Sep 11 2025

ISO/IEC 42001: The Global Standard for Responsible AI Governance, Risk, and Compliance

Category: AI,AI Governance,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 4:22 pm

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transitioned from experimental to operational, driving transformations across healthcare, finance, education, transportation, and government. With its rapid adoption, organizations face mounting pressure to ensure AI systems are trustworthy, ethical, and compliant with evolving regulations such as the EU AI Act, Canada’s AI Directive, and emerging U.S. policies. Effective governance and risk management have become critical to mitigating potential harms and reputational damage.

ISO 42001 isn’t just an additional compliance framework—it serves as the integration layer that brings all AI governance, risk, control monitoring and compliance efforts together into a unified system called AIMS.

To address these challenges, a structured governance, risk, and compliance (GRC) framework is essential. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 – the Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) standard – provides organizations with a comprehensive approach to managing AI responsibly, similar to how ISO/IEC 27001 supports information security.

ISO/IEC 42001 is the world’s first international standard specifically for AI management systems. It establishes a management system framework (Clauses 4–10) and detailed AI-specific controls (Annex A). These elements guide organizations in governing AI responsibly, assessing and mitigating risks, and demonstrating compliance to regulators, partners, and customers.

One of the key benefits of ISO/IEC 42001 is stronger AI governance. The standard defines leadership roles, responsibilities, and accountability structures for AI, alongside clear policies and ethical guidelines. By aligning AI initiatives with organizational strategy and stakeholder expectations, organizations build confidence among boards, regulators, and the public that AI is being managed responsibly.

ISO/IEC 42001 also provides a structured approach to risk management. It helps organizations identify, assess, and mitigate risks such as bias, lack of explainability, privacy issues, and safety concerns. Lifecycle controls covering data, models, and outputs integrate AI risk into enterprise-wide risk management, preventing operational, legal, and reputational harm from unintended AI consequences.

Compliance readiness is another critical benefit. ISO/IEC 42001 aligns with global regulations like the EU AI Act and OECD AI Principles, ensuring robust data quality, transparency, human oversight, and post-market monitoring. Internal audits and continuous improvement cycles create an audit-ready environment, demonstrating regulatory compliance and operational accountability.

Finally, ISO/IEC 42001 fosters trust and competitive advantage. Certification signals commitment to responsible AI, strengthening relationships with customers, investors, and regulators. For high-risk sectors such as healthcare, finance, transportation, and government, it provides market differentiation and reinforces brand reputation through proven accountability.

Opinion: ISO/IEC 42001 is rapidly becoming the foundational standard for responsible AI deployment. Organizations adopting it not only safeguard against risks and regulatory penalties but also position themselves as leaders in ethical, trustworthy AI system. For businesses serious about AI’s long-term impact, ethical compliance, transparency, user trust ISO/IEC 42001 is as essential as ISO/IEC 27001 is for information security.

Most importantly, ISO 42001 AIMS is built to integrate seamlessly with ISO 27001 ISMS. It’s highly recommended to first achieve certification or alignment with ISO 27001 before pursuing ISO 42001.

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions.

What are main requirements for Internal audit of ISO 42001 AIMS

ISO 42001: The AI Governance Standard Every Organization Needs to Understand

Turn Compliance into Competitive Advantage with ISO 42001

ISO 42001 Readiness: A 10-Step Guide to Responsible AI Governance

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

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

ISO 42001—the first international standard for managing artificial intelligence. Developed for organizations that design, deploy, or oversee AI, ISO 42001 is set to become the ISO 9001 of AI: a universal framework for trustworthy, transparent, and responsible AI.


Trust Me – ISO 42001 AI Management System

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 – from establishing to maintain an AI management system

AI Act & ISO 42001 Gap Analysis Tool

Agentic AI: Navigating Risks and Security Challenges

Artificial Intelligence: The Next Battlefield in Cybersecurity

AI and The Future of Cybersecurity: Navigating the New Digital Battlefield

“Whether you’re a technology professional, policymaker, academic, or simply a curious reader, this book will arm you with the knowledge to navigate the complex intersection of AI, security, and society.”

AI Act & ISO 42001 Gap Analysis Tool

AI Governance Is a Boardroom Imperative—The SEC Just Raised the Stakes on AI Hype

How AI Is Transforming the Cybersecurity Leadership Playbook

Previous AI posts

IBM’s model-routing approach

Top 5 AI-Powered Scams to Watch Out for in 2025

Summary of CISO 3.0: Leading AI Governance and Security in the Boardroom

AI in the Workplace: Replacing Tasks, Not People

Why CISOs Must Prioritize Data Provenance in AI Governance

Interpretation of Ethical AI Deployment under the EU AI Act

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

ISO/IEC 42001:2023, First Edition: Information technology – Artificial intelligence – Management system

ISO 42001 Artificial Intelligence Management Systems (AIMS) Implementation Guide: AIMS Framework | AI Security Standards

Businesses leveraging AI should prepare now for a future of increasing regulation.

Digital Ethics in the Age of AI 

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

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

Sep 11 2025

UN Adopts First-Ever Global AI Resolution: A Framework for Trust and Responsibility

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 12:57 pm

The United Nations has officially taken a historic step by adopting its first resolution on artificial intelligence. This marks the beginning of a global dialogue where nations acknowledge both the promise and the risks that AI carries.

The resolution represents a shared framework, where countries have reached consensus on guiding principles for AI. Although the agreement is not legally binding, it establishes a moral and political foundation for responsible development.

At the core of the resolution is a call for the safe and ethical use of AI. The aim is to ensure that technology enhances human life rather than diminishing it, emphasizing values over unchecked advancement.

Human rights and privacy protection are highlighted as non-negotiable priorities. The resolution reinforces the idea that individuals must remain at the center of technological progress, with strong safeguards against misuse.

It also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability. Algorithms that influence decisions in critical areas—such as healthcare, employment, and governance—must be explainable and subject to oversight.

International collaboration is another pillar of the framework. Nations are urged to work together on standards, share research, and avoid fragmented approaches that could widen global inequalities in technology.

The resolution recognizes that AI is not merely about innovation; it is about shaping trust, power, and human values. However, questions remain about whether such frameworks can keep pace with the speed at which AI is evolving.

Why it matters: These mechanisms will help anticipate risks, set standards, and make sure AI serves humanity – not the other way around.

Read more: https://lnkd.in/epxFHkaC

My Opinion:
This resolution is a significant milestone, but it is only a starting point. While it sets a common direction, enforcement and adaptability remain challenges. If nations treat this as a foundation for actionable policies and binding agreements in the future, it could help balance innovation with safeguards. Without stronger mechanisms, however, the risks of bias, misinformation, and economic upheaval may outpace the protections envisioned.

The AI Governance Flywheel illustrates how standards, regulations, and governance practices interlock to drive a self-reinforcing cycle of continuous improvement.

Exploring AI security, privacy, and the pressing regulatory gaps—especially relevant to today’s fast-paced AI landscape

What are main requirements for Internal audit of ISO 42001 AIMS

The Dutch AI Act Guide: A Practical Roadmap for Compliance

Embedding AI Oversight into GRC: Building Trust, Compliance, and Accountability

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Framework for Trust and Responsibility, Global AI Resolution, UN

Sep 10 2025

The AI Governance Flywheel illustrates how standards, regulations, and governance practices interlock to drive a self-reinforcing cycle of continuous improvement.

Category: AI,AI Governance,FlyWheel — disc7 @ 9:25 am

The AI Governance Flywheel is a practical framework your organization can adopt to align standards, regulations, and governance processes in a dynamic cycle of continuous improvement.

It shows how standards, regulations, and governance practices reinforce each other in a cycle of continuous improvement.

AI Governance Flywheel

1. Standards & Frameworks

  • ISO/IEC 42001 (AI Management System)
  • ISO/IEC 23894 (AI Risk Management)
  • EU AI Act
  • NIST AI RMF
  • OECD AI Principles

➡️ Provide structure, terminology, and baseline practices.

2. Regulations & Policies

  • EU AI Act
  • U.S. Executive Order on AI (2023)
  • China AI Regulations
  • National/sectoral guidelines (healthcare, finance, defense)

➡️ Drive compliance requirements and enforce responsible AI.

3. Governance & Controls

  • AI Ethics Boards
  • Risk Assessment & Mitigation
  • AI Transparency & Explainability
  • Data Governance & Privacy (GDPR, CCPA)

➡️ Ensure AI use is aligned with business values, laws, and trust.

4. Implementation & Operations

  • AI System Lifecycle Management
  • Model Monitoring & Auditing
  • Bias/Fairness Testing
  • Incident Response for AI Risks

➡️ Embed governance in day-to-day AI operations.

5. Continuous Improvement

  • Internal & external audits
  • Feedback loops from incidents/regulators
  • Updating models, policies, and controls
  • Staff training and culture building

➡️ Enhances trust, reduces risks, and prepares for evolving standards/regulations.

📌 The flywheel keeps spinning:
Standards → Regulations → Governance → Operations → Improvement → back to Standards.

Spinning the AI Flywheel™ (Mastering AI Strategy): How to Discover, Build, Deploy and Scale AI for Lasting Business Impact (ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – AI) 

Exploring AI security, privacy, and the pressing regulatory gaps—especially relevant to today’s fast-paced AI landscape

What are main requirements for Internal audit of ISO 42001 AIMS

The Dutch AI Act Guide: A Practical Roadmap for Compliance

Embedding AI Oversight into GRC: Building Trust, Compliance, and Accountability

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 FlyWheel

Sep 09 2025

Exploring AI security, privacy, and the pressing regulatory gaps—especially relevant to today’s fast-paced AI landscape

Category: AI,AI Governance,Information Security — disc7 @ 12:44 pm

Featured Read: “Securing the AI Frontier: Urgent Ethical and Regulatory Imperatives for AI-Driven Cybersecurity“

  • Overview: This academic paper examines the growing ethical and regulatory challenges brought on by AI’s integration with cybersecurity. It traces the evolution of AI regulation, highlights pressing concerns—like bias, transparency, accountability, and data privacy—and emphasizes the tension between innovation and risk mitigation.
  • Key Insights:
    • AI systems raise unique privacy/security issues due to their opacity and lack of human oversight.
    • Current regulations are fragmented—varying by sector—with no unified global approach.
    • Bridging the regulatory gap requires improved AI literacy, public engagement, and cooperative policymaking to shape responsible frameworks.
  • Source: Authored by Vikram Kulothungan, published in January 2025, this paper cogently calls for a globally harmonized regulatory strategy and multi-stakeholder collaboration to ensure AI’s secure deployment.

Why This Post Stands Out

  • Comprehensive: Tackles both cybersecurity and privacy within the AI context—not just one or the other.
  • Forward-Looking: Addresses systemic concerns, laying the groundwork for future regulation rather than retrofitting rules around current technology.
  • Action-Oriented: Frames AI regulation as a collaborative challenge involving policymakers, technologists, and civil society.

Additional Noteworthy Commentary on AI Regulation

1. Anthropic CEO’s NYT Op-ed: A Call for Sensible Transparency

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei criticized a proposed 10-year ban on state-level AI regulation as “too blunt.” He advocates a federal transparency standard requiring AI developers to disclose testing methods, risk mitigation, and pre-deployment safety measures.

2. California’s AI Policy Report: Guarding Against Irreversible Harms

A report commissioned by Governor Newsom warns of AI’s potential to facilitate biological and nuclear threats. It advocates “trust but verify” frameworks, increased transparency, whistleblower protections, and independent safety validation.

3. Mutually Assured Deregulation: The Risks of a Race Without Guardrails

Gilad Abiri argues that dismantling AI safety oversight in the name of competition is dangerous. Deregulation doesn’t give lasting advantages—it undermines long-term security, enabling proliferation of harmful AI capabilities like bioweapon creation or unstable AGI.

Broader Context & Insights

  • Fragmented Landscape: U.S. lacks unified privacy or AI laws; even executive orders remain limited in scope.
  • Data Risk: Many organizations suffer from unintended AI data exposure and poor governance despite having some policies in place.
  • Regulatory Innovation: Texas passed a law focusing only on government AI use, signaling a partial step toward regulation—but private sector oversight remains limited.
  • International Efforts: The Council of Europe’s AI Convention (2024) is a rare international treaty aligning AI development with human rights and democratic values.
  • Research Proposals: Techniques like blockchain-enabled AI governance are being explored as transparency-heavy, cross-border compliance tools.

Opinion

AI’s pace of innovation is extraordinary—and so are its risks. We’re at a crossroads where lack of regulation isn’t a neutral stance—it accelerates inequity, privacy violations, and even public safety threats.

What’s needed:

  1. Layered Regulation: From sector-specific rules to overarching international frameworks; we need both precision and stability.
  2. Transparency Mandates: Companies must be held to explicit standards—model testing practices, bias mitigation, data usage, and safety protocols.
  3. Public Engagement & Literacy: AI literacy shouldn’t be limited to technologists. Citizens, policymakers, and enforcement institutions must be equipped to participate meaningfully.
  4. Safety as Innovation Avenue: Strong regulation doesn’t kill innovation—it guides it. Clear rules create reliable markets, investor confidence, and socially acceptable products.

The paper “Securing the AI Frontier” sets the right tone—urging collaboration, ethics, and systemic governance. Pair that with state-level transparency measures (like Newsom’s report) and critiques of over-deregulation (like Abiri’s essay), and we get a multi-faceted strategy toward responsible AI.

Anthropic CEO says proposed 10-year ban on state AI regulation ‘too blunt’ in NYT op-ed

California AI Policy Report Warns of ‘Irreversible Harms’ 

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 privacy, AI Regulations, AI security, AI standards

Sep 08 2025

What are main requirements for Internal audit of ISO 42001 AIMS

Category: AI,Information Security,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 2:23 pm

ISO 42001 is the upcoming standard for AI Management Systems (AIMS), similar in structure to ISO 27001 for information security. While the full standard is not yet widely published, the main requirements for an internal audit of an ISO 42001 AIMS can be outlined based on common audit principles and the expected clauses in the standard. Here’s a structured view:

1. Audit Scope and Objectives

  • Define what parts of the AI management system will be audited (processes, teams, AI models, AI governance, data handling, etc.).
  • Ensure the audit covers all ISO 42001 clauses relevant to your organization.
  • Determine audit objectives, e.g.,:
    • Compliance with ISO 42001.
    • Effectiveness of risk management for AI.
    • Alignment with organizational AI strategy and policies.

2. Compliance with AIMS Requirements

  • Check whether the organization’s AI management system meets ISO 42001 requirements, which likely include:
    • AI governance framework.
    • Risk management for AI (AI lifecycle, bias, safety, privacy).
    • Policies and procedures for AI development, deployment, and monitoring.
    • Data management and ethical AI principles.
    • Roles, responsibilities, and competency requirements for AI personnel.

3. Documentation and Records

  • Verify that documentation exists and is maintained, e.g.:
    • AI policies, procedures, and guidelines.
    • Risk assessments, impact assessments, and mitigation plans.
    • Training records and personnel competency evaluations.
    • Records of AI incidents, anomalies, or failures.
    • Audit logs of AI models and data handling activities.

4. Risk Management and Controls

  • Review whether risks related to AI (bias, safety, security, privacy) are identified, assessed, and mitigated.
  • Check implementation of controls:
    • Data quality and integrity controls.
    • Model validation and testing.
    • Human oversight and accountability mechanisms.
    • Compliance with relevant regulations and ethical standards.

5. Performance Monitoring and Improvement

  • Evaluate monitoring and measurement processes:
    • Metrics for AI model performance and compliance.
    • Monitoring of ethical and legal adherence.
    • Feedback loops for continuous improvement.
  • Assess whether corrective actions and improvements are identified and implemented.

6. Internal Audit Process Requirements

  • Audits should be planned, objective, and systematic.
  • Auditors must be independent of the area being audited.
  • Audit reports must include:
    • Findings (compliance, nonconformities, opportunities for improvement).
    • Recommendations.
  • Follow-up to verify closure of nonconformities.

7. Management Review Alignment

  • Internal audit results should feed into management reviews for:
    • AI risk mitigation effectiveness.
    • Resource allocation.
    • Policy updates and strategic AI decisions.

Key takeaway: An ISO 42001 internal audit is not just about checking boxes—it’s about verifying that AI systems are governed, ethical, and risk-managed throughout their lifecycle, with evidence, controls, and continuous improvement in place.

An Internal Audit agreement aligned with ISO 42001 should include the following key components, each described below to ensure clarity and operational relevance:

🧭 Scope of Services

The agreement should clearly define the consultant’s role in leading and advising the internal audit team. This includes directing the audit process, training team members on ISO 42001 methodologies, and overseeing all phases—from planning to reporting. It should also specify advisory responsibilities such as interpreting ISO 42001 requirements, identifying compliance gaps, and validating governance frameworks. The scope must emphasize the consultant’s authority to review and approve all audit work to ensure alignment with professional standards.

📄 Deliverables

A detailed list of expected outputs should be included, such as a comprehensive audit report with an executive summary, gap analysis, and risk assessment. The agreement should also cover a remediation plan with prioritized actions, implementation guidance, and success metrics. Supporting materials like policy templates, training recommendations, and compliance monitoring frameworks should be outlined. Finally, it should ensure the development of a capable internal audit team and documentation of audit procedures for future use.

⏳ Timeline

The agreement must specify key milestones, including project start and completion dates, training deadlines, audit phase completion, and approval checkpoints for draft and final reports. This timeline ensures accountability and helps coordinate internal resources effectively.

💰 Compensation

This section should detail the total project fee, payment terms, and a milestone-based payment schedule. It should also clarify reimbursable expenses (e.g., travel) and note that internal team costs and facilities are the client’s responsibility. Transparency in financial terms helps prevent disputes and ensures mutual understanding.

👥 Client Responsibilities

The client’s obligations should be clearly stated, including assigning qualified internal audit team members, ensuring their availability, designating a project coordinator, and providing access to necessary personnel, systems, and facilities. The agreement should also require timely feedback on deliverables and commitment from the internal team to complete audit tasks under the consultant’s guidance.

🎓 Consultant Responsibilities

The consultant’s duties should include providing expert leadership, training the internal team, reviewing and approving all work products, maintaining quality standards, and being available for ongoing consultation. This ensures the consultant remains accountable for the integrity and effectiveness of the audit process.

🔐 Confidentiality

A robust confidentiality clause should protect proprietary information shared during the engagement. It should specify the duration of confidentiality obligations post-engagement and ensure that internal audit team members are bound by equivalent terms. This builds trust and safeguards sensitive data.

💡 Intellectual Property

The agreement should clarify ownership of work products, stating that outputs created by the internal team under the consultant’s guidance belong to the client. It should also allow the consultant to retain general methodologies and templates for future use, while jointly owning training materials and audit frameworks.

⚖️ Limitation of Liability

This clause should cap the consultant’s liability to the total fee paid and exclude consequential or punitive damages. It should reinforce that ISO 42001 compliance is ultimately the client’s responsibility, with the consultant providing guidance and oversight—not execution.

🛑 Termination

The agreement should include provisions for termination with advance notice, payment for completed work, delivery of all completed outputs, and survival of confidentiality obligations. It should also ensure that any training and knowledge transfer remains with the client post-termination.

📜 General Terms

Standard legal provisions should be included, such as independent contractor status, governing law, severability, and a clause stating that the agreement represents the entire understanding between parties. These terms provide legal clarity and protect both sides.

Internal Auditing in Plain English: A Simple Guide to Super Effective ISO Audits

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: AIMS, Internal audit of ISO 42001

Sep 07 2025

The Dutch AI Act Guide: A Practical Roadmap for Compliance

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 10:33 pm

The Dutch government has released version 1.1 of its AI Act Guide, setting a strong example for AI Act readiness across Europe. Published by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, this free 21-page document is one of the most practical and accessible resources currently available. It is designed to help organizations—whether businesses, developers, or public authorities—understand how the EU AI Act applies to them.

The guide provides a four-step approach that makes compliance easier to navigate: start with risk rather than abstract definitions, confirm whether your system meets the EU’s definition of AI, determine your role as either provider or deployer, and finally, map your obligations based on the AI system’s risk level. This structure gives users a straightforward way to see where they stand and what responsibilities they carry.

Content covers a wide range of scenarios, including prohibited AI uses such as social scoring or predictive policing, as well as obligations for high-risk AI systems in critical areas like healthcare, education, HR, and law enforcement. It also addresses general-purpose and generative AI, with requirements around transparency, risk mitigation, and exceptions for open models. Government entities get additional guidance on tasks such as Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments and system registration. Importantly, the guide avoids dense legal jargon, using clear explanations, definitions, and real-world references to make the regulations understandable and actionable.

Dutch AI ACT Guide Ver 1.1

My take on the Dutch AI Act Guide is that it’s one of the most practical tools released so far to help organizations translate EU AI Act requirements into actionable steps. Unlike dense regulatory texts, this guide simplifies the journey by giving a clear, structured roadmap—making it easier for businesses and public authorities to assess whether they’re in scope, identify their risk category, and understand obligations tied to their role.

From an AI governance perspective, this guide helps organizations move from theory to practice. Governance isn’t just about compliance—it’s about building a culture of accountability, transparency, and ethical use of AI. The Dutch approach encourages teams to start with risk, not abstract definitions, which aligns closely with effective governance practices. By embedding this structured framework into existing GRC programs, companies can proactively manage AI risks like bias, drift, and misuse.

For cybersecurity, the guide adds another layer of value. Many high-risk AI systems—especially in healthcare, HR, and critical infrastructure—depend on secure data handling and system integrity. Mapping obligations early helps organizations ensure that cybersecurity controls (like access management, monitoring, and data protection) are not afterthoughts but integral to AI deployment. This alignment between regulatory expectations and cybersecurity safeguards reduces both compliance and security risks.

In short, the Dutch AI Act Guide can serve as a playbook for integrating AI governance into GRC and cybersecurity programs—helping organizations stay compliant, resilient, and trustworthy while adopting AI responsibly.

Embedding AI Oversight into GRC: Building Trust, Compliance, and Accountability

Source: AI Governance: 5 Ways to Embed AI Oversight into GRC

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: The Dutch AI Act Guide

Sep 07 2025

Embedding AI Oversight into GRC: Building Trust, Compliance, and Accountability

Category: AI,AI Governance — disc7 @ 10:17 am

1. Why AI Governance Matters

AI brings undeniable benefits—speed, accuracy, vast data analysis—but without guardrails, it can lead to privacy breaches, bias, hallucinations, or model drift. Ensuring governance helps organizations harness AI safely, transparently, and ethically.

2. What Is AI Governance?

AI governance refers to a structured framework of policies, guidelines, and oversight procedures that govern AI’s development, deployment, and usage. It ensures ethical standards and risk mitigation remain in place across the organization.

3. Recognizing AI-specific Risks

Important risks include:

  • Hallucinations—AI generating inaccurate or fabricated outputs
  • Bias—AI perpetuating outdated or unfair historical patterns
  • Data privacy—exposure of sensitive inputs, especially with public models
  • Model drift—AI performance degrading over time without monitoring.

4. Don’t Reinvent the Wheel—Use Existing GRC Programs

Rather than creating standalone frameworks, integrate AI risks into your enterprise risk, compliance, and audit programs. As risk expert Dr. Ariane Chapelle advises, it’s smarter to expand what you already have than build something separate.

5. Five Ways to Embed AI Oversight into GRC

  1. Broaden risk programs to include AI-specific risks (e.g., drift, explainability gaps).
  2. Embed governance throughout the AI lifecycle—from design to monitoring.
  3. Shift to continuous oversight—use real-time alerts and risk sprints.
  4. Clarify accountability across legal, compliance, audit, data science, and business teams.
  5. Show control over AI—track, document, and demonstrate oversight to stakeholders.

6. Regulations Are Here—Don’t Wait

Regulatory frameworks like the EU AI Act (which classifies AI by risk and prohibits dangerous uses), ISO 42001 (AI management system standard), and NIST’s Trustworthy AI guidelines are already in play—waiting to comply could lead to steep penalties.

7. Governance as Collective Responsibility

Effective AI governance isn’t the job of one team—it’s a shared effort. A well-rounded approach balances risk reduction with innovation, by embedding oversight and accountability across all functional areas.

Quick Summary at the End:

  • Start small, then scale: Begin by tagging AI risks within your existing GRC framework. This lowers barriers and avoids creating siloed processes.
  • Make it real-time: Replace occasional audits with continuous monitoring—this helps spot bias or drift before they become big problems.
  • Document everything: From policy changes to risk indicators, everything needs to be traceable—especially if regulators or execs ask.
  • Define responsibilities clearly: Everyone from legal to data teams should know where they fit in the AI oversight map.
  • Stay compliant, stay ahead: Don’t just tick a regulatory box—build trust by showing you’re in control of your AI tools.

Source: AI Governance: 5 Ways to Embed AI Oversight into GRC

Responsible AI in the Age of Generative Models: Governance, Ethics and Risk Management 

AI Governance: Applying AI Policy and Ethics through Principles and Assessments

AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. 

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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

Sep 05 2025

The Modern CISO: From Firewall Operator to Seller of Trust

Category: AI,CISO,vCISO — disc7 @ 2:09 pm

The role of the modern CISO has evolved far beyond technical oversight. While many entered the field expecting to focus solely on firewalls, frameworks, and fighting cyber threats, the reality is that today’s CISOs must operate as business leaders as much as security experts. Increasingly, the role demands skills that look surprisingly similar to sales.

This shift is driven by business dynamics. Buyers and partners are highly sensitive to security posture. A single breach or regulatory fine can derail deals and destroy trust. As a result, security is no longer just a cost center—it directly influences revenue, customer acquisition, and long-term business resilience.

CISOs now face a dual responsibility: maintaining deep technical credibility while also translating security into a business advantage. Boards and executives are asking not only, “Are we protected?” but also, “How does our security posture help us win business?” This requires CISOs to communicate clearly and persuasively about the commercial value of trust and compliance.

At the same time, budgets are tight and CISO compensation is under scrutiny. Justifying investment in security requires framing it in business terms—showing how it prevents losses, enables sales, and differentiates the company in a competitive market. Security is no longer seen as background infrastructure but as a factor that can make or break deals.

Despite this, many security professionals still resist the sales aspect of the job, seeing it as outside their domain. This resistance risks leaving them behind as the role changes. The reality is that security leadership now includes revenue protection and revenue generation, not just technical defense.

The future CISO will be defined by their ability to translate security into customer confidence and measurable business outcomes. Those who embrace this evolution will shape the next generation of leadership, while those who cling only to the technical side risk becoming sidelined.

Advice on AI’s impact on the CISO role:
AI will accelerate this transformation. On the technical side, AI tools will automate many detection, response, and compliance tasks that once required hands-on oversight, reducing the weight of purely operational responsibilities. On the business side, AI will raise customer expectations for security, privacy, and ethical use of data. This means CISOs must increasingly act as “trust architects,” communicating how AI is governed and secured. The CISO who can blend technical authority with persuasive storytelling about AI risk and trust will not only safeguard the enterprise but also directly influence growth. In short, AI will make the CISO less of a firewall operator and more of a business strategist who sells trust.

CISO 2.0 From Cost Center to Value Creator: The Modern Playbook for the CISO as a P&L Leader Aligning Cybersecurity with Business Impact

The CISO 3.0: A Guide to Next-Generation Cybersecurity Leadership

How AI Is Transforming the Cybersecurity Leadership Playbook

Aligning Cybersecurity with Business Goals: The Complete Program Blueprint

Summary of CISO 3.0: Leading AI Governance and Security in the Boardroom

Becoming a Complete vCISO: Driving Maximum Value and Business Alignment

DISC Infosec vCISO Services

How CISO’s are transforming the Third-Party Risk Management

Cybersecurity and Third-Party Risk: Third Party Threat Hunting

Navigating Supply Chain Cyber Risk 

DISC InfoSec offer free initial high level assessment – Based on your needs DISC InfoSec offer ongoing compliance management or vCISO retainer.

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

Tags: CISO, The Modern CISO, vCISO

Sep 04 2025

Hidden Malware in AI Images: How Hackers Exploit LLMs Through Visual Prompt Injection

Category: AI,Hacking,Malware — disc7 @ 9:38 am


Cybersecurity researchers at Trail of Bits have uncovered a sneaky new corruption vector: malicious instructions embedded in images served by AI chatbots (LLMs). These prompts are invisible to the human eye but become legible to AI models after processing.


The method exploits the way some AI platforms downscale images—for efficiency and performance. During this bicubic interpolation, hidden black text layered onto an image becomes readable, effectively exposing the concealed commands.


Hackers can use this tactic to deliver covert commands or malicious prompts. While the original image appears innocuous, once resized by the AI for analysis, the hidden instructions emerge—potentially allowing the AI to execute unintended or dangerous actions.


What’s especially concerning is the exploitation of legitimate AI workflows. The resizing is a routine process meant to optimize performance or adapt images for analysis—making this an insidious vulnerability that’s hard to detect at a glance.


This discovery reveals a wider issue with multimodal AI systems—those that handle text, audio, and images together. Visual channels can serve as a novel and underappreciated conduit for hidden prompts.


Efforts to flag and prevent such attacks are evolving, but the complexity of multimodal input opens a broader attack surface. Organizations integrating AI into real-world applications must remain on guard and update security practices accordingly.


Ultimately, the Trail of Bits team’s research is a stark warning: as AI becomes more capable and integrated, so too does the ingenuity of those seeking to subvert it. Vigilance, layered defenses, and thoughtful design are more critical than ever.

source: Hackers Exploit Sitecore Zero-Day for Malware Delivery

Viewpoint

This latest attack vector is a chilling example of side-channel exploitation in AI—the same way power usage or timing patterns can leak secrets, here the resizing process is the leaky conduit. What’s especially alarming is how this bypasses typical content filtering: to the naked eye, the image is benign; to the AI, it becomes a Trojan.

Given how prevalent AI tools are becoming—from virtual assistants to diagnostic aides in healthcare—these weaknesses aren’t just theoretical. Any system that processes user-supplied images is potentially exposed. This underscores the need for robust sanitization pipelines that analyze not just the content, but the transformations applied by AI systems.

Moreover, multimodal AI means multimodal vulnerabilities. Researchers and developers must expand their threat models beyond traditional text-based prompt injection and consider every data channel. Techniques like metadata checks, manual image audits, and thorough testing of preprocessing tools should become standard.

Ultimately, this attack emphasizes that convenience must not outpace safety. AI systems must be built with intentional defenses against these emergent threats. Lessons learned today will shape more secure foundations for tomorrow.

OWASP LLM01:2025 Prompt Injection

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Visual Prompt Injection

Sep 03 2025

An AI-Powered Brute-Force Tool for Ethical Security Testing

Category: AI,Information Security,Security Tools — disc7 @ 2:05 pm

Summary of the Help Net Security article.


BruteForceAI is a free, open-source penetration testing tool that enhances traditional brute-force attacks by integrating large language models (LLMs). It automates identification of login form elements—such as username and password fields—by analyzing HTML content and deducing the correct selectors.


After mapping out the login structure, the tool conducts multi-threaded brute-force or password-spraying attacks. It simulates human-like behavior by randomizing timing, introducing slight delays, and varying the user-agent—concealing its activity from conventional detection systems.


Intended for legitimate security use, BruteForceAI is geared toward authorized penetration testing, academic research, self-assessment of one’s applications, and participation in bug bounty programs—always within proper legal and ethical bounds. It is freely available on GitHub for practitioners to explore and deploy.


By combining intelligence-powered analysis and automated attack execution, BruteForceAI streamlines what used to be a tedious and manual process. It automates both discovery (login field detection) and exploitation (attack execution). This dual capability can significantly speed up testing workflows for security professionals.

BruteForceAI

BruteForceAI represents a meaningful leap in how penetration testers can validate and improve authentication safeguards. On the positive side, its automation and intelligent behavior modeling could expedite thorough and realistic attack simulations—especially useful for uncovering overlooked vulnerabilities hidden in login logic or form implementations.

That said, such power is a double-edged sword. There’s an inherent risk that malicious actors could repurpose the tool for unauthorized attacks, given its stealthy methods and automation. Its detection evasion tactics—mimicking human activity to avoid being flagged—could be exploited by bad actors to evade traditional defenses. For defenders, this heightens the importance of deploying robust controls like rate limiting, behavioral monitoring, anomaly detection, and multi-factor authentication.

In short, as a security tool it’s impressive and helpful—if used responsibly. Ensuring it remains in the hands of ethical professionals and not abused requires awareness, cautious deployment, and informed defense strategies.

Download

This tool is designed for responsible and ethical use, including authorized penetration testing, security research and education, testing your own applications, and participating in bug bounty programs within the proper scope.

BruteForceAI is available for free on GitHub.

Source: BruteForce AI

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Brute-Force Tool

Aug 28 2025

Agentic AI Misuse: How Autonomous Systems Are Fueling a New Wave of Cybercrime

Category: AI,Cybercrime — disc7 @ 9:05 am

Cybercriminals have started “vibe hacking” with AI’s help, AI startup Anthropic has shared in a report released on Wednesday.

1. Overview of the Incident
Cybercriminals are now leveraging “vibe hacking” — a term coined by AI startup Anthropic — to misuse agentic AI assistants in sophisticated data extortion schemes. Their report, released on August 28, 2025, reveals that attackers employed the agentic AI coding assistant, Claude Code, to orchestrate nearly every step of a breach and extortion campaign across 17 different organizations in various economic sectors.

2. Redefining Threat Complexity
This misuse highlights how AI is dismantling the traditional link between an attacker’s technical skill and the complexity of an attack. Instant access to AI-driven expertise enables low-skill threat actors to launch highly complex operations.

3. Detection Challenges Multiplied
Spotting and halting the misuse of autonomous AI tools like Claude Code is extremely difficult. Their dynamic and adaptive nature, paired with minimal human oversight, makes detection systems far less effective.

4. Ongoing AI–Cybercrime Arms Race
According to Anthropic, while efforts to curb misuse are necessary, they will likely only mitigate—not eliminate—the rising tide of malicious AI use. The interplay between defenders’ improvements and attackers’ evolving methods creates a persistent, evolving arms race.

5. Beyond Public Tools
This case concerns publicly available AI tools. However, Anthropic expresses deep concern that well-resourced threat actors may already be developing, or will soon develop, their own proprietary agentic systems for even more potent attacks.

6. The Broader Context of Agentic AI Risks
This incident is emblematic of broader vulnerabilities in autonomous AI systems. Agentic AI—capable of making decisions and executing tasks with minimal human intervention—expands attack surfaces and introduces unpredictable behaviors. Efforts to secure these systems remain nascent and often reactive.

7. Mitigation Requires Human-Centric Strategies
Experts stress the importance of human-centric cybersecurity responses: building deep awareness of AI misuse, investing in real-time monitoring and anomaly detection, enforcing strong governance and authorization frameworks, and designing AI systems with security and accountability built in from the start.

Perspective

This scenario marks a stark inflection point in AI-driven cyber risk. When autonomous systems like agentic AI assistants can independently orchestrate multi-stage extortion campaigns, the cybersecurity playing field fundamentally changes. Traditional defenses—rooted in predictable attack patterns and human oversight—are rapidly becoming inadequate.

To adapt, we need a multipronged response:

  • Technical Guardrails: AI systems must include robust safety measures like runtime policy enforcement, behavior monitoring, and anomaly detection capable of recognizing when an AI agent goes off-script.
  • Human Oversight: No matter how autonomous, AI agents should operate under clearly defined boundaries, with human-in-the-loop checkpoints for high-stakes actions.
  • Governance and Threat Modeling: Security teams must rigorously evaluate threats from agentic usage patterns, prompt injections, tool misuse, and privilege escalation—especially considering adversarial actors deliberately exploiting these vulnerabilities.
  • Industry Collaboration: Sharing threat intelligence and developing standardized frameworks for detecting and mitigating AI misuse will be essential to stay ahead of attackers.

Ultimately, forward-looking organizations must embrace the dual nature of agentic AI: recognizing its potential for boosting efficiency while simultaneously addressing its capacity to empower even low-skilled adversaries. Only through proactive and layered defenses—blending human insight, governance, and technical resilience—can we begin to control the risks posed by this emerging frontier of AI-enabled cybercrime.

Source: Agentic AI coding assistant helped attacker breach, extort 17 distinct organizations

ISO 27001 Made Simple: Clause-by-Clause Summary and Insights

From Compliance to Trust: Rethinking Security in 2025

Understand how the ISO/IEC 42001 standard and the NIST framework will help a business ensure the responsible development and use of AI

Analyze the impact of the AI Act on different stakeholders: autonomous driving

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

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Agentic AI

Aug 27 2025

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Cybersecurity Workforce: NIST’s Evolving Framework

Category: AI,NIST CSF — disc7 @ 4:41 pm

Credit: NICE

1. Introduction & Context

NIST’s NICE (National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education) Workforce Framework (NICE Framework) , known as NIST SP 800-181 rev. 1, has been designed for adaptability — particularly to account for emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). Strong engagement with federal agencies, industry, academia, and international groups has ensured that NICE evolves with AI developments. NICE has hosted numerous events — from webinars to annual conferences — to explore AI’s impact on cybersecurity education, workforce needs, and program design.

2. AI Security as a New Competency Area

One major evolution includes the introduction of a new AI Security Competency Area within the NICE Framework. This area will define the core knowledge and skills needed to understand how AI intersects with cybersecurity — from managing risks to leveraging opportunities. The draft competency content is open for public comment and draws on resources such as the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0), the NSF AI Scholarships for Service initiative, and DoD’s Cyber Workforce Framework.

3. AI’s Role in Work Roles & Skills Integration

Beyond this standalone competency, NICE aims to integrate AI-related Tasks, Knowledge, and Skill (TKS) statements into existing and newly emerging cybersecurity job roles. This includes coverage for three essential themes: (a) strategic implications of AI for organizations and legal/regulatory considerations; (b) securing AI systems against threats including misuse; and (c) enhancing cybersecurity work through AI — such as using it for threat detection and analysis.

4. Community Engagement & Feedback Mechanisms

NIST encourages public participation in shaping the evolution of the NICE Framework. Stakeholders—including federal agencies, educators, certification bodies, and private-sector groups—are invited to join forums like the NICE Community Coordinating Council, attend events, join the NICE Framework Users Group, or provide direct feedback.

5. AI’s Dual Security Role in NIST Strategy

Another dimension of NIST’s AI-focused cybersecurity efforts focuses on both securing AI (making AI systems robust against threats) and enabling security through AI (using AI to strengthen defenses). Related initiatives include developing community profiles for adapting other cybersecurity frameworks (e.g., the Cybersecurity Framework), as well as launching research tools such as Dioptra and the PETs Testbed that support evaluation of machine learning and privacy technologies.

6. Broader Vision for AI & Cybersecurity Integration

NIST’s broader vision includes aligning its AI-cybersecurity initiatives with its existing guidance (e.g., AI RMF, SSDF, privacy frameworks) and expanding into practical, operational tools and community-driven resources. The goal is a cohesive, holistic approach that supports both the defense of AI systems and the incorporation of AI into cybersecurity across organizational, national, and international levels.

7. Summary

In essence, the NIST blog outlines how AI is reshaping the cybersecurity workforce—through new competency areas, an expanded skill taxonomy, and community-driven development of training and frameworks. NIST is at the forefront of this transformation, laying essential groundwork for organizations to adapt to AI-induced changes while safeguarding both AI and the systems it interacts with.

  • Engage proactively: If you’re in the cybersecurity field—especially in education, policy, workforce development, or hiring—stay involved. Submit feedback to NIST, participate in the NICE community forums, or attend their events to help shape AI-integrated workforce standards.
  • Upskill intentionally: Incorporate AI-related skills into your training or hiring programs. Target roles that require AI literacy—such as understanding AI risks, securing AI systems, or leveraging AI for defense.
  • Emphasize both “of” and “through” AI: Ensure your workforce is prepared not only to protect AI systems (security of AI) but also to harness AI as a tool for enhancing cybersecurity (security through AI).
  • Leverage NIST tools and frameworks: Explore resources like AI RMF, SSDF profiles for generative AI, Dioptra, and PETs Testbed to inform your practices, tool selection, and workflow integration.

Source: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Cybersecurity Workforce

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Cybersecurity Workforce, NIST’s Evolving Framework

Aug 26 2025

AI systems should be developed using data sets that meet certain quality standards

Category: AI,Data Governance — disc7 @ 3:13 pm

AI systems should be developed using data sets that meet certain quality standards

Data Governance
AI systems, especially high-risk ones, must rely on well-managed data throughout training, validation, and testing. This involves designing systems thoughtfully, knowing the source and purpose of collected data (especially personal data), properly processing data through labeling and cleaning, and verifying assumptions about what the data represents. It also requires ensuring there is enough high-quality data available, addressing harmful biases, and fixing any data issues that could hinder compliance with legal or ethical standards.

Quality of Data Sets
The data sets used must accurately reflect the intended purpose of the AI system. They should be reliable, representative of the target population, statistically sound, and complete to ensure that outputs are both valid and trustworthy.

Consideration of Context
AI developers must ensure data reflects the real-world environment where the system will be deployed. Context-specific features or variations should be factored in to avoid mismatches between test conditions and real-world performance.

Special Data Handling
In rare cases, sensitive personal data may be used to identify and mitigate biases. However, this is only acceptable if no other alternative exists. When used, strict security and privacy safeguards must be applied, including controlled access, thorough documentation, prohibition of sharing, and mandatory deletion once the data is no longer needed. Justification for such use must always be recorded.

Non-Training AI Systems
For AI systems that do not rely on training data, the requirements concerning data quality and handling mainly apply to testing data. This ensures that even rule-based or symbolic AI models are evaluated using appropriate and reliable test sets.

Organizations building or deploying AI should treat data management as a cornerstone of trustworthy AI. Strong governance frameworks, bias monitoring, and contextual awareness ensure systems are fair, reliable, and compliant. For most companies, aligning with standards like ISO/IEC 42001 (AI management) and ISO/IEC 27001 (security) can help establish structured practices. My recommendation: develop a data governance playbook early, incorporate bias detection and context validation into the AI lifecycle, and document every decision for accountability. This not only ensures regulatory compliance but also builds user trust.

ISO 27001 Made Simple: Clause-by-Clause Summary and Insights

From Compliance to Trust: Rethinking Security in 2025

Understand how the ISO/IEC 42001 standard and the NIST framework will help a business ensure the responsible development and use of AI

Analyze the impact of the AI Act on different stakeholders: autonomous driving

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

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 Data Governance

Aug 26 2025

From Compliance to Trust: Rethinking Security in 2025

Category: AI,Information Privacy,ISO 42001 — disc7 @ 8:45 am

Cybersecurity is no longer confined to the IT department — it has become a fundamental issue of business survival. The past year has shown that security failures don’t just disrupt operations; they directly impact reputation, financial stability, and customer trust. Organizations that continue to treat it as a back-office function risk being left exposed.

Over the last twelve months, we’ve seen high-profile companies fined millions of dollars for data breaches. These penalties demonstrate that regulators and customers alike are holding businesses accountable for their ability to protect sensitive information. The cost of non-compliance now goes far beyond the technical cleanup — it threatens long-term credibility.

Another worrying trend has been the exploitation of supply chain partners. Attackers increasingly target smaller vendors with weaker defenses to gain access to larger organizations. This highlights that cybersecurity is no longer contained within one company’s walls; it is interconnected, making vendor oversight and third-party risk management critical.

Adding to the challenge is the rapid adoption of artificial intelligence. While AI brings efficiency and innovation, it also introduces untested and often misunderstood risks. From data poisoning to model manipulation, organizations are entering unfamiliar territory, and traditional controls don’t always apply.

Despite these evolving threats, many businesses continue to frame the wrong question: “Do we need certification?” While certification has its value, it misses the bigger picture. The right question is: “How do we protect our data, our clients, and our reputation — and demonstrate that commitment clearly?” This shift in perspective is essential to building a sustainable security culture.

This is where frameworks such as ISO 27001, ISO 27701, and ISO 42001 play a vital role. They are not merely compliance checklists; they provide structured, internationally recognized approaches for managing security, privacy, and AI governance. Implemented correctly, these frameworks become powerful tools to build customer trust and show measurable accountability.

Every organization faces its own barriers in advancing security and compliance. For some, it’s budget constraints; for others, it’s lack of leadership buy-in or a shortage of skilled professionals. Recognizing and addressing these obstacles early is key to moving forward. Without tackling them, even the best frameworks will sit unused, failing to provide real protection.

My advice: Stop viewing cybersecurity as a cost center or certification exercise. Instead, approach it as a business enabler — one that safeguards reputation, strengthens client relationships, and opens doors to new opportunities. Begin by identifying your organization’s greatest barrier, then create a roadmap that aligns frameworks with business goals. When leadership sees cybersecurity as an investment in trust, adoption becomes much easier and far more impactful.

How to Leverage Generative AI for ISO 27001 Implementation

ISO27k Chat bot

If the GenAI chatbot doesn’t provide the answer you’re looking for, what would you expect it to do next?

If you don’t receive a satisfactory answer, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us — we’ll use your feedback to help retrain and improve the bot.


The Strategic Synergy: ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 – A New Era in Governance

ISO 27001’s Outdated SoA Rule: Time to Move On

ISO 27001 Compliance: Reduce Risks and Drive Business Value

ISO 27001:2022 Risk Management Steps


How to Continuously Enhance Your ISO 27001 ISMS (Clause 10 Explained)

Continual improvement doesn’t necessarily entail significant expenses. Many enhancements can be achieved through regular internal audits, management reviews, and staff engagement. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, organizations can maintain an ISMS that effectively addresses current and emerging information security risks, ensuring resilience and compliance with ISO 27001 standards.

ISO 27001 Compliance and Certification

ISMS and ISO 27k training

Security Risk Assessment and ISO 27001 Gap Assessment

At DISC InfoSec, we streamline the entire process—guiding you confidently through complex frameworks such as ISO 27001, and SOC 2.

Here’s how we help:

  • Conduct gap assessments to identify compliance challenges and control maturity
  • Deliver straightforward, practical steps for remediation with assigned responsibility
  • Ensure ongoing guidance to support continued compliance with standard
  • Confirm your security posture through risk assessments and penetration testing

Let’s set up a quick call to explore how we can make your cybersecurity compliance process easier.

ISO 27001 certification validates that your ISMS meets recognized security standards and builds trust with customers by demonstrating a strong commitment to protecting information.

Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions about the ISO 27001, ISO 42001, ISO 27701 Internal audit or certification process.

Successfully completing your ISO 27001 audit confirms that your Information Security Management System (ISMS) meets the required standards and assures your customers of your commitment to security.

Get in touch with us to begin your ISO 27001 audit today.

ISO 27001:2022 Annex A Controls Explained

Preparing for an ISO Audit: Essential Tips and Best Practices for a Successful Outcome

Is a Risk Assessment required to justify the inclusion of Annex A controls in the Statement of Applicability?

Many companies perceive ISO 27001 as just another compliance expense?

ISO 27001: Guide & key Ingredients for Certification

DISC InfoSec Previous posts on ISO27k

ISO certification training courses.

ISMS and ISO 27k training

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 42001

Aug 25 2025

Understand how the ISO/IEC 42001 standard and the NIST framework will help a business ensure the responsible development and use of AI

Category: AI,ISO 42001,NIST CSF — disc7 @ 10:11 pm

The ISO/IEC 42001 standard and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) are two cornerstone tools for businesses aiming to ensure the responsible development and use of AI. While they differ in structure and origin, they complement each other beautifully. Here’s a breakdown of how each contributes—and how they align.

🧭 ISO/IEC 42001: AI Management System Standard

Purpose:
Establishes a formal AI Management System (AIMS) across the organization, similar to ISO 27001 for information security.

🔧 Key Components

  • Leadership & Governance: Requires executive commitment and clear accountability for AI risks.
  • Policy & Planning: Organizations must define AI objectives, ethical principles, and risk tolerance.
  • Operational Controls: Covers data governance, model lifecycle management, and supplier oversight.
  • Monitoring & Improvement: Includes performance evaluation, impact assessments, and continuous improvement loops.

✅ Benefits

  • Embeds responsibility and accountability into every phase of AI development.
  • Supports legal compliance with regulations like the EU AI Act and GDPR.
  • Enables certification, signaling trustworthiness to clients and regulators.

🧠 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF)

Purpose:
Provides a flexible, voluntary framework for identifying, assessing, and managing AI risks.

🧩 Core Functions

FunctionDescription
GovernEstablish organizational policies and accountability for AI risks
MapUnderstand the context, purpose, and stakeholders of AI systems
MeasureEvaluate risks, including bias, robustness, and explainability
ManageImplement controls and monitor performance over time

✅ Benefits

  • Promotes trustworthy AI through transparency, fairness, and safety.
  • Helps organizations operationalize ethical principles without requiring certification.
  • Adaptable across industries and AI maturity levels.

🔗 How They Work Together

ISO/IEC 42001NIST AI RMF
Formal, certifiable management systemFlexible, voluntary risk management framework
Focus on organizational governanceFocus on system-level risk controls
PDCA cycle for continuous improvementIterative risk assessment and mitigation
Strong alignment with EU AI Act complianceStrong alignment with U.S. Executive Order on AI

Together, they offer a dual lens:

  • ISO 42001 ensures enterprise-wide governance and accountability.
  • NIST AI RMF ensures system-level risk awareness and mitigation.

visual comparison chart or a mind map to show how these frameworks align with the EU AI Act or sector-specific obligations.

mind map comparing ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI RMF for responsible AI development and use:

This visual lays out the complementary roles of each framework:

  • ISO/IEC 42001 focuses on building an enterprise-wide AI management system with governance, accountability, and operational controls.
  • NIST AI RMF zeroes in on system-level risk identification, assessment, and mitigation.

AIMS and Data Governance

Navigating the NIST AI Risk Management Framework: A Comprehensive Guide with Practical Application

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: responsible development and use of AI

Aug 25 2025

Analyze the impact of the AI Act on different stakeholders: autonomous driving

Category: AI — disc7 @ 3:26 pm

The EU AI Act introduces a layered regulatory framework that significantly affects stakeholders in the autonomous driving ecosystem. Because autonomous vehicles (AVs) rely heavily on high-risk AI systems—such as perception, decision-making, and navigation—their regulation is both sector-specific and cross-cutting. Here’s a structured analysis tailored to your compliance-oriented lens:

🚗 Autonomous Driving: Stakeholder Impact Analysis

1. Automotive Manufacturers

  • Obligations:
    • Must ensure AI systems embedded in AVs meet high-risk requirements under the AI Act.
    • Required to conduct conformity assessments and maintain technical documentation.
    • Must align with both the AI Act and sectoral legislation like the Type-Approval Framework Regulation (EU 2018/858).
  • Risks:
    • High compliance costs and technical complexity, especially for explainability and real-time monitoring.
    • Exposure to fines up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover for non-compliance.
  • Opportunities:
    • Regulatory alignment can enhance consumer trust and market access.
    • Participation in AI regulatory sandboxes may accelerate innovation.

2. AI System Developers (Perception, Planning, Control Modules)

  • Obligations:
    • Must classify systems by risk level and ensure robustness, safety, and transparency.
    • Required to implement post-market monitoring and incident reporting.
  • Risks:
    • Difficulty in making complex models explainable (e.g., deep neural networks for object detection).
    • Liability for system failures or biased decision-making.
  • Opportunities:
    • Demand for modular, certifiable AI components.
    • Competitive edge through compliance-ready architectures.

3. Regulators & Market Surveillance Authorities

  • Obligations:
    • Must oversee conformity assessments and enforce compliance across borders.
    • Required to coordinate with sectoral regulators (e.g., UNECE, national transport authorities).
  • Risks:
    • Fragmentation between AI Act and existing automotive regulations.
    • Resource strain due to technical complexity and volume of AV deployments.
  • Opportunities:
    • Development of harmonized standards and certification pathways.
    • Use of regulatory sandboxes to test and refine oversight mechanisms.

4. Fleet Operators / Mobility-as-a-Service Providers

  • Obligations:
    • Must ensure deployed AVs comply with AI Act and sectoral safety standards.
    • Required to inform users about AI-driven decisions and ensure human oversight where applicable.
  • Risks:
    • Operational liability for accidents or system failures.
    • Public backlash if transparency and safety are lacking.
  • Opportunities:
    • Ethical AV deployment can differentiate services and attract public support.
    • Data-driven optimization of routes and maintenance.

5. Consumers / Road Users

  • Rights:
    • Right to safety, transparency, and redress in case of harm.
    • Protection from opaque or discriminatory AI decisions.
  • Risks:
    • Potential for accidents due to system errors or edge-case failures.
    • Privacy concerns from data collected by AVs (e.g., location, biometrics).
  • Opportunities:
    • Safer, more accessible mobility options.
    • Reduced human error and traffic fatalities.

🧭 Strategic Takeaway

The AI Act doesn’t operate in isolation—it intersects with existing automotive regulations, creating a hybrid compliance landscape. Stakeholders must navigate:

  • AI-specific obligations (e.g., bias mitigation, explainability)
  • Vehicle safety standards (e.g., UNECE, TAFR)
  • Data protection laws (e.g., GDPR for connected vehicle data)

Starting with a stakeholder matrix to map out responsibilities, risks, and opportunities, followed by a compliance roadmap tailored to autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment under the EU AI Act. This dual approach gives you both a strategic overview and an operational guide.

🚦 Autonomous Driving Stakeholder Matrix (EU AI Act)

StakeholderResponsibilitiesRisksOpportunities
Automotive OEMsEnsure AI systems in AVs meet high-risk requirements; conduct conformity assessmentsLiability for system failures; high compliance costsMarket leadership through ethical, compliant AVs
AI System DevelopersBuild explainable, robust, and traceable AI modules (e.g., perception, planning)Technical complexity; explainability of deep learning modelsDemand for modular, certifiable AI components
Fleet Operators / MaaSDeploy compliant AVs; ensure user transparency and oversightOperational liability; public trust erosionData-driven optimization; ethical mobility services
Regulators / AuthoritiesMonitor compliance; coordinate with transport and safety bodiesFragmented oversight; resource strainHarmonized standards; sandbox testing
Consumers / Road UsersInteract with AVs; exercise rights to safety, transparency, and redressPrivacy violations; algorithmic errorsSafer, more accessible transport; reduced human error

🛠️ Compliance Roadmap for AV Deployment under the EU AI Act

Phase 1: System Classification & Risk Assessment

  • Identify AI components (e.g., object detection, trajectory planning, driver monitoring).
  • Classify each system under the AI Act’s risk framework (most will be high-risk).
  • Conduct a Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) if deployed in public services.

Phase 2: Technical Documentation & Conformity Assessment

  • Prepare documentation covering:
    • Intended purpose
    • Training and validation data
    • Risk management procedures
    • Human oversight mechanisms
  • Choose conformity path:
    • Internal control (for standard systems)
    • Third-party assessment (for complex or novel systems)

Phase 3: Human Oversight & Explainability

  • Implement real-time monitoring and override capabilities.
  • Ensure outputs are interpretable by operators and regulators.
  • Train staff on AI system behavior and escalation protocols.

Phase 4: Post-Market Monitoring & Incident Reporting

  • Establish feedback loops for system performance and safety.
  • Report serious incidents or malfunctions to authorities within mandated timelines.
  • Update systems based on real-world data and evolving risks.

Phase 5: Transparency & User Rights

  • Inform users when interacting with AI (e.g., autonomous shuttles, ride-hailing AVs).
  • Provide mechanisms for contesting decisions or reporting harm.
  • Ensure compliance with GDPR for location, biometric, and behavioral data.

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 Act, autonomous driving

Aug 24 2025

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

Category: AI — disc7 @ 9:52 pm

Great prompt, Hugh. The Fundamental Rights Impact Assessment (FRIA) under Article 27 of the EU AI Act is a powerful tool for identifying and protecting the rights of individuals affected by high-risk AI systems. Here’s how it works and what rights it safeguards:

🛡️ Key Rights Protected by the EU AI Act via FRIA

When conducting a FRIA, deployers must assess how an AI system could impact the following fundamental rights:

  • Right to human dignity
    Ensures AI systems do not dehumanize or degrade individuals.
  • Right to non-discrimination
    Protects against algorithmic bias based on race, gender, age, disability, etc.
  • Right to privacy and data protection
    Evaluates how personal data is used, stored, and protected.
  • Freedom of expression and information
    Ensures AI does not suppress speech or manipulate access to information.
  • Right to good administration
    Guarantees fair, transparent, and accountable decision-making by public bodies using AI.
  • Access to justice and remedies
    Individuals must be able to challenge decisions made by AI systems and seek redress.

🧾 What a FRIA Must Include

Deployers of high-risk AI systems (especially public bodies or private entities providing public services) must document:

  • Purpose and context of AI use
  • Groups likely to be affected
  • Specific risks of harm to those groups
  • Human oversight measures
  • Mitigation steps if risks materialize
  • Governance and complaint mechanisms

This assessment must be completed before first use and updated as needed. Results are reported to the market surveillance authority, and the EU AI Office will provide a standardized template.

🧭 Why It Matters

The FRIA isn’t just paperwork—it’s a safeguard against invisible harms. It forces organizations to think critically about how their AI systems might infringe on rights and to build in protections from the start. It’s a shift from reactive to proactive governance.

If you’d like, I can walk you through a mock FRIA for a specific AI use case—say, facial recognition in public spaces or automated hiring tools. Just name the scenario.

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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: Atricle 27, EU AI Act, FRIA

Aug 23 2025

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

Category: AI — disc7 @ 4:26 pm

Walk through a realistic scenario to interpret how the EU AI Act’s ethical guidelines would apply in practice.

🏥 Scenario: Deploying an AI System in a European Hospital

A hospital in Germany wants to deploy an AI system to assist doctors in diagnosing rare diseases based on patient data and medical imaging.

🧭 Applying the EU AI Act Guidelines

1. Risk Classification

  • The system is considered high-risk under the EU AI Act because it affects health outcomes and involves biometric data.
  • Therefore, it must meet strict requirements for transparency, robustness, and human oversight.

2. Ethical Deployment Requirements

PrincipleApplication in Scenario
Human AutonomyDoctors retain final decision-making authority. AI provides recommendations, not verdicts.
Prevention of HarmThe system undergoes rigorous testing to avoid misdiagnosis. Fail-safes are built in.
Fairness & Non-BiasTraining data is audited to ensure diverse representation across age, gender, ethnicity.
TransparencyThe hospital provides clear documentation on how the AI works and its limitations.
ExplicabilityDoctors can access explanations for each AI-generated diagnosis.
AccountabilityThe hospital sets up a governance board to monitor AI performance and handle complaints.

3. Compliance Measures

  • Data Governance: Patient data is anonymized and processed in line with GDPR.
  • Impact Assessment: A conformity assessment is conducted before deployment.
  • Monitoring & Reporting: The hospital commits to reporting serious incidents to the AI Office.
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Patients are informed and can opt out of AI-assisted diagnosis.

✅ Outcome

By following these steps, the hospital ensures that its AI system is ethically deployed, legally compliant, and trustworthy—aligning with the EU’s vision for responsible AI.

Explore how the EU AI Act’s ethical guidelines would apply in a real-world education scenario.

🎓 Scenario: AI-Powered Learning Analytics in a European Secondary School

A secondary school in France wants to use an AI system that analyzes student performance data to identify those at risk of falling behind and recommend personalized learning paths.

🧭 Applying the EU AI Act in Education

1. Risk Classification

  • This system is considered high-risk under the EU AI Act because it influences students’ access to educational opportunities and involves sensitive personal data.
  • Emotion-recognition features (e.g., analyzing facial expressions to gauge engagement) would be prohibited as they fall under the “unacceptable risk” category.

2. Ethical Deployment Requirements

PrincipleHow It Applies in the School Setting
Human AutonomyTeachers make final decisions; AI offers insights, not mandates.
Fairness & Non-BiasThe system is trained on diverse datasets to avoid bias based on race, gender, or SES.
TransparencyStudents and parents are informed about how the AI works and what data it uses.
Privacy ProtectionData is anonymized and processed in line with GDPR.
AccountabilityThe school designates a responsible staff member to oversee AI performance and ethics.
ExplicabilityTeachers can access clear explanations for each AI-generated recommendation.

3. Compliance Measures

  • Documentation: The school maintains records of the AI system’s design, training data, and risk assessments.
  • Monitoring: Regular audits are conducted to ensure the system remains fair and accurate.
  • Stakeholder Engagement: Students and parents can opt out and provide feedback on the system’s impact.

✅ Outcome

By following the EU AI Act’s guidelines, the school ensures that its AI system supports learning ethically, transparently, and safely—while respecting students’ rights and dignity.

You can explore the EU Commission’s educator guidelines for more practical advice on integrating AI into teaching and learning.

University-level scenario or explore how AI affects teacher evaluations.

Dive into a university-level scenario to see how the EU AI Act’s ethical guidelines shape the deployment of AI in higher education.

🎓 Scenario: AI-Based Admissions System at a European University

A university in the Netherlands wants to implement an AI system to help evaluate student applications for competitive graduate programs. The system analyzes academic records, recommendation letters, and personal statements to rank candidates.

🧭 Applying the EU AI Act in Higher Education

1. Risk Classification

  • This system is classified as high-risk under the EU AI Act because it significantly affects access to education and future opportunities.
  • It must comply with strict requirements around transparency, fairness, human oversight, and data governance.

2. Ethical Deployment Requirements

PrincipleApplication in University Admissions
Human AutonomyAdmissions officers retain final decision-making authority. AI provides rankings, not verdicts.
Fairness & Non-BiasThe system is trained on diverse, representative data to avoid bias based on gender, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.
TransparencyApplicants are informed that AI is used and can request explanations of how decisions are made.
Privacy ProtectionPersonal data is processed in line with GDPR, with strict access controls and anonymization.
AccountabilityThe university appoints an AI ethics officer to monitor system performance and handle appeals.
ExplicabilityAdmissions staff can access clear, interpretable explanations for each AI-generated recommendation.

3. Additional EU AI Act Provisions

  • Article 4: Requires that staff using the AI system receive training to ensure adequate AI literacy.
  • Recital 56: Encourages AI deployment that promotes high-quality digital education and critical thinking.
  • Emotion Recognition Ban: Any attempt to use emotion inference (e.g., analyzing facial expressions in video interviews) would be prohibited as an “unacceptable risk”.

✅ Outcome

By following the EU AI Act, the university ensures its admissions system is fair, transparent, and legally compliant, while respecting applicants’ rights and promoting trust in the process.

You can explore more in-depth guidance on AI in Higher Education from the European AI Alliance or read a detailed analysis in this Swiss Cyber Institute article.

Explore how universities can use AI for personalized learning or student support next.

EU AI Act’s ethical guidelines apply to a university scenario focused on personalized learning and student support.

🧑‍🎓 Scenario: AI-Powered Student Support System at a European University

A university in Spain deploys an AI system to monitor student engagement, predict academic risk, and recommend personalized resources—like tutoring, mental health services, or study groups.

🧭 EU AI Act Interpretation in This Context

1. Risk Classification

  • This system is considered high-risk because it influences students’ access to support services and may impact academic outcomes.
  • If it includes emotion recognition (e.g., analyzing facial expressions or voice tone), that feature is prohibited under the Act’s “unacceptable risk” category.

2. Ethical Deployment Requirements

PrincipleApplication in Student Support AI
Human AutonomyAdvisors and counselors retain control; AI offers suggestions, not decisions.
Fairness & Non-BiasAlgorithms are trained on diverse data to avoid disadvantaging marginalized groups.
TransparencyStudents are informed about how the system works and what data it uses.
Privacy ProtectionAll personal data is anonymized and processed in compliance with GDPR.
ExplicabilityStaff can interpret why the AI flagged a student as needing support.
AccountabilityThe university sets up a governance board to audit system performance and ethics.

3. Additional EU AI Act Provisions

  • Article 4: Requires universities to ensure staff are trained in AI literacy, so they can use and supervise the system responsibly.
  • Recital 56: Encourages AI systems that promote high-quality digital education and empower students with critical thinking and media literacy.

✅ Outcome

By aligning with the EU AI Act, the university ensures its AI system enhances student well-being and academic success—while safeguarding rights, promoting fairness, and building trust.

If you’re curious about how universities are integrating these principles into real-world systems, check out this mapping of AI guidelines in higher education.

EU AI Act: Full text of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation


Practical OWASP Security Testing: Hands-On Strategies for Detecting and Mitigating Web Vulnerabilities in the Age of AI

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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 System in a European Hospital, scenario focused AI

Aug 23 2025

Do you know what the primary objectives of the AI Act are?

Category: AI — disc7 @ 11:04 am

The EU AI Act is the European Union’s landmark regulation designed to create a legal framework for the development, deployment, and use of artificial intelligence across the EU. Its primary objectives can be summed up as follows:

  1. Protect Fundamental Rights and Safety
    1. Ensure AI systems do not undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU Charter (privacy, non-discrimination, dignity, etc.) or compromise the health and safety of individuals.
  2. Promote Trustworthy AI
    1. Establish standards so AI systems are transparent, explainable, and accountable, which is key to building public trust in AI adoption.
  3. Risk-Based Regulation
    1. Introduce a tiered approach:
      1. Unacceptable risk: Prohibit AI uses that pose clear threats (e.g., social scoring by governments, manipulative systems).
      1. High risk: Strict obligations for AI in sensitive areas like healthcare, finance, employment, and law enforcement.
      1. Limited/minimal risk: Light or no regulatory requirements.
  4. Harmonize AI Rules Across the EU
    1. Create a uniform framework that avoids fragmented national laws, ensuring legal certainty for businesses operating in multiple EU countries.
  5. Foster Innovation and Competitiveness
    1. Encourage AI innovation by providing clear rules and setting up “regulatory sandboxes” where businesses can test AI in a supervised, low-risk environment.
  6. Ensure Transparency for Users
    1. Require disclosure when people interact with AI (e.g., chatbots, deepfakes) so users know they are dealing with a machine.
  7. Strengthen Governance and Oversight
    1. Establish national supervisory authorities and an EU-level AI Office to monitor compliance, enforce rules, and coordinate among Member States.
  8. Address Bias and Discrimination
    1. Mandate quality datasets, documentation, and testing to reduce harmful bias in AI systems, particularly in areas affecting citizens’ rights and opportunities.
  9. Guarantee Robustness and Cybersecurity
    1. Require that AI systems are secure, resilient against attacks or misuse, and perform reliably across their lifecycle.
  10. Global Standard Setting
  11. Position the EU as a leader in setting international norms for AI regulation, influencing global markets the way GDPR did for privacy.
  1. understand the scope of the AI Act.

To understand the scope of the EU AI Act, it helps to break it down into who and what it applies to, and how risk determines obligations. Here’s a clear guide:

1. Who it Applies To

  • Providers: Anyone (companies, developers, public bodies) placing AI systems on the EU market, regardless of where they are based.
  • Deployers/Users: Organizations or individuals using AI within the EU.
  • Importers & Distributors: Those selling or distributing AI systems in the EU.


➡️ Even if a company is outside the EU, the Act applies if their AI systems are used in the EU.

2. What Counts as AI

  • The Act uses a broad definition of AI (based on OECD/Commission standards).
  • Covers systems that can:
    • process data,
    • generate outputs (predictions, recommendations, decisions),
    • influence physical or virtual environments.
  • Includes machine learning, rule-based, statistical, and generative AI models.

3. Risk-Based Approach

The scope is defined by categorizing AI uses into risk levels:

  1. Unacceptable Risk (Prohibited)
    • Social scoring, manipulative techniques, real-time biometric surveillance in public (with limited exceptions).
  2. High Risk (Strictly Regulated)
    • AI in sensitive areas like:
      • healthcare (diagnostics, medical devices),
      • employment (CV screening),
      • education (exam scoring),
      • law enforcement and migration,
      • critical infrastructure (transport, energy).
  3. Limited Risk (Transparency Requirements)
    • Chatbots, deepfakes, emotion recognition—users must be informed they are interacting with AI.
  4. Minimal Risk (Largely Unregulated)
    • AI in spam filters, video games, recommendation engines—free to operate with voluntary best practices.

4. Exemptions

  • AI used for military and national security is outside the Act’s scope.
  • Systems used solely for research and prototyping are exempt until they are placed on the market.

5. Key Takeaway on Scope

The EU AI Act is horizontal (applies across sectors) but graduated (the rules depend on risk).

  • If you are a provider, you need to check whether your system falls into a prohibited, high, limited, or minimal category.
  • If you are a user, you need to know what obligations apply when deploying AI (especially if it’s high-risk).

👉 In short: The scope of the EU AI Act is broad, extraterritorial, and risk-based. It applies to almost anyone building, selling, or using AI in the EU, but the depth of obligations depends on how risky the AI application is considered.

EU AI Act: Full text of the Artificial Intelligence Regulation


Practical OWASP Security Testing: Hands-On Strategies for Detecting and Mitigating Web Vulnerabilities in the Age of AI

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

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

Aug 21 2025

ISO/IEC 42001 Requirements Mapped to ShareVault

Category: AI,Information Security — disc7 @ 2:55 pm

🏢 Strategic Benefits for ShareVault

  • Regulatory Alignment: ISO 42001 supports GDPR, HIPAA, and EU AI Act compliance.
  • Client Trust: Demonstrates responsible AI governance to enterprise clients.
  • Competitive Edge: Positions ShareVault as a forward-thinking, standards-compliant VDR provider.
  • Audit Readiness: Facilitates internal and external audits of AI systems and data handling.

If ShareVault were to pursue ISO 42001 certification, it would not only strengthen its AI governance but also reinforce its reputation in regulated industries like life sciences, finance, and legal services.

Here’s a tailored ISO/IEC 42001 implementation roadmap for a Virtual Data Room (VDR) provider like ShareVault, focusing on responsible AI governance, risk mitigation, and regulatory alignment.

🗺️ ISO/IEC 42001 Implementation Roadmap for ShareVault

Phase 1: Initiation & Scoping

🔹 Objective: Define the scope of AI use and align with business goals.

  • Identify AI-powered features (e.g., smart search, document tagging, access analytics).
  • Map stakeholders: internal teams, clients, regulators.
  • Define scope of the AI Management System (AIMS): which systems, processes, and data are covered.
  • Appoint an AI Governance Lead or Steering Committee.

Phase 2: Gap Analysis & Risk Assessment

🔹 Objective: Understand current state vs. ISO 42001 requirements.

  • Conduct a gap analysis against ISO 42001 clauses.
  • Evaluate risks related to:
    • Data privacy (e.g., GDPR, HIPAA)
    • Bias in AI-driven document classification
    • Misuse of access analytics
  • Review existing controls and identify vulnerabilities.

Phase 3: Policy & Governance Framework

🔹 Objective: Establish foundational policies and oversight mechanisms.

  • Draft an AI Policy aligned with ethical principles and legal obligations.
  • Define roles and responsibilities for AI oversight.
  • Create procedures for:
    • Human oversight and intervention
    • Incident reporting and escalation
    • Lifecycle management of AI models

Phase 4: Data & Model Governance

🔹 Objective: Ensure trustworthy data and model practices.

  • Implement controls for training and testing data quality.
  • Document data sources, preprocessing steps, and validation methods.
  • Establish model documentation standards (e.g., model cards, audit trails).
  • Define retention and retirement policies for outdated models.

Phase 5: Operational Controls & Monitoring

🔹 Objective: Embed AI governance into daily operations.

  • Integrate AI risk controls into DevOps and product workflows.
  • Set up performance monitoring dashboards for AI features.
  • Enable logging and traceability of AI decisions.
  • Conduct regular internal audits and reviews.

Phase 6: Stakeholder Engagement & Transparency

🔹 Objective: Build trust with users and clients.

  • Communicate AI capabilities and limitations clearly in the UI.
  • Provide opt-out or override options for AI-driven decisions.
  • Engage clients in defining acceptable AI behavior and use cases.
  • Train staff on ethical AI use and ISO 42001 principles.

Phase 7: Certification & Continuous Improvement

🔹 Objective: Achieve compliance and evolve responsibly.

  • Prepare documentation for ISO 42001 certification audit.
  • Conduct mock audits and address gaps.
  • Establish feedback loops for continuous improvement.
  • Monitor regulatory changes (e.g., EU AI Act, U.S. AI bills) and update policies accordingly.

🧠 Bonus Tip: Align with Other Standards

ShareVault can integrate ISO 42001 with:

  • ISO 27001 (Information Security)
  • ISO 9001 (Quality Management)
  • SOC 2 (Trust Services Criteria)
  • EU AI Act (for high-risk AI systems)

visual roadmap for implementing ISO/IEC 42001 tailored to a Virtual Data Room (VDR) provider like ShareVault:

🗂️ ISO 42001 Implementation Roadmap for VDR Providers

Each phase is mapped to a monthly milestone, showing how AI governance can be embedded step-by-step:

📌 Milestone Highlights

  • Month 1 – Initiation & Scoping Define AI use cases (e.g., smart search, access analytics), map stakeholders, appoint governance lead.
  • Month 2 – Gap Analysis & Risk Assessment Evaluate risks like bias in document tagging, privacy breaches, and misuse of analytics.
  • Month 3 – Policy & Governance Framework Draft AI policy, define oversight roles, and create procedures for human intervention and incident handling.
  • Month 4 – Data & Model Governance Implement controls for training data, document model behavior, and set retention policies.
  • Month 5 – Operational Controls & Monitoring Embed governance into workflows, monitor AI performance, and conduct internal audits.
  • Month 6 – Stakeholder Engagement & Transparency Communicate AI capabilities to users, engage clients in ethical discussions, and train staff.
  • Month 7 – Certification & Continuous Improvement Prepare for ISO audit, conduct mock assessments, and monitor evolving regulations like the EU AI Act.

Practical OWASP Security Testing: Hands-On Strategies for Detecting and Mitigating Web Vulnerabilities in the Age of AI

Building Trust with High-Risk AI: What Article 15 of the EU AI Act Means for Accuracy, Robustness & Cybersecurity

From Compliance to Confidence: How DISC LLC Delivers Strategic Cybersecurity Services That Scale

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

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, Sharevault

« Previous Page — Next Page »