DISC InfoSec blogAI Archives | DISC InfoSec blog

Feb 12 2026

AI in Cybersecurity: From Intelligent Threat Detection to Adaptive Defense

Category: AI,Cyber Threats,Threat detection,Threat Modeling — disc7 @ 10:05 am

— From Reactive Defense to Intelligent Protection

Artificial intelligence is fundamentally changing the way organizations defend against cyber threats. As digital ecosystems expand and attackers become more sophisticated, traditional security tools alone are no longer enough. AI introduces speed, scale, and intelligence into cybersecurity operations, enabling systems to detect and respond to threats in real time. This shift marks a transition from reactive defense to proactive and predictive protection.

One of the most impactful uses of AI is in AI-powered threat hunting. Instead of waiting for alerts, AI continuously scans massive volumes of network data to uncover hidden or emerging threats. By recognizing patterns and anomalies that humans might miss, AI helps security teams identify suspicious behavior early. This proactive capability reduces dwell time and strengthens overall situational awareness.

Another critical capability is dynamic risk assessment. AI systems continuously evaluate vulnerabilities and changing threat landscapes, updating risk profiles in real time. This allows organizations to prioritize defenses and allocate resources where they matter most. Adaptive risk modeling ensures that security strategies evolve alongside emerging threats rather than lag behind them.

AI also strengthens endpoint security by monitoring devices such as laptops, servers, and mobile systems. Through behavioral analysis, AI can detect unusual activities and automatically isolate compromised endpoints. Continuous monitoring helps prevent lateral movement within networks and minimizes the potential impact of breaches.

AI-driven identity protection enhances authentication and access control. By analyzing behavioral patterns and biometric signals, AI can distinguish legitimate users from impostors. This reduces the risk of credential theft and unauthorized access while enabling more seamless and secure user experiences.

Another key advantage is faster incident response. AI accelerates detection, triage, and remediation by automating routine tasks and correlating threat intelligence instantly. Security teams can respond to incidents in minutes rather than hours, limiting damage and downtime. Automation also reduces alert fatigue and improves operational efficiency.

The image also highlights adaptive defense, where AI-driven systems learn from past attacks and continuously refine their protective measures. These systems evolve alongside threat actors, creating a feedback loop that strengthens defenses over time. Adaptive security architectures make organizations more resilient to unknown or zero-day threats.

To counter threats using AI-powered threat hunting, organizations should deploy machine learning models trained on diverse threat intelligence and integrate them with human-led threat analysis. Combining automated discovery with expert validation ensures both speed and accuracy while minimizing false positives.

For dynamic risk assessment, companies should implement AI-driven risk dashboards that integrate vulnerability scanning, asset inventories, and real-time telemetry. In endpoint security, AI-based EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) tools should be paired with automated isolation policies. For identity protection, behavioral biometrics and zero-trust frameworks should be reinforced by AI anomaly detection. To enable faster incident response, orchestration and automated response playbooks are essential. Finally, adaptive defense requires continuous learning pipelines that retrain models with updated threat data and feedback from security operations.

Overall, AI is becoming a central pillar of modern cybersecurity. It amplifies human expertise, accelerates detection and response, and enables organizations to defend against increasingly complex threats. However, AI is not a standalone solution—it must be combined with governance, skilled professionals, and ethical safeguards. When used responsibly, AI transforms cybersecurity from a defensive necessity into a strategic advantage that prepares organizations for the evolving digital future.

At DISC InfoSec, we help organizations navigate this landscape by aligning AI risk management, governance, security, and compliance into a single, practical roadmap. Whether you are experimenting with AI or deploying it at scale, we help you choose and operationalize the right frameworks to reduce risk and build trust. Learn more at DISC InfoSec.

Tags: Adaptive defense, AI in Cybersecurity

Comments (0)

Feb 11 2026

Below the Waterline: Why AI Strategy Fails Without Data Foundations

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 8:53 am

The iceberg captures the reality of AI transformation.

At the very top of the iceberg sits “AI Strategy.” This is the visible, exciting part—the headlines about GenAI, AI agents, copilots, and transformation. On the surface, leaders are saying, “AI will transform us,” and teams are eager to “move fast.” This is where ambition lives.

Just below the waterline, however, are the layers most organizations prefer not to talk about.

First come legacy systems—applications stitched together over decades through acquisitions, quick fixes, and short-term decisions. These systems were never designed to support real-time AI workflows, yet they hold critical business data.

Beneath that are data pipelines—fragile processes moving data between systems. Many break silently, rely on manual intervention, or produce inconsistent outputs. AI models don’t fail dramatically at first; they fail subtly when fed inconsistent or delayed data.

Below that lies integration debt—APIs, batch jobs, and custom connectors built years ago, often without clear ownership. When no one truly understands how systems talk to each other, scaling AI becomes risky and slow.

Even deeper is undocumented code—business logic embedded in scripts and services that only a few long-tenured employees understand. This is the most dangerous layer. When AI systems depend on logic no one can confidently explain, trust erodes quickly.

This is where the real problems live—beneath the surface. Organizations are trying to place advanced AI strategies on top of foundations that are unstable. It’s like installing smart automation in a building with unreliable wiring.

We’ve seen what happens when the foundation isn’t ready:

AI systems trained on “clean” lab data struggle in messy real-world environments.
Models inherit bias from historical datasets and amplify it.
Enterprise AI pilots stall—not because the algorithms are weak, but because data quality, workflows, and integrations can’t support them.

If AI is to work at scale, the invisible layers must become the priority.

Clean Data

Clean data means consistent definitions, deduplicated records, validated inputs, and reconciled sources of truth. It means knowing which dataset is authoritative. AI systems amplify whatever they are given—if the data is flawed, the intelligence will be flawed. Clean data is the difference between automation and chaos.

Strong Pipelines

Strong pipelines ensure data flows reliably, securely, and in near real time. They include monitoring, error handling, lineage tracking, and version control. AI cannot depend on pipelines that break quietly or require manual fixes. Reliability builds trust.

Disciplined Integration

Disciplined integration means structured APIs, documented interfaces, clear ownership, and controlled change management. AI agents must interact with systems in predictable ways. Without integration discipline, AI becomes brittle and risky.

Governance

Governance defines accountability—who owns the data, who approves models, who monitors bias, who audits outcomes. It aligns AI usage with regulatory, ethical, and operational standards. Without governance, AI becomes experimentation without guardrails.

Documentation

Documentation captures business logic, data definitions, workflows, and architectural decisions. It reduces dependency on tribal knowledge. In AI governance, documentation is not bureaucracy—it is institutional memory and operational resilience.

The Bigger Picture

GenAI is powerful. But it is not magic. It does not repair fragmented data landscapes or reconcile conflicting system logic. It accelerates whatever foundation already exists.

The organizations that succeed with AI won’t be the ones that move fastest at the top of the iceberg. They will be the ones willing to strengthen what lies beneath the waterline.

AI is the headline.
Data infrastructure is the foundation.
AI Governance is the discipline that makes transformation real.

My perspective: AI Governance is not about controlling innovation—it’s about preparing the enterprise so innovation doesn’t collapse under its own ambition. The “boring” work—data quality, integration discipline, documentation, and oversight—is not a delay to transformation. It is the transformation.

Tags: AI Strategy

Comments (0)

Feb 10 2026

From Ethics to Enforcement: The AI Governance Shift No One Can Ignore

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 1:24 pm

AI Governance Defined
AI governance is the framework of rules, controls, and accountability that ensures AI systems behave safely, ethically, transparently, and in compliance with law and business objectives. It goes beyond principles to include operational evidence — inventories, risk assessments, audit logs, human oversight, continuous monitoring, and documented decision ownership. In 2026, governance has moved from aspirational policy to mission-critical operational discipline that reduces enterprise risk and enables scalable, responsible AI adoption.

1. From Model Outputs → System Actions

What’s Changing:
Traditionally, risk focus centered on the outputs models produce — e.g., biased text or inaccurate predictions. But as AI systems become agentic (capable of acting autonomously in the world), the real risks lie in actions taken, not just outputs. That means governance must now cover runtime behaviour, include real-time monitoring, automated guardrails, and defined escalation paths.

My Perspective:
This shift recognizes that AI isn’t just a prediction engine — it can initiate transactions, schedule activities, and make decisions with real consequences. Governance must evolve accordingly, embedding control closer to execution and amplifying responsibilities around when and how the system interacts with people, data, and money. It’s a maturity leap from “what did the model say?” to “what did the system do?” — and that’s critical for legal defensibility and trust.

2. Enforcement Scales Beyond Pilots

What’s Changing:
What was voluntary guidance has become enforceable regulation. The EU AI Act’s high-risk rules kick in fully in 2026, and U.S. states are applying consumer protection and discrimination laws to AI behaviours. Regulators are even flagging documentation gaps as violations. Compliance can no longer be a single milestone; it must be a continuous operational capability similar to cybersecurity controls.

My Perspective:
This shift is seismic: AI governance now carries real legal and financial consequences. Organizations can’t rely on static policies or annual audits — they need ongoing evidence of how models are monitored, updated, and risk-assessed. Treating governance like a continuous control discipline closes the gap between intention and compliance, and is essential for risk-aware, evidence-ready AI adoption at scale.

3. Healthcare AI Signals Broader Direction

What’s Changing:
Regulated sectors like healthcare are pushing transparency, accountability, explainability, and documented risk assessments to the forefront. “Black-box” clinical algorithms are increasingly unacceptable; models must justify decisions before being trusted or deployed. What happens in healthcare is a leading indicator of where other regulated industries — finance, government, critical infrastructure — will head.

My Perspective:
Healthcare is a proving ground for accountable AI because the stakes are human lives. Requiring explainability artifacts and documented risk mitigation before deployment sets a new bar for governance maturity that others will inevitably follow. This trend accelerates the demise of opaque, undocumented AI practices and reinforces governance not as overhead, but as a deployment prerequisite.

4. Governance Moves Into Executive Accountability

What’s Changing:
AI governance is no longer siloed in IT or ethics committees — it’s now a board-level concern. Leaders are asking not just about technology but about risk exposure, audit readiness, and whether governance can withstand regulatory scrutiny. “Governance debt” (inconsistent, siloed, undocumented oversight) becomes visible at the highest levels and carries cost — through fines, forced system rollbacks, or reputational damage.

My Perspective:
This shift elevates governance from a back-office activity to a strategic enterprise risk function. When executives are accountable for AI risk, governance becomes integrated with legal, compliance, finance, and business strategy, not just technical operations. That integration is what makes governance resilient, auditable, and aligned with enterprise risk tolerance — and it signals that responsible AI adoption is a competitive differentiator, not just a compliance checkbox.

In Summary: The 2026 AI Governance Reality

AI governance in 2026 isn’t about writing policies — it’s about operationalizing controls, documenting evidence, and embedding accountability into AI lifecycles. These four shifts reflect the move from static principles to dynamic, enterprise-grade governance that manages risk proactively, satisfies regulators, and builds trust with stakeholders. Organizations that embrace this shift will not only reduce risk but unlock AI’s value responsibly and sustainably.

Tags: AI Governance

Comments (0)

Feb 09 2026

Understanding the Real Difference Between ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 8:41 am

Certified ≠ Compliant

1. The big picture
The image makes one thing very clear: ISO/IEC 42001 and the EU AI Act are related, but they are not the same thing. They overlap in intent—safe, responsible, and trustworthy AI—but they come from two very different worlds. One is a global management standard; the other is binding law.

2. What ISO/IEC 42001 really is
ISO/IEC 42001 is an international, voluntary standard for establishing an AI Management System (AIMS). It focuses on how an organization governs AI—policies, processes, roles, risk management, and continuous improvement. Being certified means you have a structured system to manage AI risks, not that your AI systems are legally approved for use in every jurisdiction.

3. What the EU AI Act actually does
The EU AI Act is a legal and regulatory framework specific to the European Union. It defines what is allowed, restricted, high-risk, or outright prohibited in AI systems. Compliance is mandatory, enforceable by regulators, and tied directly to penalties, market access, and legal exposure.

4. The shared principles that cause confusion
The overlap is real and meaningful. Both ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act emphasize transparency and accountability, risk management and safety, governance and ethics, documentation and reporting, data quality, human oversight, and trustworthy AI outcomes. This shared language often leads companies to assume one equals the other.

5. Where ISO 42001 stops short
ISO 42001 does not classify AI systems by risk level. It does not tell you whether your system is “high-risk,” “limited-risk,” or prohibited. Without that classification, organizations may build solid governance processes—while still governing the wrong risk category.

6. Conformity versus certification
ISO 42001 certification is voluntary and typically audited by certification bodies against management system requirements. The EU AI Act, however, can require formal conformity assessments, sometimes involving notified third parties, especially for high-risk systems. These are different auditors, different criteria, and very different consequences.

7. The blind spot around prohibited AI practices
ISO 42001 contains no explicit list of banned AI use cases. The EU AI Act does. Practices like social scoring, certain emotion recognition in workplaces, or real-time biometric identification may be illegal regardless of how mature your management system is. A well-run AIMS will not automatically flag illegality.

8. Enforcement and penalties change everything
Failing an ISO audit might mean corrective actions or losing a certificate. Failing the EU AI Act can mean fines of up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover, plus reputational and operational damage. The risk profiles are not even in the same league.

9. Certified does not mean compliant
This is the core message in the image and the text: ISO 42001 certification proves governance maturity, not legal compliance. The EU AI Act qualification proves regulatory alignment, not management system excellence. One cannot substitute for the other.

10. My perspective
Having both ISO 42001 certification and EU AI Act qualification exposes a hard truth many consultants gloss over: compliance frameworks do not stack automatically. ISO 42001 is a strong foundation—but it is not the finish line. Your certificate shows you are organized; it does not prove you are lawful. In AI governance, certified ≠ compliant, and knowing that difference is where real expertise begins.

Tags: EU AI Act, ISO 42001

Comments (0)

Feb 04 2026

AI-Powered Cloud Attacks: How Attackers Can Gain AWS Admin Access in Minutes—and How to Stop Them

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,Cyber Attack — disc7 @ 9:12 am

1. Emergence of AI-Accelerated Cloud Attacks

Recent cloud attacks demonstrate that threat actors are leveraging artificial intelligence tools to dramatically speed up their breach campaigns. According to research by the Sysdig Threat Research Team, attackers were able to go from initial access to full administrative control of an AWS environment in under 10 minutes by using large language models (LLMs) to automate key steps of the attack lifecycle. (Cyber Security News)

2. Initial Access: Credentials Exposed in Public Buckets

The intrusion began with trivial credential exposure: threat actors located valid AWS credentials stored in a public AWS S3 bucket containing Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) data. These credentials belonged to an AWS IAM user with read/write permissions on some Lambda functions and limited Amazon Bedrock access.

3. Rapid Reconnaissance with AI Assistance

Using the stolen credentials, the attackers conducted automated reconnaissance across 10+ AWS services (including CloudWatch, RDS, EC2, ECS, Systems Manager, and Secrets Manager). The AI helped generate malicious code and guide the attack logic, illustrating how LLMs can drastically compress the reconnaissance phase that previously took hours or days.

4. Privilege Escalation via Lambda Function Compromise

With enumeration complete, the attackers abused UpdateFunctionCode and UpdateFunctionConfiguration permissions on an existing Lambda function called “EC2-init” to inject malicious code. After just a few attempts, this granted them full administrative privileges by creating new access keys for an admin user.

5. AI Hallucinations and Behavioral Artifacts

Interestingly, the malicious scripts contained hallucinated content typical of AI generation, such as references to nonexistent AWS account IDs and GitHub repositories, plus comments in other languages like Serbian (“Kreiraj admin access key”—“Create admin access key”). These artifacts suggest the attackers used LLMs for real-time generation and decisioning.

6. Persistence and Lateral Movement Post-Escalation

Once administrative access was achieved, attackers set up a backdoor administrative user with full AdministratorAccess and executed additional steps to maintain persistence. They also provisioned high-cost EC2 GPU instances with open JupyterLab servers, effectively establishing remote access independent of AWS credentials.

7. Indicators of Compromise and Defensive Advice

The article highlights phishing indicators like rotating IP addresses and multiple IAM principals involved. It concludes with best-practice recommendations, including enforcing least-privilege IAM policies, restricting sensitive Lambda permissions (especially UpdateFunctionConfiguration and PassRole), disabling public access to sensitive S3 buckets, and enabling comprehensive logging (e.g., for Bedrock model invocation).

My Perspective: Risk & Mitigation

Risk Assessment

This incident underscores a stark reality in modern cloud security: AI doesn’t just empower defenders — it empowers attackers. The speed at which an adversary can go from initial access to full compromise is collapsing, meaning legacy detection windows (hours to days) are no longer sufficient. Public exposure of credentials — even with limited permissions — remains one of the most critical enablers of privilege escalation in cloud environments today.

Beyond credential leaks, the attack chain illustrates how misconfigured IAM permissions and overly broad function privileges give attackers multiple opportunities to escalate. This is consistent with broader cloud security research showing privilege abuse paths through policies like iam:PassRole or functions that allow arbitrary code updates.

AI’s involvement also highlights an emerging risk: attackers can generate and adapt exploit code on the fly, bypassing traditional static defenses and making manual incident response too slow to keep up.

Mitigation Strategies

Preventative Measures

Eliminate Public Exposure of Secrets: Use automated tools to scan for exposed credentials before they ever hit public S3 buckets or code repositories.
Least Privilege IAM Enforcement: Restrict IAM roles to only the permissions absolutely required, leveraging access reviews and tools like IAM Access Analyzer.
Minimize Sensitive Permissions: Remove or tightly guard permissions like UpdateFunctionCode, UpdateFunctionConfiguration, and iam:PassRole across your environment.
Immutable Deployment Practices: Protect Lambda and container deployments via code signing, versioning, and approval gates to reduce the impact of unauthorized function modifications.

Detective Controls

Comprehensive Logging: Enable CloudTrail, Lambda function invocation logs, and model invocation logging where applicable to detect unusual patterns.
Anomaly Detection: Deploy behavioral analytics that can flag rapid cross-service access or unusual privilege escalation attempts in real time.
Segmentation & Zero Trust: Implement network and identity segmentation to limit lateral movement even after credential compromise.

Responsive Measures

Incident Playbooks for AI-augmented Attacks: Develop and rehearse response plans that assume compromise within minutes.
Automated Containment: Use automated workflows to immediately rotate credentials, revoke risky policies, and isolate suspicious principals.

By combining prevention, detection, and rapid response, organizations can significantly reduce the likelihood that an initial breach — especially one accelerated by AI — escalates into full administrative control of cloud environments.

Tags: AWS Admin, Cloud Attacks

Comments (0)

Feb 03 2026

The Invisible Workforce: How Unmonitored AI Agents Are Becoming the Next Major Enterprise Security Risk

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,Information Security — disc7 @ 3:30 pm

How Unmonitored AI agents are becoming the next major enterprise security risk

1. A rapidly growing “invisible workforce.”
Enterprises in the U.S. and U.K. have deployed an estimated 3 million autonomous AI agents into corporate environments. These digital agents are designed to perform tasks independently, but almost half—about 1.5 million—are operating without active governance or security oversight. (Security Boulevard)

2. Productivity vs. control.
While businesses are embracing these agents for efficiency gains, their adoption is outpacing security teams’ ability to manage them effectively. A survey of technology leaders found that roughly 47 % of AI agents are ungoverned, creating fertile ground for unintended or chaotic behavior.

3. What makes an agent “rogue”?
In this context, a rogue agent refers to one acting outside of its intended parameters—making unauthorized decisions, exposing sensitive data, or triggering significant security breaches. Because they act autonomously and at machine speed, such agents can quickly elevate risks if not properly restrained.

4. Real-world impacts already happening.
The research revealed that 88 % of firms have experienced or suspect incidents involving AI agents in the past year. These include agents using outdated information, leaking confidential data, or even deleting entire datasets without authorization.

5. The readiness gap.
As organizations prepare to deploy millions more agents in 2026, security teams feel increasingly overwhelmed. According to industry reports, while nearly all professionals acknowledge AI’s efficiency benefits, nearly half feel unprepared to defend against AI-driven threats.

6. Call for better governance.
Experts argue that the same discipline applied to traditional software and APIs must be extended to autonomous agents. Without governance frameworks, audit trails, access control, and real-time monitoring, these systems can become liabilities rather than assets.

7. Security friction with innovation.
The core tension is clear: organizations want the productivity promises of agentic AI, but security and operational controls lag far behind adoption, risking data breaches, compliance failures, and system outages if this gap isn’t closed.

My Perspective

The article highlights a central tension in modern AI adoption: speed of innovation vs. maturity of security practices. Autonomous AI agents are unlike traditional software assets—they operate with a degree of unpredictability, act on behalf of humans, and often wield broad access privileges that traditional identity and access management tools were never designed to handle. Without comprehensive governance frameworks, real-time monitoring, and rigorous identity controls, these agents can easily turn into insider threats, amplified by their speed and autonomy (a theme echoed across broader industry reporting).

From a security and compliance viewpoint, this demands a shift in how organizations think about non-human actors: they should be treated with the same rigor as privileged human users—including onboarding/offboarding workflows, continuous risk assessment, and least-privilege access models. Ignoring this is likely to result in not if but when incidents with serious operational and reputational consequences occur. In short, governance needs to catch up with innovation—or the invisible workforce could become the source of visible harm.

Tags: AI Agents, The Invisible workforce

Comments (0)

Feb 03 2026

The AI-Native Consulting Shift: Why Architects Will Replace Traditional Experts

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 8:27 am

The Rise of the AI-Native Consulting Model

The consulting industry is experiencing a structural shock. Work that once took seasoned consultants weeks—market analysis, competitive research, strategy modeling, and slide creation—can now be completed by AI in minutes. This isn’t a marginal efficiency gain; it’s a fundamental change in how value is produced. The immediate reaction is fear of obsolescence, but the deeper reality is transformation, not extinction.

What’s breaking down is the traditional consulting model built on billable hours, junior-heavy execution, and the myth of exclusive expertise. Large firms are already acknowledging a “scaling imperative,” where AI absorbs the repetitive, research-heavy work that once justified armies of analysts. Clients are no longer paying for effort or time spent—they’re paying for outcomes.

At the same time, a new role is emerging. Consultants are shifting from “doers” to designers—architects of human-machine systems. The value is no longer in producing analysis, but in orchestrating how AI, data, people, and decisions come together. Expertise is being redefined from “knowing more” to “designing better collaboration between humans and machines.”

Despite AI’s power, there are critical capabilities it cannot automate. Navigating organizational politics, aligning stakeholders with competing incentives, and sensing resistance or fear inside teams remain deeply human skills. AI can model scenarios and probabilities, but it cannot judge whether a 75% likelihood of success is acceptable when a company’s survival or reputation is at stake.

This reframes how consultants should think about future-proofing their careers. Learning to code or trying to out-analyze AI misses the point. The competitive edge lies in governance design, ethical oversight, organizational change, and decision accountability—areas where AI must be guided, constrained, and supervised by humans.

The market signal is already clear: within the next 18–24 months, AI-driven analysis will be table stakes. Clients will expect outcome-based pricing, embedded AI usage, and clear governance models. Consultants who fail to reposition will be seen as expensive intermediaries between clients and tools they could run themselves.

My perspective: The “AI-Native Consulting Model” is not about replacing consultants with machines—it’s about elevating the role of the consultant. The future belongs to those who can design systems, govern AI behavior, and take responsibility for decisions AI cannot own. Consultants won’t disappear, but the ones who survive will look far more like architects, stewards, and trusted decision partners than traditional experts delivering decks.

Tags: AI-Native consulting model

Comments (0)

Feb 02 2026

The New Frontier of AI-Driven Cybersecurity Risk

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,Deepfakes — disc7 @ 10:37 pm

When Job Interviews Turn into Deepfake Threats – AI Just Applied for Your Job—And It’s a Deepfake

Sophisticated Social Engineering in Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity is evolving rapidly, and a recent incident highlights just how vulnerable even seasoned professionals can be to advanced social engineering attacks. Dawid Moczadlo, co-founder of Vidoc Security Lab, recounted an experience that serves as a critical lesson for hiring managers and security teams alike: during a standard job interview for a senior engineering role, he discovered that the candidate he was speaking with was actually a deepfake—an AI-generated impostor.

Red Flags in the Interview
Initially, the interview appeared routine, but subtle inconsistencies began to emerge. The candidate’s responses felt slightly unnatural, and there were noticeable facial movement and audio synchronization issues. The deception became undeniable when Moczadlo asked the candidate to place a hand in front of their face—a test the AI could not accurately simulate, revealing the impostor.

Why This Matters
This incident marks a shift in the landscape of employment fraud. We are moving beyond simple resume lies and reference manipulations into an era where synthetic identities can pass initial screening. The potential consequences are severe: deepfake candidates could facilitate corporate espionage, commit financial fraud, or even infiltrate critical infrastructure for national security purposes.

A Wake-Up Call for Organizations
Traditional hiring practices are no longer adequate. Organizations must implement multi-layered verification strategies, especially for sensitive roles. Recommended measures include mandatory in-person or hybrid interviews, advanced biometric verification, real-time deepfake detection tools, and more robust background checks.

Moving Forward with AI Security
As AI capabilities continue to advance, cybersecurity defenses must evolve in parallel. Tools such as Perplexity AI and Comet are proving essential for understanding and mitigating these emerging threats. The situation underscores that cybersecurity is now an arms race; the question for organizations is not whether they will be targeted, but whether they are prepared to respond effectively when it happens.

Perspective
This incident illustrates the accelerating intersection of AI and cybersecurity threats. Deepfake technology is no longer a novelty—it’s a weapon that can compromise hiring, data security, and even national safety. Organizations that underestimate these risks are setting themselves up for potentially catastrophic consequences. Proactive measures, ongoing AI threat research, and layered defenses are no longer optional—they are critical.

Tags: DeepFake Threats

Comments (0)

Feb 02 2026

AI Has Joined the Attacker Team: An Executive Wake-Up Call for Cyber Risk Leaders

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,CISO,Cyber Attack,Information Security,vCISO — disc7 @ 8:26 am

AI Has Joined the Attacker Team

The threat landscape is entering a new phase with the rise of AI-assisted malware. What once required well-funded teams and months of development can now be created by a single individual in days using AI. This dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for advanced cyberattacks.

This shift means attackers can scale faster, adapt quicker, and deliver higher-quality attacks with fewer resources. As a result, smaller and mid-sized organizations are no longer “too small to matter” and are increasingly attractive targets.

Emerging malware frameworks are more modular, stealthy, and cloud-aware, designed to persist, evade detection, and blend into modern IT environments. Traditional signature-based defenses and slow response models are struggling to keep pace with this speed and sophistication.

Critically, this is no longer just a technical problem — it is a business risk. AI-enabled attacks increase the likelihood of operational disruption, regulatory exposure, financial loss, and reputational damage, often faster than organizations can react.

Organizations that will remain resilient are not those chasing the latest tools, but those making strategic security decisions. This includes treating cybersecurity as a core element of business resilience, not an IT afterthought.

Key priorities include moving toward Zero Trust and behavior-based detection, maintaining strong asset visibility and patch hygiene, investing in practical security awareness, and establishing clear governance around internal AI usage.

The cybersecurity landscape is undergoing a fundamental shift with the emergence of a new class of malware that is largely created using artificial intelligence (AI) rather than traditional development teams. Recent reporting shows that advanced malware frameworks once requiring months of collaborative effort can now be developed in days with AI’s help.

The most prominent example prompting this concern is the discovery of the VoidLink malware framework — an AI-driven, cloud-native Linux malware platform uncovered by security researchers. Rather than being a simple script or proof-of-concept, VoidLink appears to be a full, modular framework with sophisticated stealth and persistence capabilities.

What makes this remarkable isn’t just the malware itself, but how it was developed: evidence points to a single individual using AI tools to generate and assemble most of the code, something that previously would have required a well-coordinated team of experts.

This capability accelerates threat development dramatically. Where malware used to take months to design, code, test, iterate, and refine, AI assistance can collapse that timeline to days or weeks, enabling adversaries with limited personnel and resources to produce highly capable threats.

The practical implications are significant. Advanced malware frameworks like VoidLink are being engineered to operate stealthily within cloud and container environments, adapt to target systems, evade detection, and maintain long-term footholds. They’re not throwaway tools — they’re designed for persistent, strategic compromise.

This isn’t an abstract future problem. Already, there are real examples of AI-assisted malware research showing how AI can be used to create more evasive and adaptable malicious code — from polymorphic ransomware that sidesteps detection to automated worms that spread faster than defenders can respond.

The rise of AI-generated malware fundamentally challenges traditional defenses. Signature-based detection, static analysis, and manual response processes struggle when threats are both novel and rapidly evolving. The attack surface expands when bad actors leverage the same AI innovation that defenders use.

For security leaders, this means rethinking strategies: investing in behavior-based detection, threat hunting, cloud-native security controls, and real-time monitoring rather than relying solely on legacy defenses. Organizations must assume that future threats may be authored as much by machines as by humans.

In my view, this transition marks one of the first true inflection points in cyber risk: AI has joined the attacker team not just as a helper, but as a core part of the offensive playbook. This amplifies both the pace and quality of attacks and underscores the urgency of evolving our defensive posture from reactive to anticipatory. We’re not just defending against more attacks — we’re defending against self-evolving, machine-assisted adversaries.

Perspective:
AI has permanently altered the economics of cybercrime. The question for leadership is no longer “Are we secure today?” but “Are we adapting fast enough for what’s already here?” Organizations that fail to evolve their security strategy at the speed of AI will find themselves defending yesterday’s risks against tomorrow’s attackers.

Tags: AI Attacker Team, Attacker Team, Cyber Risk Leaders

Comments (0)

Jan 30 2026

Integrating ISO 42001 AI Management Systems into Existing ISO 27001 Frameworks

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 27k,ISO 42001,vCISO — disc7 @ 12:36 pm

Key Implementation Steps

Defining Your AI Governance Scope

The first step in integrating AI management systems is establishing clear boundaries within your existing information security framework. Organizations should conduct a comprehensive inventory of all AI systems currently deployed, including machine learning models, large language models, and recommendation engines. This involves identifying which departments and teams are actively using or developing AI capabilities, and mapping how these systems interact with assets already covered under your ISMS such as databases, applications, and infrastructure. For example, if your ISMS currently manages CRM and analytics platforms, you would extend coverage to include AI-powered chatbots or fraud detection systems that rely on that data.

Expanding Risk Assessment for AI-Specific Threats

Traditional information security risk registers must be augmented to capture AI-unique vulnerabilities that fall outside conventional cybersecurity concerns. Organizations should incorporate risks such as algorithmic bias and discrimination in AI outputs, model poisoning and adversarial attacks, shadow AI adoption through unauthorized LLM tools, and intellectual property leakage through training data or prompts. The ISO 42001 Annex A controls provide valuable guidance here, and organizations can leverage existing risk methodologies like ISO 27005 or NIST RMF while extending them with AI-specific threat vectors and impact scenarios.

Updating Governance Policies for AI Integration

Rather than creating entirely separate AI policies, organizations should strategically enhance existing ISMS documentation to address AI governance. This includes updating Acceptable Use Policies to restrict unauthorized use of public AI tools, revising Data Classification Policies to properly tag and protect training datasets, strengthening Third-Party Risk Policies to evaluate AI vendors and their model provenance, and enhancing Change Management Policies to enforce model version control and deployment approval workflows. The key is creating an AI Governance Policy that references and builds upon existing ISMS documents rather than duplicating effort.

Building AI Oversight into Security Governance Structures

Effective AI governance requires expanding your existing information security committee or steering council to include stakeholders with AI-specific expertise. Organizations should incorporate data scientists, AI/ML engineers, legal and privacy professionals, and dedicated risk and compliance leads into governance structures. New roles should be formally defined, including AI Product Owners who manage AI system lifecycles, Model Risk Managers who assess AI-specific threats, and Ethics Reviewers who evaluate fairness and bias concerns. Creating an AI Risk Subcommittee that reports to the existing ISMS steering committee ensures integration without fragmenting governance.

Managing AI Models as Information Assets

AI models and their associated components must be incorporated into existing asset inventory and change management processes. Each model should be registered with comprehensive metadata including training data lineage and provenance, intended purpose with performance metrics and known limitations, complete version history and deployment records, and clear ownership assignments. Organizations should leverage their existing ISMS Change Management processes to govern AI model updates, retraining cycles, and deprecation decisions, treating models with the same rigor as other critical information assets.

Aligning ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 Control Frameworks

To avoid duplication and reduce audit burden, organizations should create detailed mapping matrices between ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 Annex A controls. Many controls have significant overlap—for instance, ISO 42001’s AI Risk Management controls (A.5.2) extend existing ISO 27001 risk assessment and treatment controls (A.6 & A.8), while AI System Development requirements (A.6.1) build upon ISO 27001’s secure development lifecycle controls (A.14). By identifying these overlaps, organizations can implement unified controls that satisfy both standards simultaneously, documenting the integration for auditor review.

Incorporating AI into Security Awareness Training

Security awareness programs must evolve to address AI-specific risks that employees encounter daily. Training modules should cover responsible AI use policies and guidelines, prompt safety practices to prevent data leakage through AI interactions, recognition of bias and fairness concerns in AI outputs, and practical decision-making scenarios such as “Is it acceptable to input confidential client data into ChatGPT?” Organizations can extend existing learning management systems and awareness campaigns rather than building separate AI training programs, ensuring consistent messaging and compliance tracking.

Auditing AI Governance Implementation

Internal audit programs should be expanded to include AI-specific checkpoints alongside traditional ISMS audit activities. Auditors should verify AI model approval and deployment processes, review documentation demonstrating bias testing and fairness assessments, investigate shadow AI discovery and remediation efforts, and examine dataset security and access controls throughout the AI lifecycle. Rather than creating separate audit streams, organizations should integrate AI-specific controls into existing ISMS audit checklists for each process area, ensuring comprehensive coverage during regular audit cycles.

My Perspective

This integration approach represents exactly the right strategy for organizations navigating AI governance. Having worked extensively with both ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 implementations, I’ve seen firsthand how creating parallel governance structures leads to confusion, duplicated effort, and audit fatigue. The Rivedix framework correctly emphasizes building upon existing ISMS foundations rather than starting from scratch.

What particularly resonates is the focus on shadow AI risks and the practical awareness training recommendations. In my experience at DISC InfoSec and through ShareVault’s certification journey, the biggest AI governance gaps aren’t technical controls—they’re human behavior patterns where well-meaning employees inadvertently expose sensitive data through ChatGPT, Claude, or other LLMs because they lack clear guidance. The “47 controls you’re missing” concept between ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 provides excellent positioning for explaining why AI-specific governance matters to executives who already think their ISMS “covers everything.”

The mapping matrix approach (point 6) is essential but often overlooked. Without clear documentation showing how ISO 42001 requirements are satisfied through existing ISO 27001 controls plus AI-specific extensions, organizations end up with duplicate controls, conflicting procedures, and confused audit findings. ShareVault’s approach of treating AI systems as first-class assets in our existing change management processes has proven far more sustainable than maintaining separate AI and IT change processes.

If I were to add one element this guide doesn’t emphasize enough, it would be the importance of continuous monitoring and metrics. Organizations should establish AI-specific KPIs—model drift detection, bias metric trends, shadow AI discovery rates, training data lineage coverage—that feed into existing ISMS dashboards and management review processes. This ensures AI governance remains visible and accountable rather than becoming a compliance checkbox exercise.

Tags: Integrating ISO 42001, iso 27001, ISO 27701

Comments (0)

Jan 30 2026

Cybersecurity in the Age of AI: Why Intelligent, Governed Security Workflows Matter More Than Ever

Category: AI,AI Governance,cyber security — disc7 @ 9:46 am

Why Cybersecurity Is Critical in the Age of AI

In today’s world, cybersecurity matters more than ever because artificial intelligence dramatically changes both how attacks happen and how defenses must work. AI amplifies scale, speed, and sophistication—enabling attackers to automate phishing, probe systems, and evolve malware far faster than human teams can respond on their own. At the same time, AI can help defenders sift through massive datasets, spot subtle patterns, and automate routine work to reduce alert fatigue. That dual nature makes cybersecurity foundational to protecting organizations’ data, systems, and operations: without strong security, AI becomes another vulnerability rather than a defensive advantage.

Greater Executive Engagement Meets Growing Workload Pressure

Security teams are now more involved in strategic business discussions than in prior years, particularly around resilience, risk tolerance, and continuity. While this elevated visibility brings more board-level support and scrutiny, it also increases pressure to deliver measurable outcomes such as compliance posture, incident-handling metrics, and vulnerability coverage. Despite AI being used broadly, many routine tasks like evidence collection and ticket coordination remain manual, stretching teams thin and contributing to fatigue.

AI Now Powers Everyday Security Tasks—With New Risks

AI isn’t experimental anymore—it’s part of the everyday security toolkit for functions such as threat intelligence, detection, identity monitoring, phishing analysis, ticket triage, and compliance reporting. But as AI becomes integrated into core operations, it brings new attack surfaces and risks. Data leakage through AI copilots, unmanaged internal AI tools, and prompt manipulation are emerging concerns that intersect with sensitive data and access controls. These issues mean security teams must govern how AI is used as much as where it is used.

AI Governance Has Become an Operational Imperative

Organizations are increasingly formalizing AI policies and AI governance frameworks. Teams with clear rules and review processes feel more confident that AI outputs are safe and auditable before they influence decisions. Governance now covers data handling, access management, lifecycle oversight of models, and ensuring automation respects compliance obligations. These governance structures aren’t optional—they help balance innovation with risk control and affect how quickly automation can be adopted.

Manual Processes Still Cause Burnout and Risk

Even as AI tools are adopted, many operational workflows remain manual. Frequent context switching between tools and repetitive tasks increases cognitive load and retention risk among security practitioners. Manual work also introduces operational risk—human error slows response times and limits scale during incidents. Many teams now see automation and connected workflows as essential for reducing manual burden, improving morale, and stabilizing operations.

Connected, AI-Driven Workflows Are Gaining Traction

A growing number of teams are exploring platforms that blend automation, AI, and human oversight into seamless workflows. These “intelligent workflow” approaches reduce manual handoffs, speed response times, and improve data accuracy and tracking. Interoperability—standards and APIs that allow AI systems to interact reliably with tools—is becoming more important as organizations seek to embed AI deeply yet safely into core security processes. Teams recognize that AI alone isn’t enough—it must be integrated with governance and strong workflow design to deliver real impact.

My Perspective: The State of Cybersecurity in the AI Era

Cybersecurity in 2026 stands at a crossroads between risk acceleration and defensive transformation. AI has moved from exploration into everyday operations—but so too have AI-related threats and vulnerabilities. Many organizations are still catching up: only a minority have dedicated AI security protections or teams, and governance remains immature in many environments.

The net effect is that AI amplifies both sides of the equation: attackers can probe and exploit systems at machine speed, while defenders can automate detection and response at volumes humans could never manage alone. The organizations that succeed will be those that treat AI security not as a feature but as an integral part of their cybersecurity strategy—coupling strong AI governance, human-in-loop oversight, and well-designed workflows with intelligent automation. Cybersecurity isn’t less important in the age of AI—it’s foundational to making AI safe, reliable, and trustworthy.

In a recent interview and accompanying essay, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warns that humanity is not prepared for the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence and the profound disruptions it could bring. He argues that existing social, political, and economic systems may lag behind the pace of AI advancements, creating a dangerous mismatch between capability and governance.

Tags: Cybersecurity in the Age of AI

Comments (0)

Jan 28 2026

AI Is the New Shadow IT: Why Cybersecurity Must Own AI Risk and Governance

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 2:01 pm

AI is increasingly being compared to shadow IT, not because it is inherently reckless, but because it is being adopted faster than governance structures can keep up. This framing resonated strongly in recent discussions, including last week’s webinar, where there was broad agreement that AI is simply the latest wave of technology entering organizations through both sanctioned and unsanctioned paths.

What is surprising, however, is that some cybersecurity leaders believe AI should fall outside their responsibility. This mindset creates a dangerous gap. Historically, when new technologies emerged—cloud computing, SaaS platforms, mobile devices—security teams were eventually expected to step in, assess risk, and establish controls. AI is following the same trajectory.

From a practical standpoint, AI is still software. It runs on infrastructure, consumes data, integrates with applications, and influences business processes. If cybersecurity teams already have responsibility for securing software systems, data flows, and third-party tools, then AI naturally falls within that same scope. Treating it as an exception only delays accountability.

That said, AI is not just another application. While it shares many of the same risks as traditional software, it also introduces new dimensions that security and risk teams must recognize. Models can behave unpredictably, learn from biased data, or produce outcomes that are difficult to explain or audit.

One of the most significant shifts AI introduces is the prominence of ethics and automated decision-making. Unlike conventional software that follows explicit rules, AI systems can influence hiring decisions, credit approvals, medical recommendations, and security actions at scale. These outcomes can have real-world consequences that go beyond confidentiality, integrity, and availability.

Because of this, cybersecurity leadership must expand its lens. Traditional controls like access management, logging, and vulnerability management remain critical, but they must be complemented with governance around model use, data provenance, human oversight, and accountability for AI-driven decisions.

Ultimately, the debate is not about whether AI belongs to cybersecurity—it clearly does—but about how the function evolves to manage it responsibly. Ignoring AI or pushing it to another team risks repeating the same mistakes made with shadow IT in the past.

My perspective: AI really is shadow IT in its early phase—new, fast-moving, and business-driven—but that is precisely why cybersecurity and risk leaders must step in early. The organizations that succeed will be the ones that treat AI as software plus governance: securing it technically while also addressing ethics, transparency, and decision accountability. That combination turns AI from an unmanaged risk into a governed capability.

Tags: Shadow AI, Shadow IT

Comments (0)

Jan 27 2026

AI Model Risk Management: A Five-Stage Framework for Trust, Compliance, and Control

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 3:15 pm

Stage 1: Risk Identification – What could go wrong?

Risk Identification focuses on proactively uncovering potential issues before an AI model causes harm. The primary challenge at this stage is identifying all relevant risks and vulnerabilities, including data quality issues, security weaknesses, ethical concerns, and unintended biases embedded in training data or model logic. Organizations must also understand how the model could fail or be misused across different contexts. Key tasks include systematically identifying risks, mapping vulnerabilities across the AI lifecycle, and recognizing bias and fairness concerns early so they can be addressed before deployment.

Stage 2: Risk Assessment – How severe is the risk?

Risk Assessment evaluates the significance of identified risks by analyzing their likelihood and potential impact on the organization, users, and regulatory obligations. A key challenge here is accurately measuring risk severity while also assessing whether the model performs as intended under real-world conditions. Organizations must balance technical performance metrics with business, legal, and ethical implications. Key tasks include scoring and prioritizing risks, evaluating model performance, and determining which risks require immediate mitigation versus ongoing monitoring.

Stage 3: Risk Mitigation – How do we reduce the risk?

Risk Mitigation aims to reduce exposure by implementing controls and corrective actions that address prioritized risks. The main challenge is designing safeguards that effectively reduce risk without degrading model performance or business value. This stage often requires technical and organizational coordination. Key tasks include implementing safeguards, mitigating bias, adjusting or retraining models, enhancing explainability, and testing controls to confirm that mitigation measures supports responsible and reliable AI operation.

Stage 4: Risk Monitoring – Are new risks emerging?

Risk Monitoring ensures that AI models remain safe, reliable, and compliant after deployment. A key challenge is continuously monitoring model performance in dynamic environments where data, usage patterns, and threats evolve over time. Organizations must detect model drift, emerging risks, and anomalies before they escalate. Key tasks include ongoing oversight, continuous performance monitoring, detecting and reporting anomalies, and updating risk controls to reflect new insights or changing conditions.

Stage 5: Risk Governance – Is risk management effective?

Risk Governance provides the oversight and accountability needed to ensure AI risk management remains effective and compliant. The main challenges at this stage are establishing clear accountability and ensuring alignment with regulatory requirements, internal policies, and ethical standards. Governance connects technical controls with organizational decision-making. Key tasks include enforcing policies and standards, reviewing and auditing AI risk management practices, maintaining documentation, and ensuring accountability across stakeholders.

Closing Perspective

A well-structured AI Model Risk Management framework transforms AI risk from an abstract concern into a managed, auditable, and defensible process. By systematically identifying, assessing, mitigating, monitoring, and governing AI risks, organizations can reduce regulatory, financial, and reputational exposure—while enabling trustworthy, scalable, and responsible AI adoption.

Tags: AI Model Risk Management

Comments (0)

Jan 26 2026

From Concept to Control: Why AI Boundaries, Accountability, and Responsibility Matter

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 12:49 pm

1. Defining AI boundaries clarifies purpose and limits
Clear AI boundaries answer the most basic question: what is this AI meant to do—and what is it not meant to do? By explicitly defining purpose, scope, and constraints, organizations prevent unintended use, scope creep, and over-reliance on the system. Boundaries ensure the AI is applied only within approved business and user contexts, reducing the risk of misuse or decision-making outside its design assumptions.

2. Boundaries anchor AI to real-world business context
AI does not operate in a vacuum. Understanding where an AI system is used—by which business function, user group, or operational environment—connects technical capability to real-world impact. Contextual boundaries help identify downstream effects, regulatory exposure, and operational dependencies that may not be obvious during development but become critical after deployment.

3. Accountability establishes clear ownership
Accountability answers the question: who owns this AI system? Without a clearly accountable owner, AI risks fall into organizational gaps. Assigning an accountable individual or function ensures there is someone responsible for approvals, risk acceptance, and corrective action when issues arise. This mirrors mature governance practices seen in security, privacy, and compliance programs.

4. Ownership enables informed risk decisions
When accountability is explicit, risk discussions become practical rather than theoretical. The accountable owner is best positioned to balance safety, bias, privacy, security, and business risks against business value. This enables informed decisions about whether risks are acceptable, need mitigation, or require stopping deployment altogether.

5. Responsibilities translate risk into safeguards
Defined responsibilities ensure that identified risks lead to concrete action. This includes implementing safeguards and controls, establishing monitoring and evidence collection, and defining escalation paths for incidents. Responsibilities ensure that risk management does not end at design time but continues throughout the AI lifecycle.

6. Post–go-live responsibilities protect long-term trust
AI risks evolve after deployment due to model drift, data changes, or new usage patterns. Clearly defined responsibilities ensure continuous monitoring, incident response, and timely escalation. This “after go-live” ownership is critical to maintaining trust with users, regulators, and stakeholders as real-world behavior diverges from initial assumptions.

7. Governance enables confident AI readiness decisions
When boundaries, accountability, and responsibilities are well defined, organizations can make credible AI readiness decisions—ready, conditionally ready, or not ready. These decisions are based on evidence, controls, and ownership rather than optimism or pressure to deploy.

Opinion (with AI Governance and ISO/IEC 42001):

In my view, boundaries, accountability, and responsibilities are the difference between using AI and governing AI. This is precisely where a formal AI Governance function becomes critical. Governance ensures these elements are not ad hoc or project-specific, but consistently defined, enforced, and reviewed across the organization. Without governance, AI risk remains abstract and unmanaged; with it, risk becomes measurable, owned, and actionable.

Acquiring ISO/IEC 42001 certification strengthens this governance model by institutionalizing accountability, decision rights, and lifecycle controls for AI systems. ISO 42001 requires organizations to clearly define AI purpose and boundaries, assign accountable owners, manage risks such as bias, security, and privacy, and demonstrate ongoing monitoring and incident handling. In effect, it operationalizes responsible AI rather than leaving it as a policy statement.

Together, strong AI governance and ISO 42001 shift AI risk management from technical optimism to disciplined decision-making. Leaders gain the confidence to approve, constrain, or halt AI systems based on evidence, controls, and real-world impact—rather than hype, urgency, or unchecked innovation.

Tags: AI Accountability, AI Boundaries, AI Responsibility

Comments (0)

Jan 23 2026

When AI Turns Into an Autonomous Hacker: Rethinking Cyber Defense at Machine Speed

Category: AI,AI Guardrails,Cyber resilience,cyber security,Hacking — disc7 @ 8:09 am

“AIs are Getting Better at Finding and Exploiting Internet Vulnerabilities”

Bruce Schneier highlights a significant development: advanced AI models are now better at automatically finding and exploiting vulnerabilities on real networks, not just assisting humans in security tasks.
In a notable evaluation, the Claude Sonnet 4.5 model successfully completed multi-stage attacks across dozens of hosts using standard, open-source tools — without the specialized toolkits previous AI needed.
In one simulation, the model autonomously identified and exploited a public Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) instance — similar to how the infamous Equifax breach worked — and exfiltrated all simulated personal data.
What makes this more concerning is that the model wrote exploit code instantly instead of needing to search for or iterate on information. This shows AI’s increasing autonomous capability.
The implication, Schneier explains, is that barriers to autonomous cyberattack workflows are falling quickly, meaning even moderately resourced attackers can use AI to automate exploitation processes.
Because these AIs can operate without custom cyber toolkits and quickly recognize known vulnerabilities, traditional defenses that rely on the slow cycle of patching and response are less effective.
Schneier underscores that this evolution reflects broader trends in cybersecurity: not only can AI help defenders find and patch issues faster, but it also lowers the cost and skill required for attackers to execute complex attacks.
The rapid progression of these AI capabilities suggests a future where automatic exploitation isn’t just theoretical — it’s becoming practical and potentially widespread.
While Schneier does not explore defensive strategies in depth in this brief post, the message is unmistakable: core security fundamentals—such as timely patching and disciplined vulnerability management—are more critical than ever. I’m confident we’ll see a far more detailed and structured analysis of these implications in a future book.
This development should prompt organizations to rethink traditional workflows and controls, and to invest in strategies that assume attackers may have machine-speed capabilities.

💭 My Opinion

The fact that AI models like Claude Sonnet 4.5 can autonomously identify and exploit vulnerabilities using only common open-source tools marks a pivotal shift in the cybersecurity landscape. What was once a human-driven process requiring deep expertise is now slipping into automated workflows that amplify both speed and scale of attacks. This doesn’t mean all cyberattacks will be AI-driven tomorrow, but it dramatically lowers the barrier to entry for sophisticated attacks.

From a defensive standpoint, it underscores that reactive patch-and-pray security is no longer sufficient. Organizations need to adopt proactive, continuous security practices — including automated scanning, AI-enhanced threat modeling, and Zero Trust architectures — to stay ahead of attackers who may soon operate at machine timescales. This also reinforces the importance of security fundamentals like timely patching and vulnerability management as the first line of defense in a world where AI accelerates both offense and defense.

Tags: Autonomous Hacker, Schneier

Comments (0)

Jan 22 2026

CrowdStrike Sets the Standard for Responsible AI in Cybersecurity with ISO/IEC 42001 Certification

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 9:47 am

CrowdStrike has achieved ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification, demonstrating a mature, independently audited approach to the responsible design, development, and operation of AI-powered cybersecurity. The certification covers key components of the CrowdStrike Falcon® platform, including Endpoint Security, Falcon® Insight XDR, and Charlotte AI, validating that AI governance is embedded across its core capabilities.

ISO 42001 is the world’s first AI management system standard and provides organizations with a globally recognized framework for managing AI risks while aligning with emerging regulatory and ethical expectations. By achieving this certification, CrowdStrike reinforces customer trust in how it governs AI and positions itself as a leader in safely scaling AI innovation to counter AI-enabled cyber threats.

CrowdStrike leadership emphasized that responsible AI governance is foundational for cybersecurity vendors. Being among the first in the industry to achieve ISO 42001 signals operational maturity and discipline in how AI is developed and operated across the Falcon platform, rather than treating AI governance as an afterthought.

The announcement also highlights the growing reality of AI-accelerated threats. Adversaries are increasingly using AI to automate and scale attacks, forcing defenders to rely on AI-powered security tools. Unlike attackers, defenders must operate under governance, accountability, and regulatory constraints, making standards-based and risk-aware AI essential for effective defense.

CrowdStrike’s AI-native Falcon platform continuously analyzes behavior across the attack surface to deliver real-time protection. Charlotte AI represents the shift toward an “agentic SOC,” where intelligent agents automate routine security tasks under human supervision, enabling analysts to focus on higher-value strategic decisions instead of manual alert handling.

Key components of this agentic approach include mission-ready security agents trained on real-world incident response expertise, no-code tools that allow organizations to build custom agents, and an orchestration layer that coordinates CrowdStrike, custom, and third-party agents into a unified defense system guided by human oversight.

Importantly, CrowdStrike positions Charlotte AI within a model of bounded autonomy. This ensures security teams retain control over AI-driven decisions and automation, supported by strong governance, data protection, and controls suitable for highly regulated environments.

The ISO 42001 certification was awarded following an extensive independent audit that assessed CrowdStrike’s AI management system, including governance structures, risk management processes, development practices, and operational controls. This reinforces CrowdStrike’s broader commitment to protecting customer data and deploying AI responsibly in the cybersecurity domain.

ISO/IEC 42001 certifications need to be carried out by an accredited certification body recognized by an ISO accreditation forum (e.g., ANAB, UKAS, NABCB). Many organizations disclose the auditor (e.g., TÜV SÜD, BSI, Schellman, Sensiba) to add credibility, but CrowdStrike’s announcement omitted that detail.

Opinion: Benefits of ISO/IEC 42001 Certification

ISO/IEC 42001 certification provides tangible strategic and operational benefits, especially for security and AI-driven organizations. First, it establishes a common, auditable framework for AI governance, helping organizations move beyond vague “responsible AI” claims to demonstrable, enforceable practices. This is increasingly critical as regulators, customers, and boards demand clarity on how AI risks are managed.

Second, ISO 42001 creates trust at scale. For customers, it reduces due diligence friction by providing third-party validation of AI governance maturity. For vendors like CrowdStrike, it becomes a competitive differentiator—particularly in regulated industries where buyers need assurance that AI systems are controlled, explainable, and accountable.

Finally, ISO 42001 enables safer innovation. By embedding risk management, oversight, and lifecycle controls into AI development and operations, organizations can adopt advanced and agentic AI capabilities with confidence, without increasing systemic or regulatory risk. In practice, this allows companies to move faster with AI—paradoxically by putting stronger guardrails in place.

Tags: CrowdStrike

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

AI Security and AI Governance: Why They Must Converge to Build Trustworthy AI

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 1:42 pm

AI Security and AI Governance are often discussed as separate disciplines, but the industry is realizing they are inseparable. Over the past year, conversations have revolved around AI governance—whether AI should be used and under what principles—and AI security—how AI systems are protected from threats. This separation is no longer sustainable as AI adoption accelerates.

The core reality is simple: governance without security is ineffective, and security without governance is incomplete. If an organization cannot secure its AI systems, it has no real control over them. Likewise, securing systems without clear governance leaves unanswered questions about legality, ethics, and accountability.

This divide exists largely because governance and security evolved in different organizational domains. Governance typically sits with legal, risk, and compliance teams, focusing on fairness, transparency, and ethical use. Security, on the other hand, is owned by technical teams and SOCs, concentrating on attacks such as prompt injection, model manipulation, and data leakage.

When these functions operate in silos, organizations unintentionally create “Shadow AI” risks. Governance teams may publish policies that lack technical enforcement, while security teams may harden systems without understanding whether the AI itself is compliant or trustworthy.

The governance gap appears when policies exist only on paper. Without security controls to enforce them, rules become optional guidance rather than operational reality, leaving organizations exposed to regulatory and reputational risk.

The security gap emerges when protection is applied without context. Systems may be technically secure, yet still rely on biased, non-compliant, or poorly governed models, creating hidden risks that security tooling alone cannot detect.

To move forward, AI risk must be treated as a unified discipline. A combined “Governance-Security” mindset requires shared inventories of models and data pipelines, continuous monitoring of both technical vulnerabilities and ethical drift, and automated enforcement that connects policy directly to controls.

Organizations already adopting this integrated approach are gaining a competitive advantage. Their objective goes beyond compliance checklists; they are building AI systems that are trustworthy, resilient by design, and compliant by default—earning confidence from regulators, customers, and partners alike.

My opinion: AI governance and AI security should no longer be separate conversations or teams. Treating them as one integrated function is not just best practice—it is inevitable. Organizations that fail to unify these disciplines will struggle with unmanaged risk, while those that align them early will define the standard for trustworthy and resilient AI.

Tags: AI Governance, AI security

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

How AI Evolves: A Layered Path from Automation to Autonomy

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,Information Security — disc7 @ 11:47 am

Understanding the Layers of AI

The “Layers of AI” model helps explain how artificial intelligence evolves from simple rule-based logic into autonomous, goal-driven systems. Each layer builds on the capabilities of the one beneath it, adding complexity, adaptability, and decision-making power. Understanding these layers is essential for grasping not just how AI works technically, but also where risks, governance needs, and human oversight must be applied as systems move closer to autonomy.

Classical AI: The Rule-Based Foundation

Classical AI represents the earliest form of artificial intelligence, relying on explicit rules, logic, and symbolic representations of knowledge. Systems such as expert systems and logic-based reasoning engines operate deterministically, meaning they behave exactly as programmed. While limited in flexibility, Classical AI laid the groundwork for structured reasoning, decision trees, and formal problem-solving that still influence modern systems.

Machine Learning: Learning from Data

Machine Learning marked a shift from hard-coded rules to systems that learn patterns from data. Techniques such as supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning allow models to improve performance over time without explicit reprogramming. Tasks like classification, regression, and prediction became scalable, enabling AI to adapt to real-world variability rather than relying solely on predefined logic.

Neural Networks: Mimicking the Brain

Neural Networks introduced architectures inspired by the human brain, using interconnected layers of artificial neurons. Concepts such as perceptrons, activation functions, cost functions, and backpropagation allow these systems to learn complex representations. This layer enables non-linear problem solving and forms the structural backbone for more advanced AI capabilities.

Deep Learning: Scaling Intelligence

Deep Learning extends neural networks by stacking many hidden layers, allowing models to extract increasingly abstract features from raw data. Architectures such as CNNs, RNNs, LSTMs, transformers, and autoencoders power breakthroughs in vision, speech, language, and pattern recognition. This layer made AI practical at scale, especially with large datasets and high-performance computing.

Generative AI: Creating New Content

Generative AI focuses on producing new data rather than simply analyzing existing information. Large Language Models (LLMs), diffusion models, VAEs, and multimodal systems can generate text, images, audio, video, and code. This layer introduces creativity, probabilistic reasoning, and uncertainty, but also raises concerns around hallucinations, bias, intellectual property, and trustworthiness.

Agentic AI: Acting with Purpose

Agentic AI adds decision-making and goal-oriented behavior on top of generative models. These systems can plan tasks, retain memory, use tools, and take actions autonomously across environments. Rather than responding to a single prompt, agentic systems operate continuously, making them powerful—but also significantly more complex to govern, audit, and control.

Autonomous Execution: AI Without Constant Human Input

At the highest layer, AI systems can execute tasks independently with minimal human intervention. Autonomous execution combines planning, tool use, feedback loops, and adaptive behavior to operate in real-world conditions. This layer blurs the line between software and decision-maker, raising critical questions about accountability, safety, alignment, and ethical boundaries.

My Opinion: From Foundations to Autonomy

The layered model of AI is useful because it makes one thing clear: autonomy is not a single leap—it is an accumulation of capabilities. Each layer introduces new power and new risk. While organizations are eager to adopt agentic and autonomous AI, many still lack maturity in governing the foundational layers beneath them. In my view, responsible AI adoption must follow the same layered discipline—strong foundations, clear controls at each level, and escalating governance as systems gain autonomy. Skipping layers in governance while accelerating layers in capability is where most AI risk emerges.

Tags: AI Layers, Automation, Layered AI

Comments (0)

Jan 21 2026

The Hidden Cyber Risks of AI Adoption No One Is Managing

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 9:47 am

“Why AI adoption requires a dedicated approach to cyber governance”

1. Rapid AI Adoption and Rising Risks
AI tools are being adopted at an extraordinary pace across businesses, offering clear benefits like efficiency, reduced errors, and increased revenue. However, this rapid uptake also dramatically expands the enterprise attack surface. Each AI model, prompt, plugin, API connection, training dataset, or dependency introduces new vulnerability points, requiring stronger and continuous security measures than traditional SaaS governance frameworks were designed to handle.

2. Traditional Governance Falls Short for AI
Many security teams simply repurpose existing governance approaches designed for SaaS vendors when evaluating AI tools. This is problematic because data fed into AI systems can be exposed far more widely and may even be retained permanently by the AI provider—something that most conventional governance models don’t account for.

3. Explainability and Trust Issues
AI outputs can be opaque due to black-box models and phenomena like “hallucinations,” where the system generates confident but incorrect information. These characteristics make verification difficult and can introduce false data into important business decisions—another challenge existing governance frameworks weren’t built to manage.

4. Pressure to Move Fast
Business units are pushing for rapid AI adoption to stay competitive, which puts security teams in a bind. Existing third-party risk processes are slow, manual, and rigid, creating bottlenecks that force organizations to choose between agility and safety. Modern governance must be agile and scalable to match the pace of AI integration.

5. Gaps in Current Cyber Governance
Governance and Risk Compliance (GRC) programs commonly monitor direct vendors but often fail to extend visibility far enough into fourth or Nth-party risks. Even when organizations are compliant with regulations like DORA or NIS2, they may still face significant vulnerabilities because compliance checks only provide snapshots in time, missing dynamic risks across complex supply chains.

6. Limited Tool Effectiveness and Emerging Solutions
Most organizations acknowledge that current GRC tools are inadequate for managing AI risks. In response, many CISOs are turning to AI-based vendor risk assessment solutions that can monitor dependencies and interactions continuously rather than relying solely on point-in-time assessments. However, these tools must themselves be trustworthy and validated to avoid generating misleading results.

7. Practical Risk-Reduction Strategies
Effective governance requires proactive strategies like mapping data flows to uncover blind spots, enforcing output traceability, keeping humans in the oversight loop, and replacing one-off questionnaires with continuous monitoring. These measures help identify and mitigate risks earlier and more reliably.

8. Safe AI Management Is Possible
Deploying AI securely is achievable, but only with robust, AI-adapted governance—dynamic vendor onboarding, automated monitoring, continuous risk evaluation, and policies tailored to the unique nature of AI tools. Security teams must evolve their practices and frameworks to ensure AI is both adopted responsibly and aligned with business goals.

My Opinion

The article makes a compelling case that treating AI like traditional software or SaaS tools is a governance mistake. AI’s dynamic nature—its opaque decision processes, broad data exposure, and rapid proliferation via APIs and plugins—demands purpose-built governance mechanisms that are continuous, adaptive, and integrated with how organizations actually operate, not just how they report. This aligns with broader industry observations that shadow AI and decentralized AI use (e.g., “bring your own AI”) create blind spots that static governance models can’t handle.

In short, cybersecurity leaders should move beyond check-the-box compliance and toward risk-based, real-time oversight that embraces human-AI collaboration, leverages AI for risk monitoring, and embeds governance throughout the AI lifecycle. Done well, this strengthens security and unlocks AI’s value; done poorly, it exposes organizations to unnecessary harm.

Tags: Cyber Governance Model

Comments (0)

Jan 16 2026

AI Is Changing Cybercrime: 10 Threat Landscape Takeaways You Can’t Ignore

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 1:49 pm

AI & Cyber Threat Landscape

1. Growing AI Risks in Cybersecurity
Artificial intelligence has rapidly become a central factor in cybersecurity, acting as both a powerful defense and a serious threat vector. Attackers have quickly adopted AI tools to amplify their capabilities, and many executives now consider AI-related cyber risks among their top organizational concerns.

2. AI’s Dual Role
While AI helps defenders detect threats faster, it also enables cybercriminals to automate attacks at scale. This rapid adoption by attackers is reshaping the overall cyber threat landscape going into 2026.

3. Deepfakes and Impersonation Techniques
One of the most alarming developments is the use of deepfakes and voice cloning. These tools create highly convincing impersonations of executives or trusted individuals, fooling employees and even automated systems.

4. Enhanced Phishing and Messaging
AI has made phishing attacks more sophisticated. Instead of generic scam messages, attackers use generative AI to craft highly personalized and convincing messages that leverage data collected from public sources.

5. Automated Reconnaissance
AI now automates what used to be manual reconnaissance. Malicious scripts scout corporate websites and social profiles to build detailed target lists much faster than human attackers ever could.

6. Adaptive Malware
AI-driven malware is emerging that can modify its code and behavior in real time to evade detection. Unlike traditional threats, this adaptive malware learns from failed attempts and evolves to be more effective.

7. Shadow AI and Data Exposure
“Shadow AI” refers to employees using third-party AI tools without permission. These tools can inadvertently capture sensitive information, which might be stored, shared, or even reused by AI providers, posing significant data leakage risks.

8. Long-Term Access and Silent Attacks
Modern AI-enabled attacks often aim for persistence—maintaining covert access for weeks or months to gather credentials and monitor systems before striking, rather than causing immediate disruption.

9. Evolving Defense Needs
Traditional security systems are increasingly inadequate against these dynamic, AI-driven threats. Organizations must embrace adaptive defenses, real-time monitoring, and identity-centric controls to keep pace.

10. Human Awareness Remains Critical
Technology alone won’t stop these threats. A strong “human firewall” — knowledgeable employees and ongoing awareness training — is crucial to recognize and prevent emerging AI-enabled attacks.

My Opinion

AI’s influence on the cyber threat landscape is both inevitable and transformative. On one hand, AI empowers defenders with unprecedented speed and analytical depth. On the other, it’s lowering the barrier to entry for attackers, enabling highly automated, convincing attacks that traditional defenses struggle to catch. This duality makes cybersecurity a fundamentally different game than it was even a few years ago.

Organizations can’t afford to treat AI simply as a defensive tool or a checkbox in their security stack. They must build AI-aware risk management strategies, integrate continuous monitoring and identity-centric defenses, and invest in employee education. Most importantly, cybersecurity leaders need to assume that attackers will adopt AI faster than defenders — so resilience and adaptive defense are not optional, they’re mandatory.

The key takeaway? Cybersecurity in 2026 and beyond won’t just be about technology. It will be a strategic balance between innovation, human awareness, and proactive risk governance.

Tags: AI Threat Landscape, Deepfakes, Shadow AI

Comments (0)

Clean Data

Strong Pipelines

Disciplined Integration

Governance

Documentation

The Bigger Picture

1. From Model Outputs → System Actions

2. Enforcement Scales Beyond Pilots

3. Healthcare AI Signals Broader Direction

4. Governance Moves Into Executive Accountability

In Summary: The 2026 AI Governance Reality

1. Emergence of AI-Accelerated Cloud Attacks

2. Initial Access: Credentials Exposed in Public Buckets

3. Rapid Reconnaissance with AI Assistance

4. Privilege Escalation via Lambda Function Compromise

5. AI Hallucinations and Behavioral Artifacts

6. Persistence and Lateral Movement Post-Escalation

7. Indicators of Compromise and Defensive Advice

My Perspective: Risk & Mitigation

Risk Assessment

Mitigation Strategies

Preventative Measures

Detective Controls

Responsive Measures

How Unmonitored AI agents are becoming the next major enterprise security risk

My Perspective

When Job Interviews Turn into Deepfake Threats – AI Just Applied for Your Job—And It’s a Deepfake

Key Implementation Steps

Why Cybersecurity Is Critical in the Age of AI

Greater Executive Engagement Meets Growing Workload Pressure

AI Now Powers Everyday Security Tasks—With New Risks

AI Governance Has Become an Operational Imperative

Manual Processes Still Cause Burnout and Risk

Connected, AI-Driven Workflows Are Gaining Traction

My Perspective: The State of Cybersecurity in the AI Era

Stage 1: Risk Identification – What could go wrong?

Stage 2: Risk Assessment – How severe is the risk?

Stage 3: Risk Mitigation – How do we reduce the risk?

Stage 4: Risk Monitoring – Are new risks emerging?

Stage 5: Risk Governance – Is risk management effective?

Closing Perspective

💭 My Opinion

Opinion: Benefits of ISO/IEC 42001 Certification

Understanding the Layers of AI

Classical AI: The Rule-Based Foundation

Machine Learning: Learning from Data

Neural Networks: Mimicking the Brain

Deep Learning: Scaling Intelligence

Generative AI: Creating New Content

Agentic AI: Acting with Purpose

Autonomous Execution: AI Without Constant Human Input

My Opinion: From Foundations to Autonomy

“Why AI adoption requires a dedicated approach to cyber governance”

My Opinion

AI & Cyber Threat Landscape

My Opinion

Get new posts by email:

vCISO as a service