  1. Danielweng0902 commented on Jun 17, 2026

    @Danielweng0902
    Contributor

    Hi! I’d like to work on this.

    I’ll start with a focused pass on the Insecure Coding Test / parity gaps mentioned above, compare PyRIT against Garak, Giskard, and CyberSecEval, then open small follow-up issues or a PR where the gap is straightforward. I’ll keep the scope narrow so it is easy to review.

    Please let me know if you prefer a different first slice.

  2. jacobbabula commented on Aug 6, 2026

    @jacobbabula

    Hi! I’d like to contribute through #511. Since the Insecure Coding Test is already being worked on, I’m happy to take another parity gap and open a focused issue for it first.

  3. abdelhadi703 commented on Oct 6, 2026

    @abdelhadi703
    Contributor

    I'd like to take the knownbadsignatures part of this one — a regex-backed true/false scorer for the EICAR, GTUBE and GTphish signatures.

    I have it working locally with tests passing and can open a PR if that's welcome. If you'd rather it stay scoped to the scorer only (no probe/scenario yet), that's fine too.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    Type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions