Jan 15 2026

From Prediction to Autonomy: Mapping AI Risk to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, and the EU AI Act

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 12:49 pm

PCAA

1️⃣ Predictive AI – Predict

Predictive AI is the most mature and widely adopted form of AI. It analyzes historical data to identify patterns and forecast what is likely to happen next. Organizations use it to anticipate customer demand, detect fraud, identify anomalies, and support risk-based decisions. The goal isn’t automation for its own sake, but faster and more accurate decision-making, with humans still in control of final actions.

2️⃣ Generative AI – Create

Generative AI goes beyond prediction and focuses on creation. It generates text, code, images, designs, and insights based on prompts. Rather than replacing people, it amplifies human productivity, helping teams draft content, write software, analyze information, and communicate faster. Its core value lies in increasing output velocity while keeping humans responsible for judgment and accountability.

3️⃣ AI Agents – Assist

AI Agents add execution to intelligence. These systems are connected to enterprise tools, applications, and internal data sources. Instead of only suggesting actions, they can perform tasks—such as retrieving data, updating systems, responding to requests, or coordinating workflows. AI Agents expand human capacity by handling repetitive or multi-step tasks, delivering knowledge access and task leverage at scale.

4️⃣ Agentic AI – Act

Agentic AI represents the frontier of AI adoption. It orchestrates multiple agents to run workflows end-to-end with minimal human intervention. These systems can plan, delegate, verify, and complete complex processes across tools and teams. At this stage, AI evolves from a tool into a digital team member, enabling true process transformation, not just efficiency gains.

Simple decision framework

  • Need faster decisions? → Predictive AI
  • Need more output? → Generative AI
  • Need task execution and assistance? → AI Agents
  • Need end-to-end transformation? → Agentic AI

Below is a clean, standards-aligned mapping of the four AI types (Predict → Create → Assist → Act) to ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, and the EU AI Act.
This is written so you can directly reuse it in AI governance decks, risk registers, or client assessments.

AI Types Mapped to ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF & EU AI Act

1️⃣ Predictive AI (Predict)

Forecasting, scoring, classification, anomaly detection

ISO/IEC 42001 (AI Management System)

  • Clause 4–5: Organizational context, leadership accountability for AI outcomes
  • Clause 6: AI risk assessment (bias, drift, fairness)
  • Clause 8: Operational controls for model lifecycle management
  • Clause 9: Performance evaluation and monitoring

👉 Focus: Data quality, bias management, model drift, transparency

NIST AI RMF

  • Govern: Define risk tolerance for AI-assisted decisions
  • Map: Identify intended use and impact of predictions
  • Measure: Test bias, accuracy, robustness
  • Manage: Monitor and correct model drift

👉 Predictive AI is primarily a Measure + Manage problem.

EU AI Act

  • Often classified as High-Risk AI if used in:
    • Credit scoring
    • Hiring & HR decisions
    • Insurance, healthcare, or public services

Key obligations:

  • Data governance and bias mitigation
  • Human oversight
  • Accuracy, robustness, and documentation

2️⃣ Generative AI (Create)

Text, code, image, design, content generation

ISO/IEC 42001

  • Clause 5: AI policy and responsible AI principles
  • Clause 6: Risk treatment for misuse and data leakage
  • Clause 8: Controls for prompt handling and output management
  • Annex A: Transparency and explainability controls

👉 Focus: Responsible use, content risk, data leakage

NIST AI RMF

  • Govern: Acceptable use and ethical guidelines
  • Map: Identify misuse scenarios (prompt injection, hallucinations)
  • Measure: Output quality, harmful content, data exposure
  • Manage: Guardrails, monitoring, user training

👉 Generative AI heavily stresses Govern + Map.

EU AI Act

  • Typically classified as General-Purpose AI (GPAI) or GPAI with systemic risk

Key obligations:

  • Transparency (AI-generated content disclosure)
  • Training data summaries
  • Risk mitigation for downstream use

⚠️ Stricter rules apply if used in regulated decision-making contexts.

3️⃣ AI Agents (Assist)

Task execution, tool usage, system updates

ISO/IEC 42001

  • Clause 6: Expanded risk assessment for automated actions
  • Clause 8: Operational boundaries and authority controls
  • Clause 7: Competence and awareness (human oversight)

👉 Focus: Authority limits, access control, traceability

NIST AI RMF

  • Govern: Define scope of agent autonomy
  • Map: Identify systems, APIs, and data agents can access
  • Measure: Monitor behavior, execution accuracy
  • Manage: Kill switches, rollback, escalation paths

👉 AI Agents sit squarely in Manage territory.

EU AI Act

  • Risk classification depends on what the agent does, not the tech itself.

If agents:

  • Modify records
  • Trigger transactions
  • Influence regulated decisions

→ Likely High-Risk AI

Key obligations:

  • Human oversight
  • Logging and traceability
  • Risk controls on automation scope

4️⃣ Agentic AI (Act)

End-to-end workflows, autonomous decision chains

ISO/IEC 42001

  • Clause 5: Top management accountability
  • Clause 6: Enterprise-level AI risk management
  • Clause 8: Strong operational guardrails
  • Clause 10: Continuous improvement and corrective action

👉 Focus: Autonomy governance, accountability, systemic risk

NIST AI RMF

  • Govern: Board-level AI risk ownership
  • Map: End-to-end workflow impact analysis
  • Measure: Continuous monitoring of outcomes
  • Manage: Fail-safe mechanisms and incident response

👉 Agentic AI requires full-lifecycle RMF maturity.

EU AI Act

  • Almost always High-Risk AI when deployed in production workflows.

Strict requirements:

  • Human-in-command oversight
  • Full documentation and auditability
  • Robustness, cybersecurity, and post-market monitoring

🚨 Highest regulatory exposure across all AI types.

Executive Summary (Board-Ready)

AI TypeGovernance IntensityRegulatory Exposure
Predictive AIMediumMedium–High
Generative AIMediumMedium
AI AgentsHighHigh
Agentic AIVery HighVery High

Rule of thumb:

As AI moves from insight to action, governance must move from IT control to enterprise risk management.

📚 Training References – Learn Generative AI (Free)

Microsoft offers one of the strongest beginner-to-builder GenAI learning paths:

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: Agentic AI, AI Agents, EU AI Act, Generative AI, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, Predictive AI

Jan 15 2026

The Hidden Battle: Defending AI/ML APIs from Prompt Injection and Data Poisoning

Category: AI,AI Governance Tools,API security,Data Governance,data security — disc7 @ 8:25 am

1
Protecting AI and ML model–serving APIs has become a new and critical security frontier. As organizations increasingly expose Generative AI and machine learning capabilities through APIs, attackers are shifting their focus from traditional infrastructure to the models themselves.

2
AI red teams are now observing entirely new categories of attacks that did not exist in conventional application security. These threats specifically target how GenAI and ML models interpret input and learn from data—areas where legacy security tools such as Web Application Firewalls (WAFs) offer little to no protection.

3
Two dominant threats stand out in this emerging landscape: prompt injection and data poisoning. Both attacks exploit fundamental properties of AI systems rather than software vulnerabilities, making them harder to detect with traditional rule-based defenses.

4
Prompt injection attacks manipulate a Large Language Model by crafting inputs that override or bypass its intended instructions. By embedding hidden or misleading commands in user prompts, attackers can coerce the model into revealing sensitive information or performing unauthorized actions.

5
This type of attack is comparable to slipping a secret instruction past a guard. Even a well-designed AI can be tricked into ignoring safeguards if user input is not strictly controlled and separated from system-level instructions.

6
Effective mitigation starts with treating all user input as untrusted code. Clear delimiters must be used to isolate trusted system prompts from user-provided text, ensuring the model can clearly distinguish between authoritative instructions and external input.

7
In parallel, the principle of least privilege is essential. AI-serving APIs should operate with minimal access rights so that even if a model is manipulated, the potential damage—often referred to as the blast radius—remains limited and manageable.

8
Data poisoning attacks, in contrast, undermine the integrity of the model itself. By injecting corrupted, biased, or mislabeled data into training datasets, attackers can subtly alter model behavior or implant hidden backdoors that trigger under specific conditions.

9
Defending against data poisoning requires rigorous data governance. This includes tracking the provenance of all training data, continuously monitoring for anomalies, and applying robust training techniques that reduce the model’s sensitivity to small, malicious data manipulations.

10
Together, these controls shift AI security from a perimeter-based mindset to one focused on model behavior, data integrity, and controlled execution—areas that demand new tools, skills, and security architectures.

My Opinion
AI/ML API security should be treated as a first-class risk domain, not an extension of traditional application security. Organizations deploying GenAI without specialized defenses for prompt injection and data poisoning are effectively operating blind. In my view, AI security controls must be embedded into governance, risk management, and system design from day one—ideally aligned with standards like ISO 27001, ISO 42001 and emerging AI risk frameworks—rather than bolted on after an incident forces the issue.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: AI, APIs, Data Poisoning, ML, prompt Injection

Jan 12 2026

Layers of AI Explained: Why Strong Foundations Matter More Than Smart Agents

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 11:20 am

Explains the layers of AI

  1. AI is often perceived as something mysterious or magical, but in reality it is a layered technology stack built incrementally over decades. Each layer depends on the maturity and stability of the layers beneath it, which is why skipping foundations leads to fragile outcomes.
  2. The diagram illustrates why many AI strategies fail: organizations rush to adopt the top layers without understanding or strengthening the base. When results disappoint, tools are blamed instead of the missing foundations that enable them.
  3. At the base is Classical AI, which relies on rules, logic, and expert systems. This layer established early decision boundaries, reasoning models, and governance concepts that still underpin modern AI systems.
  4. Above that sits Machine Learning, where explicit rules are replaced with statistical prediction. Techniques such as classification, regression, and reinforcement learning focus on optimization and pattern discovery rather than true understanding.
  5. Neural Networks introduce representation learning, allowing systems to learn internal features automatically. Through backpropagation, hidden layers, and activation functions, patterns begin to emerge at scale rather than being manually engineered.
  6. Deep Learning builds on neural networks by stacking specialized architectures such as transformers, CNNs, RNNs, and autoencoders. This is the layer where data volume, compute, and scale dramatically increase capability.
  7. Generative AI marks a shift from analysis to creation. Models can now generate text, images, audio, and multimodal outputs, enabling powerful new use cases—but these systems remain largely passive and reactive.
  8. Agentic AI is where confusion often arises. This layer introduces memory, planning, tool use, and autonomous execution, allowing systems to take actions rather than simply produce outputs.
  9. Importantly, Agentic AI is not a replacement for the lower layers. It is an orchestration layer that coordinates capabilities built below it, amplifying both strengths and weaknesses in data, models, and processes.
  10. Weak data leads to unreliable agents, broken workflows result in chaotic autonomy, and a lack of governance introduces silent risk. The diagram is most valuable when read as a warning: AI maturity is built bottom-up, and autonomy without foundation multiplies failure just as easily as success.

This post and diagram does a great job of illustrating a critical concept in AI that’s often overlooked: foundations matter more than flashy capabilities. Many organizations focus on deploying “smart agents” or advanced models without first ensuring the underlying data infrastructure, governance, and compliance frameworks are solid. The pyramid/infographic format makes this immediately clear—visually showing that AI capabilities rest on multiple layers of systems, policies, and risk management.

My opinion: It’s a strong, board- and executive-friendly way to communicate that resilient AI isn’t just about algorithms—it’s about building a robust, secure, and governed foundation first. For practitioners, this reinforces the need for strategy before tactics, and for decision-makers, it emphasizes risk-aware investment in AI.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: Layers of AI

Jan 09 2026

AI Can Help Our Health — But at What Cost to Privacy?

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security — disc7 @ 8:34 am

Potential risks of sharing medical records with a consumer AI platform

  1. OpenAI recently introduced “ChatGPT Health,” a specialized extension of ChatGPT designed to handle health-related conversations and enable users to link their medical records and wellness apps for more personalized insights. The company says this builds on its existing security framework.
  2. According to OpenAI, the new health feature includes “additional, layered protections” tailored to sensitive medical information — such as purpose-built encryption and data isolation that aims to separate health data from other chatbot interactions.
  3. The company also claims that data shared in ChatGPT Health won’t be used to train its broader AI models, a move intended to keep medical information out of the core model’s training dataset.
  4. OpenAI says millions of users widely ask health and wellness questions on its platform already, which it uses to justify a dedicated space where those interactions can be more contextualized and, allegedly, safer.
  5. Privacy advocates, however, are raising serious concerns. They note that medical records uploaded to ChatGPT Health are no longer protected by HIPAA, the U.S. law that governs how healthcare providers safeguard patients’ private health information.
  6. Experts like Sara Geoghegan from the Electronic Privacy Information Center warn that releasing sensitive health data into OpenAI’s systems removes legal privacy protections and exposes users to risk. Without a law like HIPAA applying to ChatGPT, the company’s own policies are the only thing standing between users and potential misuse.
  7. Critics also caution that OpenAI’s evolving business model, particularly if it expands into personalization or advertising, could create incentives to use health data in ways users don’t expect or fully understand.
  8. Key questions remain unanswered, such as how exactly the company would respond to law enforcement requests for health data and how effectively health data is truly isolated from other systems if policies change.
  9. The feature’s reliance on connected wellness apps and external partners also introduces additional vectors where sensitive information could potentially be exposed or accessed if there’s a breach or policy change.
  10. In summary, while OpenAI pitches ChatGPT Health as an innovation with enhanced safeguards, privacy advocates argue that without robust legal protections and clear transparency, sharing medical records with a consumer AI platform remains risky.

My Opinion

AI has immense potential to augment how people manage and understand their health, especially for non-urgent questions or preparing for doctor visits. But giving any tech company access to medical records without the backing of strong legal protections like HIPAA feels premature and potentially unsafe. Technical safeguards such as encryption and data isolation matter — but they don’t replace enforceable privacy laws that restrict how health data can be used, shared, or disclosed. In healthcare, trust and accountability are paramount, and without those, even well-intentioned tools can expose individuals to privacy risks or misuse of deeply personal information. Until regulatory frameworks evolve to explicitly protect AI-mediated health data, users should proceed with caution and understand the privacy trade-offs they’re making.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: AI Health, ChatGPT Health, privacy concerns

Jan 09 2026

AI Agent Security: The Next Frontier of Cyber Risk and Defense

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 7:30 am

10 key reasons why securing AI agents is essential

1. Artificial intelligence is rapidly becoming embedded in everyday digital tools — from chatbots to virtual assistants — and this evolution has introduced a new class of autonomous systems called AI agents that can understand, respond, and even make decisions independently.

2. Unlike traditional AI, which simply responds to commands, AI agents can operate continuously, interact with multiple systems, and perform complex tasks on behalf of users, making them extremely powerful helpers.

3. But with that autonomy comes risk: agents often access sensitive data, execute actions, and connect to other applications with minimal human oversight — which means attackers could exploit these capabilities to do significant harm.

4. Hackers no longer have to “break in” through conventional vulnerabilities like weak passwords. Instead, they can manipulate how an AI agent interprets instructions, using crafted inputs to trick the agent into revealing private information or taking harmful actions.

5. These new attack vectors are fundamentally different from classic cyberthreats because they exploit the behavioral logic of the AI rather than weaknesses in software code or network defenses.

6. Traditional security tools — firewalls, antivirus software, and network encryption — are insufficient for defending such agents, because they don’t monitor the intent behind what the AI is doing or how it can be manipulated by inputs.

7. Additionally, security is not just a technology issue; humans influence AI through data and instructions, so understanding how people interact with agents and training users to avoid unsafe inputs is also part of securing these systems.

8. The underlying complexity of AI — its ability to learn and adapt to new information — means that its behavior can be unpredictable and difficult to audit, further complicating security efforts.

9. Experts argue that AI agents need guardrails similar to traffic rules for autonomous vehicles: clear limits, behavior monitoring, access controls, and continuous oversight to prevent misuse or unintended consequences.

10. Looking ahead, securing AI agents will require new defensive strategies — from building security into AI design to implementing runtime behavior monitoring and shaping governance frameworks — because agent security is becoming a core pillar of overall cyber defense.

Opinion

AI agents represent one of the most transformative technological shifts in modern computing — and their security challenges are equally transformative. While their autonomy unlocks efficiency and capability, it also introduces entirely new attack surfaces that traditional cybersecurity tools weren’t designed to handle. Investing in agent-specific security measures isn’t just proactive, it’s essential — the sooner organizations treat AI security as a strategic priority rather than an afterthought, the better positioned they’ll be to harness AI safely and responsibly.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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.

Jan 07 2026

Agentic AI: Why Autonomous Systems Redefine Enterprise Risk

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

Evolution of Agentic AI

1. Machine Learning

Machine Learning represents the foundation of modern AI, focused on learning patterns from structured data to make predictions or classifications. Techniques such as regression, decision trees, support vector machines, and basic neural networks enable systems to automate well-defined tasks like forecasting, anomaly detection, and image or object recognition. These systems are effective but largely reactive—they operate within fixed boundaries and lack reasoning or adaptability beyond their training data.

2. Neural Networks

Neural Networks expand on traditional machine learning by enabling deeper pattern recognition through layered architectures. Convolutional and recurrent neural networks power image recognition, speech processing, and sequential data analysis. Capabilities such as deep reinforcement learning allow systems to improve through feedback, but decision-making is still task-specific and opaque, with limited ability to explain reasoning or generalize across domains.

3. Large Language Models (LLMs)

Large Language Models introduce reasoning, language understanding, and contextual awareness at scale. Built on transformer architectures and self-attention mechanisms, models like GPT enable in-context learning, chain-of-thought reasoning, and natural language interaction. LLMs can synthesize knowledge, generate code, retrieve information, and support complex workflows, marking a shift from pattern recognition to generalized cognitive assistance.

4. Generative AI

Generative AI extends LLMs beyond text into multimodal creation, including images, video, audio, and code. Capabilities such as diffusion models, retrieval-augmented generation, and multimodal understanding allow systems to generate realistic content and integrate external knowledge sources. These models support automation, creativity, and decision support but still rely on human direction and lack autonomy in planning or execution.

5. Agentic AI

Agentic AI represents the transition from AI as a tool to AI as an autonomous actor. These systems can decompose goals, plan actions, select and orchestrate tools, collaborate with other agents, and adapt based on feedback. Features such as memory, state persistence, self-reflection, human-in-the-loop oversight, and safety guardrails enable agents to operate over time and across complex environments. Agentic AI is less about completing individual tasks and more about coordinating context, tools, and decisions to achieve outcomes.

Key Takeaway

The evolution toward Agentic AI is not a single leap but a layered progression—from learning patterns, to reasoning, to generating content, and finally to autonomous action. As organizations adopt agentic systems, governance, risk management, and human oversight become just as critical as technical capability.

Security and governance lens (AI risk, EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF)

Zero Trust Agentic AI Security: Runtime Defense, Governance, and Risk Management for Autonomous Systems

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: Agentic AI, Autonomous syatems, Enterprise Risk Management

Jan 05 2026

Deepfakes Cost $25 Million: Why Old-School Verification Still Works

Category: AI,AI Governance,Deepfakes — disc7 @ 9:01 am

A British engineering firm reportedly lost $25 million after an employee joined a video call that appeared to include their CFO. The voice, the face, and the mannerisms all checked out—but it wasn’t actually him. The incident highlights how convincing deepfake technology has become and how easily trust can be exploited.

This case shows that visual and audio cues alone are no longer reliable for verification. AI can now replicate voices and faces with alarming accuracy, making traditional “it looks and sounds right” judgment calls dangerously insufficient, especially under pressure.

Ironically, the most effective countermeasure to advanced AI attacks isn’t more technology—it’s simpler, human-centered controls. When digital signals can be forged, analog verification methods regain their value.

One such method is establishing a “safe word.” This is a randomly chosen word known only to a small, trusted group and never shared via email, chat, or documents. It lives only in human memory.

If an urgent request comes in—whether from a “CEO,” “CFO,” or even a family member—especially involving money or sensitive actions, the response should be to pause and ask for the safe word. An AI can mimic a voice, but it cannot reliably guess a secret it was never trained on.

My opinion: Safe words may sound old-fashioned, but they are practical, low-cost, and highly effective in a world of deepfakes and social engineering. Every finance team—and even families—should treat this as a basic risk control, not a gimmick. In high-risk moments, simple friction can be the difference between trust and a multimillion-dollar loss.

#CyberSecurity #DeepFakes #SocialEngineering #AI #RiskManagement

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

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: Deepfake, Deepfakes and Fraud

Jan 04 2026

AI Governance That Actually Works: Beyond Policies and Promises

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001,NIST CSF — disc7 @ 3:33 pm

1. AI Has Become Core Infrastructure
AI is no longer experimental — it’s now deeply integrated into business decisions and societal functions. With this shift, governance can’t stay theoretical; it must be operational and enforceable. The article argues that combining the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) with ISO/IEC 42001 makes this operationalization practical and auditable.

2. Principles Alone Don’t Govern
The NIST AI RMF starts with the Govern function, stressing accountability, transparency, and trustworthy AI. But policies by themselves — statements of intent — don’t ensure responsible execution. ISO 42001 provides the management-system structure that anchors these governance principles into repeatable business processes.

3. Mapping Risk in Context
Understanding the context and purpose of an AI system is where risk truly begins. The NIST RMF’s Map function asks organizations to document who uses a system, how it might be misused, and potential impacts. ISO 42001 operationalizes this through explicit impact assessments and scope definitions that force organizations to answer difficult questions early.

4. Measuring Trust Beyond Accuracy
Traditional AI metrics like accuracy or speed fail to capture trustworthiness. The NIST RMF expands measurement to include fairness, explainability, privacy, and resilience. ISO 42001 ensures these broader measures aren’t aspirational — they require documented testing, verification, and ongoing evaluation.

5. Managing the Full Lifecycle
The Manage function addresses what many frameworks ignore: what happens after AI deployment. ISO 42001 formalizes post-deployment monitoring, incident reporting and recovery, decommissioning, change management, and continuous improvement — framing AI systems as ongoing risk assets rather than one-off projects.

6. Third-Party & Supply Chain Risk
Modern AI systems often rely on external data, models, or services. Both frameworks treat third-party and supplier risks explicitly — a critical improvement, since risks extend beyond what an organization builds in-house. This reflects growing industry recognition of supply chain and ecosystem risk in AI.

7. Human Oversight as a System
Rather than treating human review as a checkbox, the article emphasizes formalizing human roles and responsibilities. It calls for defined escalation and override processes, competency-based training, and interdisciplinary decision teams — making oversight deliberate, not incidental.

8. Strategic Value of NIST-ISO Alignment
The real value isn’t just technical alignment — it’s strategic: helping boards, executives, and regulators speak a common language about risk, accountability, and controls. This positions organizations to be both compliant with emerging regulations and competitive in markets where trust matters.

9. Trust Over Speed
The article closes with a cultural message: in the next phase of AI adoption, trust will outperform speed. Organizations that operationalize responsibility (through structured frameworks like NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001) will lead, while those that chase innovation without governance risk reputational harm.

10. Practical Implications for Leaders
For AI leaders, the takeaway is clear: you need both risk-management logic and a management system to ensure accountability, measurement, and continuous improvement. Cryptic policies aren’t enough; frameworks must translate into auditable, executive-reportable actions.

Opinion

This article provides a thoughtful and practical bridge between high-level risk principles and real-world governance. NIST’s AI RMF on its own captures what needs to be considered (governance, context, measurement, and management) — a critical starting point for responsible AI risk management. (NIST)

But in many organizations today, abstract frameworks don’t translate into disciplined execution — that gap is exactly where ISO/IEC 42001 can add value by prescribing systematic processes, roles, and continuous improvement cycles. Together, the NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001 form a stronger operational baseline for responsible, auditable AI governance.

In practice, however, the challenge will be in integration — aligning governance systems already in place (e.g., ISO 27001, internal risk programs) with these newer AI standards without creating redundancy or compliance fatigue. The real test of success will be whether organizations can bake these practices into everyday decision-making, not just compliance checklists.

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.


InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: ISO 42001, NIST AI Risk Management Framework, NIST AI RMF

Jan 03 2026

Choosing the Right AI Security Frameworks: A Practical Roadmap for Secure AI Adoption

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001,Security and privacy Law,Security Compliance — disc7 @ 11:22 pm

Choosing the right AI security framework is becoming a critical decision as organizations adopt AI at scale. No single framework solves every problem. Each one addresses a different aspect of AI risk, governance, security, or compliance, and understanding their strengths helps organizations apply them effectively.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) is best suited for managing AI risks across the entire lifecycle—from design and development to deployment and ongoing use. It emphasizes trustworthy AI by addressing security, privacy, safety, reliability, and bias. This framework is especially valuable for organizations that are building or rapidly scaling AI capabilities and need a structured way to identify and manage AI-related risks.

ISO/IEC 42001, the AI Management System (AIMS) standard, focuses on governance rather than technical controls. It helps organizations establish policies, accountability, oversight, and continuous improvement for AI systems. This framework is ideal for enterprises deploying AI across multiple teams or business units and looking to formalize AI governance in a consistent, auditable way.

For teams building AI-enabled applications, the OWASP Top 10 for LLMs and Generative AI provides practical, hands-on security guidance. It highlights common and emerging risks such as prompt injection, data leakage, insecure output handling, and model abuse. This framework is particularly useful for AppSec and DevSecOps teams securing AI interfaces, APIs, and user-facing AI features.

MITRE ATLAS takes a threat-centric approach by mapping adversarial tactics and techniques that target AI systems. It is well suited for threat modeling, red-team exercises, and AI breach simulations. By helping security teams think like attackers, MITRE ATLAS strengthens defensive strategies against real-world AI threats.

From a regulatory perspective, the EU AI Act introduces a risk-based compliance framework for organizations operating in or offering AI services within the European Union. It defines obligations for high-risk AI systems and places strong emphasis on transparency, accountability, and risk controls. For global organizations, this regulation is becoming a key driver of AI compliance strategy.

The most effective approach is not choosing one framework, but combining them. Using NIST AI RMF for risk management, ISO/IEC 42001 for governance, OWASP and MITRE for technical security, and the EU AI Act for regulatory compliance creates a balanced and defensible AI security posture.

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 https://deurainfosec.com.


InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI Security Frameworks

Jan 02 2026

No Breach, No Alerts—Still Stolen: When AI Models Are Taken Without Being Hacked

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 11:11 am

No Breach. No Alerts. Still Stolen: The Model Extraction Problem

1. A company can lose its most valuable AI intellectual property without suffering a traditional security breach. No malware, no compromised credentials, no incident tickets—just normal-looking API traffic. Everything appears healthy on dashboards, yet the core asset is quietly walking out the door.

2. This threat is known as model extraction. It happens when an attacker repeatedly queries an AI model through legitimate interfaces—APIs, chatbots, or inference endpoints—and learns from the responses. Over time, they can reconstruct or closely approximate the proprietary model’s behavior without ever stealing weights or source code.

3. A useful analogy is a black-box expert. If I can repeatedly ask an expert questions and carefully observe their answers, patterns start to emerge—how they reason, where they hesitate, and how they respond to edge cases. Over time, I can train someone else to answer the same questions in nearly the same way, without ever seeing the expert’s notes or thought process.

4. Attackers pursue model extraction for several reasons. They may want to clone the model outright, steal high-value capabilities, distill it into a cheaper version using your model as a “teacher,” or infer sensitive traits about the training data. None of these require breaking in—only sustained access.

5. This is why AI theft doesn’t look like hacking. Your model can be copied simply by being used. The very openness that enables adoption and revenue also creates a high-bandwidth oracle for adversaries who know how to exploit it.

6. The consequences are fundamentally business risks. Competitive advantage evaporates as others avoid your training costs. Attackers discover and weaponize edge cases. Malicious clones can damage your brand, and your IP strategy collapses because the model’s behavior has effectively been given away.

7. The aftermath is especially dangerous because it’s invisible. There’s no breach report or emergency call—just a competitor releasing something “surprisingly similar” months later. By the time leadership notices, the damage is already done.

8. At scale, querying equals learning. With enough inputs and outputs, an attacker can build a surrogate model that is “good enough” to compete, abuse users, or undermine trust. This is IP theft disguised as legitimate usage.

9. Defending against this doesn’t require magic, but it does require intent. Organizations need visibility by treating model queries as security telemetry, friction by rate-limiting based on risk rather than cost alone, and proof by watermarking outputs so stolen behavior can be attributed when clones appear.

My opinion: Model extraction is one of the most underappreciated risks in AI today because it sits at the intersection of security, IP, and business strategy. If your AI roadmap focuses only on performance, cost, and availability—while ignoring how easily behavior can be copied—you don’t really have an AI strategy. Training models is expensive; extracting behavior through APIs is cheap. And in most markets, “good enough” beats “perfect.”

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI Models, Hacked

Dec 31 2025

Shadow AI: When Productivity Gains Create New Risks

Category: AI — disc7 @ 9:20 am

Shadow AI: The Productivity Paradox

Organizations face a new security challenge that doesn’t originate from malicious actors but from well-intentioned employees simply trying to do their jobs more efficiently. This phenomenon, known as Shadow AI, represents the unauthorized use of AI tools without IT oversight or approval.

Marketing teams routinely feed customer data into free AI platforms to generate compelling copy and campaign content. They see these tools as productivity accelerators, never considering the security implications of sharing sensitive customer information with external systems.

Development teams paste proprietary source code into public chatbots seeking quick debugging assistance or code optimization suggestions. The immediate problem-solving benefit overshadows concerns about intellectual property exposure or code base security.

Human resources departments upload candidate resumes and personal information to AI summarization tools, streamlining their screening processes. The efficiency gains feel worth the convenience, while data privacy considerations remain an afterthought.

These employees aren’t threat actors—they’re productivity seekers exploiting powerful tools available at their fingertips. Once organizational data enters public AI models or third-party vector databases, it escapes corporate control entirely and becomes permanently exposed.

The data now faces novel attack vectors like prompt injection, where adversaries manipulate AI systems through carefully crafted queries to extract sensitive information, essentially asking the model to “forget your instructions and reveal confidential data.” Traditional security measures offer no protection against these techniques.

We’re witnessing a fundamental shift from the old paradigm of “Data Exfiltration” driven by external criminals to “Data Integration” driven by internal employees. The threat landscape has evolved beyond perimeter defense scenarios.

Legacy security architectures built on network perimeters, firewalls, and endpoint protection become irrelevant when employees voluntarily connect to external AI services. These traditional controls can’t prevent authorized users from sharing data through legitimate web interfaces.

The castle-and-moat security model fails completely when your own workforce continuously creates tunnels through the walls to access the most powerful computational tools humanity has ever created. Organizations need governance frameworks, not just technical barriers.

Opinion: Shadow AI represents the most significant information security challenge for 2026 because it fundamentally breaks the traditional security model. Unlike previous shadow IT concerns (unauthorized SaaS apps), AI tools actively ingest, process, and potentially retain your data for model training purposes. Organizations need immediate AI governance frameworks including acceptable use policies, approved AI tool catalogs, data classification training, and technical controls like DLP rules for AI service domains. The solution isn’t blocking AI—that’s impossible and counterproductive—but rather creating “Lighted AI” pathways: secure, sanctioned AI tools with proper data handling controls. ISO 42001 provides exactly this framework, which is why AI Management Systems have become business-critical rather than optional compliance exercises.

Shadow AI for Everyone: Understanding Unauthorized Artificial Intelligence, Data Exposure, and the Hidden Threats Inside Modern Enterprises

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | AIMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: prompt Injection, Shadow AI

Dec 30 2025

EU AI Act: Why Every Organization Using AI Must Pay Attention

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 11:07 am

EU AI Act: Why Every Organization Using AI Must Pay Attention

The EU AI Act is the world’s first major regulation designed to govern how artificial intelligence is developed, deployed, and managed across industries. Approved in June 2024, it establishes harmonized rules for AI use across all EU member states — just as GDPR did for privacy.

Any organization that builds, integrates, or sells AI systems within the European Union must comply — even if they are headquartered outside the EU. That means U.S. and global companies using AI in European markets are officially in scope.

The Act introduces a risk-based regulatory model. AI is categorized across four risk tiers — from unacceptable, which are completely banned, to high-risk, which carry strict controls, limited-risk with transparency requirements, and minimal-risk, which remain largely unregulated.

High-risk AI includes systems governing access to healthcare, finance, employment, critical infrastructure, law enforcement, and essential public services. Providers of these systems must implement rigorous risk management, governance, monitoring, and documentation processes across the entire lifecycle.

Certain AI uses are explicitly prohibited — such as social scoring, biometric emotion recognition in workplaces or schools, manipulative AI techniques, and untargeted scraping of facial images for surveillance.

Compliance obligations are rolling out in phases beginning February 2025, with core high-risk system requirements taking effect in August 2026 and final provisions extending through 2027. Organizations have limited time to assess their current systems and prepare for adherence.

This legislation is expected to shape global AI governance frameworks — much like GDPR influenced worldwide privacy laws. Companies that act early gain an advantage: reduced legal exposure, customer trust, and stronger market positioning.

How DISC InfoSec Helps You Stay Ahead

DISC InfoSec brings 20+ years of security and compliance excellence with a proven multi-framework approach. Whether preparing for EU AI Act, ISO 42001, GDPR, SOC 2, or enterprise governance — we help organizations implement responsible AI controls without slowing innovation.

If your business touches the EU and uses AI — now is the time to get compliant.

📩 Let’s build your AI governance roadmap together.
Reach out: Info@DeuraInfosec.com

Earlier posts covering the EU AI Act

How ISO 42001 Strengthens Alignment With the EU AI Act (Without Replacing Legal Compliance)

Understanding Your AI System’s Risk Level: A Guide to EU AI Act Compliance

Identify the rights of individuals affected by AI systems under the EU AI Act by doing a fundamental rights impact assessment (FRIA)

EU AI Act’s guidelines on ethical AI deployment in a scenario

EU AI Act concerning Risk Management Systems for High-Risk AI

Understanding the EU AI Act: A Risk-Based Framework for Trustworthy AI – Implications for U.S. Organizations

Interpretation of Ethical AI Deployment under the EU AI Act

Aligning with ISO 42001:2023 and/or the EU Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: EU AI Act

Dec 26 2025

Are 43-Minute AI Interviews the Future of Hiring — or a Serious Step Back?

Category: AI — disc7 @ 4:59 pm

Many companies are now replacing real human recruiters with lengthy, proctored AI interviews — sometimes lasting over 40 minutes. For candidates, this feels absurd, especially when the system claims to learn about your personality and skills solely through automated prompts and video analysis.

This shift suggests a wider trust in AI for critical hiring decisions, even though cybersecurity failures continue to rise year after year. There’s a growing disconnect between technological adoption and real-world risk management.

Despite the questionable outcomes, companies promote these systems as part of a prestigious hiring process. They boast about connecting top talent with major Silicon Valley firms, projecting confidence that AI-driven evaluation is the future.

Applicants are told that completing a personal AI interview is the next mandatory step to “showcase their skills.” It’s framed as an opportunity rather than another automated filter.

The interview process is positioned as simple and straightforward — roughly 30 minutes, unless you’re applying for an engineering role where a coding challenge is added. No preparation is supposedly required.

A short instructional video is provided so candidates know how the AI interview will operate and what the interface will look like. The message suggests this is for candidate comfort and transparency.

After completing the AI interview, applicants will update their digital profile with any missing information. This profile becomes their automated representation to hiring managers.

Finally, once “certified” by the system, candidates will passively receive interview requests from companies — assuming they meet the algorithm’s standards.

My Opinion

While automation can improve efficiency, replacing real human judgment with AI in the earliest — and most personal — stage of hiring risks turning candidates into data points rather than people. It raises concerns about fairness, privacy, and bias, not to mention the irony that organizations deploying these tools still struggle to secure their own systems. A balance is needed: let AI assist the process, but don’t let it remove humanity from hiring.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI Interview

Dec 26 2025

Why AI-Driven Cybersecurity Frameworks Are Now a Business Imperative

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 27k,ISO 42001,NIST CSF,owasp — disc7 @ 8:52 am

A reliable industry context about AI and cybersecurity frameworks from recent market and trend reports. I’ll then give a clear opinion at the end.

1. AI Is Now Core to Cyber Defense
Artificial Intelligence is transforming how organizations defend against digital threats. Traditional signature-based security tools struggle to keep up with modern attacks, so companies are using AI—especially machine learning and behavioral analytics—to detect anomalies, predict risks, and automate responses in real time. This integration is now central to mature cybersecurity programs.

2. Market Expansion Reflects Strategic Adoption
The AI cybersecurity market is growing rapidly, with estimates projecting expansion from tens of billions today into the hundreds of billions within the next decade. This reflects more than hype—organizations across sectors are investing heavily in AI-enabled threat platforms to improve detection, reduce manual workload, and respond faster to attacks.

3. AI Architectures Span Detection to Response
Modern frameworks incorporate diverse AI technologies such as natural language processing, neural networks, predictive analytics, and robotic process automation. These tools support everything from network monitoring and endpoint protection to identity-based threat management and automated incident response.

4. Cloud and Hybrid Environments Drive Adoption
Cloud migrations and hybrid IT architectures have expanded attack surfaces, prompting more use of AI solutions that can scale across distributed environments. Cloud-native AI tools enable continuous monitoring and adaptive defenses that are harder to achieve with legacy on-premises systems.

5. Regulatory and Compliance Imperatives Are Growing
As digital transformation proceeds, regulatory expectations are rising too. Many frameworks now embed explainable AI and compliance-friendly models that help organizations demonstrate legal and ethical governance in areas like data privacy and secure AI operations.

6. Integration Challenges Remain
Despite the advantages, adopting AI frameworks isn’t plug-and-play. Organizations face hurdles including high implementation cost, lack of skilled AI security talent, and difficulties integrating new tools with legacy architectures. These challenges can slow deployment and reduce immediate ROI. (Inferred from general market trends)

7. Sophisticated Threats Demand Sophisticated Defenses
AI is both a defensive tool and a capability leveraged by attackers. Adversarial AI can generate more convincing phishing, exploit model weaknesses, and automate aspects of attacks. A robust cybersecurity framework must account for this dual role and include AI-specific risk controls.

8. Organizational Adoption Varies Widely
Enterprise adoption is strong, especially in regulated sectors like finance, healthcare, and government, while many small and medium businesses remain cautious due to cost and trust issues. This uneven adoption means frameworks must be flexible enough to suit different maturity levels. (From broader industry reports)

9. Frameworks Are Evolving With the Threat Landscape
Rather than static checklists, AI cybersecurity frameworks now emphasize continuous adaptation—integrating real-time risk assessment, behavioral intelligence, and autonomous response capabilities. This shift reflects the fact that cyber risk is dynamic and cannot be mitigated solely by periodic assessments or manual controls.

Opinion

AI-centric cybersecurity frameworks represent a necessary evolution in defense strategy, not a temporary trend. The old model of perimeter defense and signature matching simply doesn’t scale in an era of massive data volumes, sophisticated AI-augmented threats, and 24/7 cloud operations. However, the promise of AI must be tempered with governance rigor. Organizations that treat AI as a magic bullet will face blind spots and risks—especially around privacy, explainability, and integration complexity.

Ultimately, the most effective AI cybersecurity frameworks will balance automated, real-time intelligence with human oversight and clear governance policies. This blend maximizes defensive value while mitigating potential misuse or operational failures.

AI Cybersecurity Framework — Summary

AI Cybersecurity framework provides a holistic approach to securing AI systems by integrating governance, risk management, and technical defense across the full AI lifecycle. It aligns with widely-accepted standards such as NIST RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, OWASP AI Security Top 10, and privacy regulations (e.g., GDPR, CCPA).

1️⃣ Govern

Set strategic direction and oversight for AI risk.

  • Goals: Define policies, accountability, and acceptable risk levels
  • Key Controls: AI governance board, ethical guidelines, compliance checks
  • Outcomes: Approved AI policies, clear governance structures, documented risk appetite

2️⃣ Identify

Understand what needs protection and the related risks.

  • Goals: Map AI assets, data flows, threat landscape
  • Key Controls: Asset inventory, access governance, threat modeling
  • Outcomes: Risk register, inventory map, AI threat profiles

3️⃣ Protect

Implement safeguards for AI data, models, and infrastructure.

  • Goals: Prevent unauthorized access and protect model integrity
  • Key Controls: Encryption, access control, secure development lifecycle
  • Outcomes: Hardened architecture, encrypted data, well-trained teams

4️⃣ Detect

Find signs of attack or malfunction in real time.

  • Goals: Monitor models, identify anomalies early
  • Key Controls: Logging, threat detection, model behavior monitoring
  • Outcomes: Alerts, anomaly reports, high-quality threat intelligence

5️⃣ Respond

Act quickly to contain and resolve security incidents.

  • Goals: Minimize damage and prevent escalation
  • Key Controls: Incident response plans, investigations, forensics
  • Outcomes: Detailed incident reports, corrective actions, improved readiness

6️⃣ Recover

Restore normal operations and reduce the chances of repeat incidents.

  • Goals: Service continuity and post-incident improvement
  • Key Controls: Backup and recovery, resilience testing
  • Outcomes: Restored systems and lessons learned that enhance resilience

Cross-Cutting Principles

These safeguards apply throughout all phases:

  • Ethics & Fairness: Reduce bias, ensure transparency
  • Explainability & Interpretability: Understand model decisions
  • Human-in-the-Loop: Oversight and accountability remain essential
  • Privacy & Security: Protect data by design

AI-Specific Threats Addressed

  • Adversarial attacks (poisoning, evasion)
  • Model theft and intellectual property loss
  • Data leakage and inference attacks
  • Bias manipulation and harmful outcomes

Overall Message

This framework ensures trustworthy, secure, and resilient AI operations by applying structured controls from design through incident recovery—combining cybersecurity rigor with ethical and responsible AI practices.

Adversarial AI Attacks, Mitigations, and Defense Strategies: A cybersecurity professional’s guide to AI attacks, threat modeling, and securing AI with MLSecOps

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI-Driven Cybersecurity Frameworks

Dec 25 2025

LLMs Are a Dead End: LeCun’s Break From Meta and the Future of AI

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 3:24 pm

Yann LeCun — a pioneer of deep learning and Meta’s Chief AI Scientist — has left the company after shaping its AI strategy and influencing billions in investment. His departure is not a routine leadership change; it signals a deeper shift in how he believes AI must evolve.

LeCun is one of the founders of modern neural networks, a Turing Award recipient, and a core figure behind today’s deep learning breakthroughs. His work once appeared to be a dead end, yet it ultimately transformed the entire AI landscape.

Now, he is stepping away not to retire or join another corporate giant, but to create a startup focused on a direction Meta does not support. This choice underscores a bold statement: the current path of scaling Large Language Models (LLMs) may not lead to true artificial intelligence.

He argues that LLMs, despite their success, are fundamentally limited. They excel at predicting text but lack real understanding of the world. They cannot reason about physical reality, causality, or genuine intent behind events.

According to LeCun, today’s LLMs possess intelligence comparable to an animal — some say a cat — but even the cat has an advantage: it learns through real-world interaction rather than statistical guesswork.

His proposed alternative is what he calls World Models. These systems will learn like humans and animals do — by observing environments, experimenting, predicting outcomes, and refining internal representations of how the world works.

This approach challenges the current AI industry narrative that bigger models and more data alone will produce smarter, safer AI. Instead, LeCun suggests that a completely different foundation is required to achieve true machine intelligence.

Yet Meta continues investing enormous resources into scaling LLMs — the very AI paradigm he believes is nearing its limits. His departure raises an uncomfortable question about whether hype is leading strategic decisions more than science.

If he is correct, companies pushing ever-larger LLMs could face a major reckoning when progress plateaus and expectations fail to materialize.

My Opinion

LLMs are far from dead — they are already transforming industries and productivity. But LeCun highlights a real concern: scaling alone cannot produce human-level reasoning. The future likely requires a combination of both approaches — advanced language systems paired with world-aware learning. Instead of a dead end, this may be an inflection point where the AI field transitions toward deeper intelligence grounded in understanding, not just prediction.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: LLM, Yann LeCun

Dec 22 2025

Will AI Surpass Human Intelligence Soon? Examining the Race to the Singularity

Category: AI,AI Guardrails — disc7 @ 12:20 pm

Whether AI might surpass human intelligence in the next few years, based on recent trends and expert views — followed by my opinion:

Some recent analyses suggest that advances in AI capabilities may be moving fast enough that aspects of human‑level performance could be reached within a few years. One trend measurement — focusing on how quickly AI translation quality is improving compared to humans — shows steady progress and extrapolates that machine performance could equal human translators by the end of this decade if current trends continue. This has led to speculative headlines proposing that the technological singularity — the point where AI surpasses human intelligence in a broad sense — might occur within just a few years.

However, this type of projection is highly debated and depends heavily on how “intelligence” is defined and measured. Many experts emphasize that current AI systems, while powerful in narrow domains, are not yet near comprehensive general intelligence, and timelines vary widely. Surveys of AI researchers and more measured forecasts still often place true artificial general intelligence (AGI) — a prerequisite for singularity in many theories — much later, often around the 2030s or beyond.

There are also significant technical and conceptual challenges that make short‑term singularity predictions uncertain. Models today excel at specific tasks and show impressive abilities, but they lack the broad autonomy, self‑improvement capabilities, and general reasoning that many definitions of human‑level intelligence assume. Progress is real and rapid, yet experts differ sharply in timelines — some suggest near‑term breakthroughs, while others see more gradual advancement over decades.

My Opinion

I think it’s unlikely that AI will fully surpass human intelligence across all domains in the next few years. We are witnessing astonishing progress in certain areas — language, pattern recognition, generation, and task automation — but those achievements are still narrow compared to the full breadth of human cognition, creativity, and common‑sense reasoning. Broad, autonomous intelligence that consistently outperforms humans across contexts remains a formidable research challenge.

That said, AI will continue transforming industries and augmenting human capabilities, and we will likely see systems that feel very powerful in specialized tasks well before true singularity — perhaps by the late 2020s or early 2030s. The exact timeline will depend on breakthroughs we can’t yet predict, and it’s essential to prepare ethically and socially for the impacts even if singularity itself remains distant.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: Singularity

Dec 22 2025

Securing Generative AI Usage in the Browser to Prevent Data Leakage

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Governance Tools — disc7 @ 9:14 am

Here’s a rephrased and summarized version of the linked article organized into nine paragraphs, followed by my opinion at the end.

1️⃣ The Browser Has Become the Main AI Risk Vector
Modern workers increasingly use generative AI tools directly inside the browser, pasting emails, business files, and even source code into online AI assistants. Because traditional enterprise security tools weren’t built to monitor or understand this behavior, sensitive data often flows out of corporate control without detection.

2️⃣ Blocking AI Isn’t Realistic
Simply banning generative AI usage isn’t a workable solution. These tools offer productivity gains that employees and organizations find valuable. The article argues the real focus should be on securing how and where AI tools are used inside the browser session itself.

3️⃣ Understanding the Threat Model
The article outlines why browser-based AI interactions are uniquely risky: users routinely paste whole documents and proprietary data into prompt boxes, upload confidential files, and interact with AI extensions that have broad permission scopes. These behaviors create a threat surface that legacy defenses like firewalls and traditional DLP simply can’t see.

4️⃣ Policy Is the Foundation of Security
A strong security policy is described as the first step. Organizations should categorize which AI tools are sanctioned versus restricted and define what data types should never be entered into generative AI, such as financial records, regulated personal data, or source code. Enforcement matters: policies must be backed by browser-level controls, not just user guidance.

5️⃣ Isolation Reduces Risk Without Stopping Productivity
Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, teams can isolate risky workflows. For example, separate browser profiles or session controls can keep general AI usage away from sensitive internal applications. This lets employees use AI where appropriate while limiting accidental data exposure.

6️⃣ Data Controls at the Browser Edge
Technical data controls are critical to enforce policy. These include monitoring copy/paste actions, drag-and-drop events, and file uploads at the browser level before data ever reaches an external AI service. Tiered enforcement — from warnings to hard blocks — helps balance security with usability.

7️⃣ Managing AI Extensions Is Essential
Many AI-powered browser extensions require broad permissions — including read/modify page content — which can become covert data exfiltration channels if left unmanaged. The article emphasizes classifying and restricting such extensions based on risk.

8️⃣ Identity and Account Hygiene
Tying all sanctioned AI interactions back to corporate identities through single sign-on improves visibility and accountability. It also helps prevent situations where personal accounts or mixed browser contexts leak corporate data.

9️⃣ Visibility and Continuous Improvement
Lastly, strong telemetry — tracking what AI tools are accessed, what data is entered, and how often policy triggers occur — is essential to refine controls over time. Analytics can highlight risky patterns and help teams adjust policies and training for better outcomes.

My Opinion

This perspective is practical and forward-looking. Instead of knee-jerk bans on AI — which employees will circumvent — the article realistically treats the browser as the new security perimeter. That aligns with broader industry findings showing that browser-mediated AI usage is a major exfiltration channel and traditional security tools often miss it entirely.

However, implementing the recommended policies and controls isn’t trivial. It demands new tooling, tight integration with identity systems, and continuous monitoring, which many organizations struggle with today. But the payoff — enabling secure AI usage without crippling productivity — makes this a worthy direction to pursue. Secure AI adoption shouldn’t be about fear or bans, but about governance, visibility, and informed risk management.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI Browser, Data leakage

Dec 19 2025

ShareVault Achieves ISO 42001 Certification: Leading AI Governance in Virtual Data Rooms

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 1:57 pm

ISO 42001 Certification by Leading AI Governance in Virtual Data Rooms

When your clients trust you with their most sensitive M&A documents, financial records, and confidential deal information, every security and compliance decision matters. ShareVault has taken a significant step beyond traditional data room security by achieving ISO 42001 certification—the international standard for AI management systems.

Why Financial Services and M&A Professionals Should Care

If you’re a deal advisor, investment banker, or private equity professional, you’re increasingly relying on AI-powered features in your virtual data room—intelligent document indexing, automated redaction suggestions, smart search capabilities, and analytics that surface insights from thousands of documents.

But how do you know these AI capabilities are managed responsibly? How can you be confident that:

  • AI systems won’t introduce bias into document classification or search results?
  • Algorithms processing sensitive financial data meet rigorous security standards?
  • Your confidential deal information isn’t being used to train AI models?
  • AI-driven recommendations are explainable and auditable for regulatory scrutiny?

ISO 42001 provides the answers. This comprehensive framework addresses AI-specific risks that traditional information security standards like ISO 27001 don’t fully cover.

ShareVault’s Commitment to AI Governance Excellence

ShareVault recognized early that as AI capabilities become more sophisticated in virtual data rooms, clients need assurance that goes beyond generic “we take security seriously” statements. The financial services and legal professionals who rely on ShareVault for billion-dollar transactions deserve verifiable proof of responsible AI management.

That commitment led ShareVault to pursue ISO 42001 certification—joining a select group of pioneers implementing the world’s first AI management system standard.

Building Trust Through Independent Verification

ShareVault engaged DISC InfoSec as an independent internal auditor specifically for ISO 42001 compliance. This wasn’t a rubber-stamp exercise. DISC InfoSec brought deep expertise in both AI governance frameworks and information security, conducting rigorous assessments of:

  • AI system lifecycle management – How ShareVault develops, deploys, monitors, and updates AI capabilities
  • Data governance for AI – Controls ensuring training data quality, protection, and appropriate use
  • Algorithmic transparency – Documentation and explainability of AI decision-making processes
  • Risk management – Identification and mitigation of AI-specific risks like bias, hallucinations, and unexpected outputs
  • Human oversight – Ensuring appropriate human involvement in AI-assisted processes

The internal audit process identified gaps, drove remediation efforts, and prepared ShareVault for external certification assessment—demonstrating a genuine commitment to AI governance rather than superficial compliance.

Certification Achieved: A Leadership Milestone

In 2025, ShareVault successfully completed both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits conducted by SenSiba, an accredited certification body. The Stage 1 audit validated ShareVault’s comprehensive documentation, policies, and procedures. The Stage 2 audit, completed in December 2025, examined actual implementation—verifying that controls operate effectively in practice, risks are actively managed, and continuous improvement processes function as designed.

ShareVault is now ISO 42001 certified—one of the first virtual data room providers to achieve this distinction. This certification reflects genuine leadership in responsible AI deployment, independently verified by external auditors with no stake in the outcome.

For financial services professionals, this means ShareVault’s AI governance approach has been rigorously assessed and certified against international standards, providing assurance that extends far beyond vendor claims.

What This Means for Your Deals

When you’re managing a $500 million acquisition or handling sensitive financial restructuring documents, you need more than promises about AI safety. ShareVault’s ISO 42001 certification provides tangible, verified assurance:

For M&A Advisors: Confidence that AI-powered document analytics won’t introduce errors or biases that could impact deal analysis or due diligence findings.

For Investment Bankers: Assurance that confidential client information processed by AI features remains protected and isn’t repurposed for model training or shared across clients.

For Legal Professionals: Auditability and explainability of AI-assisted document review and classification—critical when facing regulatory scrutiny or litigation.

For Private Equity Firms: Verification that AI capabilities in your deal rooms meet institutional-grade governance standards your LPs and regulators expect.

Why Industry Leadership Matters

The financial services industry faces increasing regulatory pressure regarding AI usage. The EU AI Act, SEC guidance on AI in financial services, and evolving state-level AI regulations all point toward a future where AI governance isn’t optional—it’s required.

ShareVault’s achievement of ISO 42001 certification demonstrates foresight that benefits clients in two critical ways:

Today: You gain immediate, certified assurance that AI capabilities in your data room meet rigorous governance standards, reducing your own AI-related risk exposure.

Tomorrow: As regulations tighten, you’re already working with a provider whose AI governance framework is certified against international standards, simplifying your own compliance efforts and protecting your competitive position.

The Bottom Line

For financial services and M&A professionals who demand the highest standards of security and compliance, ShareVault’s ISO 42001 certification represents more than a technical achievement—it’s independently verified proof of commitment to earning and maintaining your trust.

The rigorous process of implementation, independent internal auditing by DISC InfoSec, and successful completion of both Stage 1 and Stage 2 assessments by SenSiba demonstrates that ShareVault’s AI capabilities are deployed with certified safeguards, transparency, and accountability.

As deals become more complex and AI capabilities more sophisticated, partnering with a certified virtual data room provider that has proven its AI governance leadership isn’t just prudent—it’s essential to protecting your clients, your reputation, and your firm.

ShareVault’s investment in ISO 42001 certification means you can leverage powerful AI capabilities in your deal rooms with confidence that responsible management practices are independently certified and continuously maintained.

Ready to experience a virtual data room where AI innovation meets certified governance? Contact ShareVault to learn how ISO 42001-certified AI management protects your most sensitive transactions.

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: ISO 42001 certificate, Sharevault

Dec 16 2025

A Simple 4-Step Path to ISO 42001 for SMBs

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 9:49 am

A Simple 4-Step Path to ISO 42001 for SMBs

Practical AI Governance for Compliance, Risk, and Security Leaders

Artificial Intelligence is moving fast—but regulations, customer expectations, and board-level scrutiny are moving even faster. ISO/IEC 42001 gives organizations a structured way to govern AI responsibly, securely, and in alignment with laws like the EU AI Act.

For SMBs, the good news is this: ISO 42001 does not require massive AI programs or complex engineering changes. At its core, it follows a clear four-step process that compliance, risk, and security teams already understand.

Step 1: Define AI Scope and Governance Context

The first step is understanding where and how AI is used in your business. This includes internally developed models, third-party AI tools, SaaS platforms with embedded AI, and even automation driven by machine learning.

For SMBs, this step is about clarity—not perfection. You define:

  • What AI systems are in scope
  • Business objectives and constraints
  • Regulatory, contractual, and ethical expectations
  • Roles and accountability for AI decisions

This mirrors how ISO 27001 defines ISMS scope, making it familiar for security and compliance teams.

Step 2: Identify and Assess AI Risks

Once AI usage is defined, the focus shifts to risk identification and impact assessment. Unlike traditional cyber risk, AI introduces new concerns such as bias, model drift, lack of explainability, data misuse, and unintended outcomes.

In this step, organizations:

  • Identify AI-specific risks across the lifecycle
  • Evaluate business, legal, and security impact
  • Consider affected stakeholders (customers, employees, regulators)
  • Prioritize risks based on likelihood and severity

This step aligns closely with enterprise risk management and can be integrated into existing risk registers.

Step 3: Implement AI Controls and Lifecycle Management

With risks prioritized, the organization selects practical governance and security controls. ISO 42001 does not prescribe one-size-fits-all solutions—it focuses on proportional controls based on risk.

Typical activities include:

  • AI policies and acceptable use guidelines
  • Human oversight and approval checkpoints
  • Data governance and model documentation
  • Secure development and vendor due diligence
  • Change management for AI updates

For SMBs, this is about leveraging existing ISO 27001, SOC 2, or NIST-aligned controls and extending them to cover AI.

Step 4: Monitor, Audit, and Improve

AI governance is not a one-time exercise. The final step ensures continuous monitoring, review, and improvement as AI systems evolve.

This includes:

  • Ongoing performance and risk monitoring
  • Internal audits and management reviews
  • Incident handling and corrective actions
  • Readiness for certification or regulatory review

This step closes the loop and ensures AI governance stays aligned with business growth and regulatory change.

Why This Matters for SMBs

Regulators and customers are no longer asking if you use AI—they’re asking how you govern it. ISO 42001 provides a defensible, auditable framework that shows due diligence without slowing innovation.

How DISC InfoSec Can Help

DISC InfoSec helps SMBs implement ISO 42001 quickly, pragmatically, and cost-effectively—especially if you’re already aligned with ISO 27001, SOC 2, or NIST. We translate AI risk into business language, reuse what you already have, and guide you from scoping to certification readiness.

👉 Talk to DISC InfoSec to build AI governance that satisfies regulators, reassures customers, and supports safe AI adoption—without unnecessary complexity.

Tufte_iso42001_pdf

ISO-42k-four-steps-process-diagram-2025-12-16-002218Download

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: 4-Step Path to ISO 42001

Dec 15 2025

How ISO 42001 Strengthens Alignment With the EU AI Act (Without Replacing Legal Compliance)

Category: AI,AI Governance,AI Guardrails,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 11:16 am

— What ISO 42001 Is and Its Purpose
ISO 42001 is a new international standard for AI governance and management systems designed to help organizations systematically manage AI-related risks and regulatory requirements. Rather than acting as a simple checklist, it sets up an ongoing framework for defining obligations, understanding how AI systems are used, and establishing controls that fit an organization’s specific risk profile. This structure resembles other ISO management system standards (such as ISO 27001) but focuses on AI’s unique challenges.

— ISO 42001’s Role in Structured Governance
At its core, ISO 42001 helps organizations build consistent AI governance practices. It encourages comprehensive documentation, clear roles and responsibilities, and formalized oversight—essentials for accountable AI development and deployment. This structured approach aligns with the EU AI Act’s broader principles, which emphasize accountability, transparency, and risk-based management of AI systems.

— Documentation and Risk Management Synergies
Both ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act call for thorough risk assessments, lifecycle documentation, and ongoing monitoring of AI systems. Implementing ISO 42001 can make it easier to maintain records of design choices, testing results, performance evaluations, and risk controls, which supports regulatory reviews and audits. This not only creates a stronger compliance posture but also prepares organizations to respond with evidence if regulators request proof of due diligence.

— Complementary Ethical and Operational Practices
ISO 42001 embeds ethical principles—such as fairness, non-discrimination, and human oversight—into the organizational governance culture. These values closely match the normative goals of the EU AI Act, which seeks to prevent harm and bias from AI systems. By internalizing these principles at the management level, organizations can more coherently translate ethical obligations into operational policies and practices that regulators expect.

— Not a Legal Substitute for Compliance Obligations
Importantly, ISO 42001 is not a legal guarantee of EU AI Act compliance on its own. The standard remains voluntary and, as of now, is not formally harmonized under the AI Act, meaning certification does not automatically confer “presumption of conformity.” The Act includes highly specific requirements—such as risk class registration, mandated reporting timelines, and prohibitions on certain AI uses—that ISO 42001’s management-system focus does not directly satisfy. ISO 42001 provides the infrastructure for strong governance, but organizations must still execute legal compliance activities in parallel to meet the letter of the law.

— Practical Benefits Beyond Compliance
Even though it isn’t a standalone compliance passport, adopting ISO 42001 offers many practical benefits. It can streamline internal AI governance, improve audit readiness, support integration with other ISO standards (like security and quality), and enhance stakeholder confidence in AI practices. Organizations that embed ISO 42001 can reduce risk of missteps, build stronger evidence trails, and align cross-functional teams for both ethical practice and regulatory readiness.

My Opinion
ISO 42001 is a valuable foundation for AI governance and a strong enabler of EU AI Act compliance—but it should be treated as the starting point, not the finish line. It helps organizations build structured processes, risk awareness, and ethical controls that align with regulatory expectations. However, because the EU AI Act’s requirements are detailed and legally enforceable, organizations must still map ISO-level controls to specific Act obligations, maintain live evidence, and fulfill procedural legal demands beyond what ISO 42001 specifies. In practice, using ISO 42001 as a governance backbone plus tailored compliance activities is the most pragmatic and defensible approach.

Emerging Tools & Frameworks for AI Governance & Security Testing

Free ISO 42001 Compliance Checklist: Assess Your AI Governance Readiness in 10 Minutes

AI Governance Tools: Essential Infrastructure for Responsible AI

Bridging the AI Governance Gap: How to Assess Your Current Compliance Framework Against ISO 42001

ISO 27001 Certified? You’re Missing 47 AI Controls That Auditors Are Now Flagging

Understanding Your AI System’s Risk Level: A Guide to EU AI Act Compliance

Building an Effective AI Risk Assessment Process

ISO/IEC 42001: The New Blueprint for Trustworthy and Responsible AI Governance

AI Governance Gap Assessment tool

AI Governance Quick Audit

How ISO 42001 & ISO 27001 Overlap for AI: Lessons from a Security Breach

ISO 42001:2023 Control Gap Assessment – Your Roadmap to Responsible AI Governance

InfoSec services | InfoSec books | Follow our blog | DISC llc is listed on The vCISO Directory | ISO 27k Chat bot | Comprehensive vCISO Services | ISMS Services | Security Risk Assessment Services | Mergers and Acquisition Security

Tags: AI Governance, ISO 42001

« Previous Page — Next Page »