DISC InfoSec blog

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Define retention and retirement policies for outdated models.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

Tags: ISO 42001, Sharevault

Comments (0)

Aug 21 2025

How to Classify an AI system into one of the categories: unacceptable risk, high risk, limited risk, minimal or no risk.

Category: AI,Information Classification — disc7 @ 1:25 pm

🔹 1. Unacceptable Risk (Prohibited AI)

These are AI practices banned outright because they pose a clear threat to safety, rights, or democracy.
Examples:

Social scoring by governments (like assigning citizens a “trust score”).
Real-time biometric identification in public spaces for mass surveillance (with narrow exceptions like serious crime).
Manipulative AI that exploits vulnerabilities (e.g., toys with voice assistants that encourage dangerous behavior in kids).

👉 If your system falls here → cannot be marketed or used in the EU.

🔹 2. High Risk

These are AI systems with significant impact on people’s rights, safety, or livelihoods. They are allowed but subject to strict compliance (risk management, testing, transparency, human oversight, etc.).
Examples:

AI in recruitment (CV screening, job interview analysis).
Credit scoring or AI used for approving loans.
Medical AI (diagnosis, treatment recommendations).
AI in critical infrastructure (electricity grid management, transport safety systems).
AI in education (grading, admissions decisions).

👉 If your system is high-risk → must undergo conformity assessment and registration before use.

🔹 3. Limited Risk

These require transparency obligations, but not full compliance like high-risk systems.
Examples:

Chatbots (users must know they’re talking to AI, not a human).
AI systems generating deepfakes (must disclose synthetic nature unless for law enforcement/artistic/expressive purposes).
Emotion recognition systems in non-high-risk contexts.

👉 If limited risk → inform users clearly, but lighter obligations.

🔹 4. Minimal or No Risk

The majority of AI applications fall here. They’re largely unregulated beyond general EU laws.
Examples:

Spam filters.
AI-powered video games.
Recommendation systems for e-commerce or music streaming.
AI-driven email autocomplete.

👉 If minimal/no risk → free use with no extra requirements.

⚖️ Rule of Thumb for Classification:

If it manipulates or surveils → often unacceptable risk.
If it affects health, jobs, education, finance, safety, or fundamental rights → high risk.
If it interacts with humans but without major consequences → limited risk.
If it’s just convenience or productivity-related → minimal/no risk.

A decision tree you can use to classify any AI system under the EU AI Act risk framework:

🧭 EU AI Act AI System Risk Classification Decision Tree

Step 1: Check for Prohibited Practices

👉 Does the AI system do any of the following?

Social scoring of individuals by governments or large-scale ranking of citizens?
Manipulative AI that exploits vulnerable groups (e.g., children, disabled, addicted)?
Real-time biometric identification in public spaces (mass surveillance), except for narrow law enforcement use?
Subliminal manipulation that harms people?

✅ Yes → UNACCEPTABLE RISK (Prohibited, not allowed in EU).
❌ No → go to Step 2.

Step 2: Check for High-Risk Use Cases

👉 Does the AI system significantly affect people’s safety, rights, or livelihoods, such as:

Biometrics (facial recognition, identification, sensitive categorization)?
Education (grading, admissions, student assessment)?
Employment (recruitment, CV screening, promotion decisions)?
Essential services (credit scoring, access to welfare, healthcare)?
Law enforcement & justice (predictive policing, evidence analysis, judicial decision support)?
Critical infrastructure (transport, energy, water, safety systems)?
Medical devices or health AI (diagnosis, treatment recommendations)?

✅ Yes → HIGH RISK (Strict obligations: conformity assessment, risk management, registration, oversight).
❌ No → go to Step 3.

Step 3: Check for Transparency Requirements (Limited Risk)

👉 Does the AI system:

Interact with humans in a way that users might think they are talking to a human (e.g., chatbot, voice assistant)?
Generate or manipulate content that could be mistaken for real (e.g., deepfakes, synthetic media)?
Use emotion recognition or biometric categorization outside high-risk cases?

✅ Yes → LIMITED RISK (Transparency obligations: disclose AI use to users).
❌ No → go to Step 4.

Step 4: Everything Else

👉 Is the AI system just for convenience, productivity, personalization, or entertainment without major societal or legal impact?

✅ Yes → MINIMAL or NO RISK (Free use, no extra regulation).

⚖️ Quick Classification Examples:

Social scoring AI → ❌ Unacceptable Risk
AI for medical diagnosis → 🚨 High Risk
AI chatbot for customer service → ⚠️ Limited Risk
Spam filter / recommender system → ✅ Minimal Risk

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

Expertise-in-Virtual-CISO-vCISO-Services-2 Download

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: AI categories, AI Sytem, EU AI Act

Comments (0)

Aug 20 2025

The highlights from the OWASP AI Maturity Assessment framework

Category: AI,owasp — disc7 @ 3:51 pm

1. Purpose and Scope

The OWASP AI Maturity Assessment provides organizations with a structured way to evaluate how mature their practices are in managing the security, governance, and ethical use of AI systems. Its scope goes beyond technical safeguards, emphasizing a holistic approach that covers people, processes, and technology.

2. Core Maturity Domains

The framework divides maturity into several domains: governance, risk management, security, compliance, and operations. Each domain contains clear criteria that organizations can use to assess themselves and identify both strengths and weaknesses in their AI security posture.

3. Governance and Oversight

A strong governance foundation is highlighted as essential. This includes defining roles, responsibilities, and accountability structures for AI use, ensuring executive alignment, and embedding oversight into organizational culture. Without governance, technical controls alone are insufficient.

4. Risk Management Integration

Risk management is emphasized as an ongoing process that must be integrated into AI lifecycles. This means continuously identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks associated with data, algorithms, and models, while also accounting for evolving threats and regulatory changes.

5. Security and Technical Controls

Security forms a major part of the maturity model. It stresses the importance of secure coding, model hardening, adversarial resilience, and robust data protection. Secure development pipelines and automated monitoring of AI behavior are seen as crucial for preventing exploitation.

6. Compliance and Ethical Considerations

The assessment underscores regulatory alignment and ethical responsibilities. Organizations are expected to demonstrate compliance with applicable laws and standards while ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in AI outcomes. This dual lens of compliance and ethics sets the framework apart.

7. Operational Excellence

Operational maturity is measured by how well organizations integrate AI governance into day-to-day practices. This includes ongoing monitoring of deployed AI systems, clear incident response procedures for AI failures or misuse, and mechanisms for continuous improvement.

8. Maturity Levels

The framework uses levels of maturity (from ad hoc practices to fully optimized processes) to help organizations benchmark themselves. Moving up the levels involves progress from reactive, fragmented practices to proactive, standardized, and continuously improving capabilities.

9. Practical Assessment Method

The assessment is designed to be practical and repeatable. Organizations can self-assess or engage third parties to evaluate maturity against OWASP criteria. The output is a roadmap highlighting gaps, recommended improvements, and prioritized actions based on risk appetite.

10. Value for Organizations

Ultimately, the OWASP AI Maturity Assessment enables organizations to transform AI adoption from a risky endeavor into a controlled, strategic advantage. By balancing governance, security, compliance, and ethics, it gives organizations confidence in deploying AI responsibly at scale.

My Opinion

The OWASP AI Maturity Assessment stands out as a much-needed framework in today’s AI-driven world. Its strength lies in combining technical security with governance and ethics, ensuring organizations don’t just “secure AI” but also use it responsibly. The maturity levels provide clear benchmarks, making it actionable rather than purely theoretical. In my view, this framework can be a powerful tool for CISOs, compliance leaders, and AI product managers who need to align innovation with trust and accountability.

**visual roadmap** of the OWASP AI Maturity levels (1–5), showing the progression from ad hoc practices to fully optimized, proactive, and automated AI governance and security.

Download OWASP AI Maturity Assessment Ver 1.0 August 11, 2025

PDF of the OWASP AI Maturity Roadmap with business-value highlights for each level.

OWASP_AI_Maturity_Roadmap Download

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

Expertise-in-Virtual-CISO-vCISO-Services-2 Download

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: OWASP AI Maturity, OWASP Security Testing

Comments (0)

Aug 19 2025

Geoffrey Hinton Warns: Why AI Needs a ‘Mother’ to Stay Under Control

Category: AI — disc7 @ 10:02 am

1. A Critical Voice in a Transformative Moment

At the AI4 2025 conference in Las Vegas, Geoffrey Hinton—renowned as the “Godfather of AI” and a Nobel Prize winner—issued a powerful warning about the trajectory of artificial intelligence. Speaking to an audience of over 8,000 tech leaders, researchers, and policymakers, Hinton emphasized that while AI’s capabilities are expanding rapidly, we’re lacking the global coordination needed to manage it safely.

2. The Rise of Fragmented Intelligence

Hinton highlighted how AI is being deployed across diverse sectors—healthcare, transportation, finance, and military systems. Each application grows more autonomous, yet most are developed in isolation. This fragmented evolution, he argued, increases the risk of incompatible systems, competing goals, and unintended consequences—ranging from biased decisions to safety failures.

3. Introducing the Concept of “Mother AI”

To address this fragmentation, Hinton proposed a controversial but compelling idea: a centralized supervisory intelligence, which he dubbed “Mother AI.” This system would act as a layer of governance above all other AIs, helping to coordinate their behavior, ensure ethical standards, and maintain alignment with human values.

4. A Striking Analogy

Hinton used a vivid metaphor to describe this supervisory model: “The only example of a more intelligent being being controlled by a less intelligent one is a mother being controlled by her baby.” In this analogy, individual AIs are the children—powerful yet immature—while “Mother AI” provides the wisdom, discipline, and ethical guidance necessary to keep them in check.

5. Ethics, Oversight, and Coordination

The key role of this Mother AI, according to Hinton, would be to serve as a moral and operational compass. It would enforce consistency across various systems, prevent destructive behavior, and address the growing concern that AI systems might evolve in ways that humans cannot predict or control. Such oversight would help mitigate risks like surveillance misuse, algorithmic bias, or even accidental harm.

6. Innovation vs. Control

Despite his warnings, Hinton acknowledged AI’s immense benefits—particularly in areas like medicine, where it could revolutionize diagnostics, personalize treatments, and even cure previously untreatable diseases. His core argument wasn’t to slow progress, but to steer it—ensuring innovation is paired with global governance to avoid reckless development.

7. The Bigger Picture

Hinton’s call for a unifying AI framework is a challenge to the current laissez-faire approach in the tech industry. His concept of a “Mother AI” is less about creating a literal super-AI and more about instilling centralized accountability in a world of distributed algorithms. The broader implication: if we don’t proactively guide AI’s development, it may evolve in ways that slip beyond our control.

My Opinion

Hinton’s proposal is bold, thought-provoking, and increasingly necessary. The idea of a “Mother AI” might sound dramatic, but it reflects a deep truth: today’s AI systems are being built faster than society can regulate or understand them. While the metaphor may not translate into a practical solution immediately, it effectively underscores the urgent need for coordination, oversight, and ethical alignment. Without that, we risk building a powerful ecosystem of machines that may not share—or even recognize—our values. The future of AI isn’t just about intelligence; it’s about wisdom, and that starts with humans taking responsibility now…

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: Mother AI

Comments (0)

Aug 18 2025

AI-Driven Hacking: The New Frontier in Cybersecurity

Category: AI,Hacking,Information Security — disc7 @ 10:02 am

The age of AI-assisted hacking is no longer looming—it’s here. Hackers of all stripes—from state actors to cybercriminals—are now integrating AI tools into their operations, while defenders are racing to catch up.

Key Developments

In mid‑2025, Russian intelligence reportedly sent phishing emails to Ukrainians containing AI-powered attachments that automatically scanned victims’ computers for sensitive files and transmitted them back to Russia. NBC Bay Area
AI models like ChatGPT have become highly adept at translating natural language into code, helping hackers automate their work and scale operations. NBC Bay Area
AI hasn’t ushered in a hacking revolution that enables novices to bring down power grids—but it is significantly enhancing the efficiency and reach of skilled hackers. NBC Bay Area

On the Defensive Side

Cybersecurity defenders are also turning to AI—Google’s “Gemini” model helped identify over 20 software vulnerabilities, speeding up bug detection and patching.
Alexei Bulazel of the White House’s National Security Council believes defenders currently hold a slight edge over attackers, thanks to America’s tech infrastructure, but that balance may shift as agentic (autonomous) AI tools proliferate.
A notable milestone: an AI called “Xbow” topped the HackerOne leaderboard, prompting the platform to create a separate category for AI-generated hacking tools.

My Take

This article paints a vivid picture of an escalating AI arms race in cybersecurity. My view? It’s a dramatic turning point:

AI is already tipping the scale—but not overwhelmingly. Hackers are more efficient, but full-scale automated digital threats haven’t arrived. Still, what used to require deep expertise is becoming accessible to more people.
Defenders aren’t standing idle. AI-assisted scanning and rapid vulnerability detection are powerful tools in the white-hat arsenal—and may remain decisive, especially when backed by robust tech ecosystems.
The real battleground is trust. As AI makes exploits more sophisticated and deception more believable (e.g., deepfakes or phishing), trust becomes the most vulnerable asset. This echoes broader reports showing attacks are increasingly AI‑powered, whether via deceptive audio/video or tailored phishing campaigns.
Vigilance must evolve. Automated defenses and rapid detection will be key. Organizations should also invest in digital literacy—training humans to recognize deception even as AI tools become ever more convincing.

In Summary

AI is enhancing both hacking and defense—but it’s not yet an apocalyptic breakthrough.
Skilled attackers can now move faster and more subtly.
Defenders have powerful AI tools in their corner—but must remain agile.
As deception scales, safeguarding trust and awareness is crucial.

Master AI Tools Like ChatGPT and MidJourney to Automate Tasks, Generate Content, and Stay Ahead in the Digital Age

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: AI-Driven Hacking, Generative AI Hacks

Comments (0)

Aug 17 2025

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

Category: CISO,Information Security,vCISO — disc7 @ 2:31 pm

The CISO 3.0: A Guide to Next-Generation Cybersecurity Leadership – Security, Audit and Leadership Series is out by Walt Powell.

This book positions itself not just as a technical guide but as a strategic roadmap for the future of cybersecurity leadership. It emphasizes that in today’s complex threat environment, CISOs must evolve beyond technical mastery and step into the role of business leaders who weave cybersecurity into the very fabric of organizational strategy.

The core message challenges the outdated view of CISOs as purely technical experts. Instead, it calls for a strategic shift toward business alignment, measurable risk management, and adoption of emerging technologies like AI and machine learning. This evolution reflects growing expectations from boards, executives, and regulators—expectations that CISOs must now meet with business fluency, not just technical insight.

The book goes further by offering actionable guidance, case studies, and real-world examples drawn from extensive experience across hundreds of security programs. It explores practical topics such as risk quantification, cyber insurance, and defining materiality, filling the gap left by more theory-heavy resources.

For aspiring CISOs, the book provides a clear path to transition from technical expertise to strategic leadership. For current CISOs, it delivers fresh insight into strengthening business acumen and boardroom credibility, enabling them to better drive value while protecting organizational assets.

My thought: This book’s strength lies in recognizing that the modern CISO role is no longer just about defending networks but about enabling business resilience and trust. By blending strategy with technical depth, it seems to prepare security leaders for the boardroom-level influence they now require. In an era where cybersecurity is a business risk, not just an IT issue, this perspective feels both timely and necessary.

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: CISO 3.0

Comments (1)

Aug 17 2025

Benefits and drawbacks of using open-source models versus closed-source models under the AI Act

Category: AI,Information Security — disc7 @ 1:36 pm

Objectives of EU AI Act is:

Harmonized rules for AI systems in the EU, prohibitions on certain AI practices, requirements for high
risk AI, transparency rules, market surveillance, and innovation support.

1. Overview: How the AI Act Treats Open-Source vs. Closed-Source Models

The EU AI Act (formalized in 2024) regulates AI systems using a risk-based framework that ranges from unacceptable to minimal risk. It also includes a specific layer for general-purpose AI (GPAI)—“foundation models” like large language models.
Open-source models enjoy limited exemptions, especially if:
- They’re not high-risk,
- Not unsafe or interacting directly with individuals,
- Not monetized,
- Or not deemed to present systemic risk.
Closed-source (proprietary) models don’t benefit from such leniency and must comply with all applicable obligations across risk categories.

2. Benefits of Open-Source Models under the AI Act

a) Greater Transparency & Documentation

Open-source code, weights, and architecture are accessible by default—aligning with transparency expectations (e.g., model cards, training data logs)—and often already publicly documented.
Independent auditing becomes more feasible through community visibility.
A Stanford study found open-source models tend to comply more readily with data and compute transparency requirements than closed-source alternatives.

b) Lower Compliance Burden (in Certain Cases)

Exemptions: Non-monetized open-source models that don’t pose systemic risk may dodge burdensome obligations like documentation or designated representatives.
For academic or purely scientific purposes, there’s additional leniency—even if models are open-source.

c) Encourages Innovation, Collaboration & Inclusion

Open-source democratizes AI access, reducing barriers for academia, startups, nonprofits, and regional players.
Wider collaboration speeds up innovation and enables localization (e.g., fine-tuning for local languages or use cases).
Diverse contributors help surface bias and ethical concerns, making models more inclusive.

3. Drawbacks of Open-Source under the AI Act

a) Disproportionate Regulatory Burden

The Act’s “one-size-fits-all” approach imposes heavy requirements (like ten-year documentation, third-party audits) even on decentralized, collectively developed models—raising feasibility concerns.
Who carries responsibility in distributed, open environments remains unclear.

b) Loopholes and Misuse Risks

The Act’s light treatment of non-monetized open-source models could be exploited by malicious actors to skirt regulations.
Open-source models can be modified or misused to generate disinformation, deepfakes, or hate content—without safeguards that closed systems enforce.

c) Still Subject to Core Obligations

Even under exemptions, open-source GPAI must still:
- Disclose training content,
- Respect EU copyright laws,
- Possibly appoint authorized representatives if systemic risk is suspected.

d) Additional Practical & Legal Complications

Licensing: Some so-called “open-source” models carry restrictive terms (e.g., commercial restrictions, copyleft provisions) that may hinder compliance or downstream use.
Support disclaimers: Open-source licenses typically disclaim warranties—risking liability gaps.
Security vulnerabilities: Public availability of code may expose models to tampering or release of harmful versions.

4. Closed-Source Models: Benefits & Drawbacks

Benefits

Able to enforce usage restrictions, internal safety mechanisms, and fine-grained control over deployment—reducing misuse risk.
Clear compliance path: centralized providers can manage documentation, audits, and risk mitigation systematically.
Stable liability chain, with better alignment to legal frameworks.

Drawbacks

Less transparency: core workings are hidden, making audits and oversight harder.
Higher compliance burden: must meet all applicable obligations across risk categories without the possibility of exemptions.
Innovation lock-in: smaller players and researchers may face high entry barriers.

5. Synthesis: Choosing Between Open-Source and Closed-Source under the AI Act

Dimension	Open-Source	Closed-Source
Transparency & Auditing	High—code, data, model accessible	Low—black box systems
Regulatory Burden	Lower for non-monetized, low-risk models; heavy for complex, high-risk cases	Uniformly high, though manageable by central entities
Innovation & Accessibility	High—democratizes access, collaboration	Limited—controlled by large orgs
Security & Misuse Risk	Higher—modifiable, misuse easier	Lower—safeguarded, controlled deployment
Liability & Accountability	Diffuse—decentralized contributors complicate oversight	Clear—central authority responsible

6. Final Thoughts

Under the EU AI Act, open-source AI is recognized and, in some respects, encouraged—but only under narrow, carefully circumscribed conditions. When models are non-monetized, low-risk, or aimed at scientific research, open-source opens up paths for innovation. The transparency and collaborative dynamics are strong virtues.

However, when open-source intersects with high risk, monetization, or systemic potential, the Act tightens its grip—subjecting models to many of the same obligations as proprietary ones. Worse, ambiguity in responsibility and enforcement may undermine both innovation and safety.

Conversely, closed-source models offer regulatory clarity, security, and control; but at the cost of transparency, higher compliance burden, and restricted access for smaller players.

TL;DR

Choose open-source if your goal is transparency, inclusivity, and innovation—so long as you keep your model non-monetized, transparently documented, and low-risk.
Choose closed-source when safety, regulatory oversight, and controlled deployment are paramount, especially in sensitive or high-risk applications.

Further reading on EU AI Act implications

https://www.barrons.com/articles/ai-tech-stocks-regulation-microsoft-google-amazon-meta-30424359?

https://apnews.com/article/a3df6a1a8789eea7fcd17bffc750e291?

The European Union flag stands inside the atrium at the European Council building in Brussels, June 17, 2024. (AP Photo/Omar Havana, file)

Agentic AI Security Risks: Why Enterprises Can’t Afford to Fly Blind

NIST Strengthens Digital Identity Security to Tackle AI-Driven Threats

Securing Agentic AI: Emerging Risks and Governance Imperatives

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

Expertise-in-Virtual-CISO-vCISO-Services-2 Download

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: open-source models versus closed-source models under the AI Act

Comments (0)

Aug 15 2025

Agentic AI Security Risks: Why Enterprises Can’t Afford to Fly Blind

Category: AI — disc7 @ 1:44 pm

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Agentic AI

The adoption of agentic AI is accelerating, promising unprecedented automation, operational efficiency, and innovation. But without robust security controls, enterprises are venturing into a high-risk environment where traditional cybersecurity safeguards no longer apply. These risks go far beyond conventional threat models and demand new governance, oversight, and technical protections.

1. Autonomous Misbehavior and Operational Disruption

Agentic AI systems can act without human intervention, making real-time decisions in business-critical environments. Without precise alignment and defined boundaries, these systems could:

Overwrite or delete critical data
Make unauthorized purchases or trigger processes
Misconfigure environments or applications
Interact with employees or customers in unintended ways

Business Impact: This can lead to costly downtime, compliance violations, and serious reputational damage. The unpredictable nature of autonomous agents makes operational resilience planning essential.

2. Regulatory Compliance Failures

Agentic AI introduces unique compliance risks that go beyond common IT governance issues. Misconfigured or unmonitored systems can violate:

Privacy laws such as GDPR or HIPAA
Financial regulations like SOX or PCI-DSS
Emerging AI-specific laws like the EU AI Act

Business Impact: These violations can trigger heavy fines, legal disputes, and delayed AI-driven product launches due to failed audits or remediation needs.

3. Shadow AI and Unmanaged Access

The rapid growth of shadow AI—unapproved, employee-deployed AI tools—creates an invisible attack surface. Examples include:

Public LLM agents granted internal system access
Code-generating agents deploying unvetted scripts
Plugin-enabled AI tools interacting with production APIs

Business Impact: These unmanaged agents can serve as hidden backdoors, leaking sensitive data, exposing credentials, or bypassing logging and authentication controls.

4. Data Exposure Through Autonomous Agents

When agentic AI interacts with public tools or plugins without oversight, data leakage risks multiply. Common scenarios include:

AI agents sending confidential data to public LLMs
Automated code execution revealing proprietary logic
Bypassing existing DLP (Data Loss Prevention) controls

Business Impact: Unauthorized data exfiltration can result in IP theft, compliance failures, and loss of customer trust.

5. Supply Chain and Partner Vulnerabilities

Autonomous agents often interact with third-party systems, APIs, and vendors, which creates supply chain risks. A misconfigured agent could:

Propagate malware via insecure APIs
Breach partner data agreements
Introduce liability into downstream environments

Business Impact: Such incidents can erode strategic partnerships, cause contractual disputes, and damage market credibility.

Conclusion: Agentic AI Needs First-Class Security Governance

The speed of agentic AI adoption means enterprises must embed security into the AI lifecycle—not bolt it on afterward. This includes:

Governance frameworks for AI oversight
Continuous monitoring and risk assessment
Phishing-resistant authentication and access controls
Cross-functional collaboration between security, compliance, and operational teams

My Take: Agentic AI can be a powerful competitive advantage, but unmanaged, it can also act as an unpredictable insider threat. Enterprises should approach AI governance with the same seriousness as financial controls—because in many ways, the risks are even greater.

Agentic AI: Navigating Risks and Security Challenges:

Securing Agentic AI: Emerging Risks and Governance Imperatives

State of Agentic AI Security and Governance

Three Essentials for Agentic AI Security

Is Agentic AI too advanced for its own good?

Mastering Agentic AI: Building Autonomous AI Agents with LLMs, Reinforcement Learning, and Multi-Agent Systems

DISC InfoSec previous posts on AI category

Artificial Intelligence Hacks

Managing Artificial Intelligence Threats with ISO 27001

ISO 42001 Foundation – Master the fundamentals of AI governance.

ISO 42001 Lead Auditor – Gain the skills to audit AI Management Systems.

ISO 42001 Lead Implementer – Learn how to design and implement AIMS.

Accredited by ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB) through PECB, ensuring global recognition.

Are you ready to lead in the world of AI Management Systems? Get certified in ISO 42001 with our exclusive 20% discount on top-tier e-learning courses – including the certification exam!

Limited-time offer – Don’t miss out! Contact us today to secure your spot.

Tags: Agentic AI Security Risks

Comments (1)

Aug 15 2025

NIST Strengthens Digital Identity Security to Tackle AI-Driven Threats

Category: AI,NIST Privacy — disc7 @ 9:27 am

The US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has issued its first major update to the Digital Identity Guidelines since 2017, responding to new cybersecurity challenges such as AI-enhanced phishing, deepfake fraud, and evolving identity attacks. The revision reflects how digital identity threats have grown more sophisticated and how organizations must adapt both technically and operationally to counter them.

The updated guidelines combine technical specifications and organizational recommendations to strengthen identity and access management (IAM) practices. While some elements refine existing methods, others introduce a fundamentally different approach to authentication and risk management, encouraging broader adoption of phishing-resistant and fraud-aware security measures.

A major focus is on AI-driven attack vectors. Advances in artificial intelligence have made phishing harder to detect, while deepfakes and synthetic identities challenge traditional identity verification processes. Although passwordless authentication, such as passkeys, offers a promising solution, adoption has been slowed by integration and compatibility hurdles. NIST now emphasizes stronger fraud detection, media forgery detection, and the use of FIDO-based phishing-resistant authentication.

This revision—NIST Special Publication 800-63, Revision 4—is the result of nearly four years of research, public drafts, and feedback from about 6,000 comments. It addresses identity proofing, authentication, and federation requirements, aiming to enhance security, privacy, and user experience. Importantly, it positions identity management as a shared responsibility, engaging cybersecurity, privacy, usability, program integrity, and mission operations teams in coordinated governance.

Key updates include revised risk management processes, continuous evaluation metrics, expanded fraud prevention measures, restructured identity proofing controls with clearer roles, safeguards against injection attacks and forged media, support for synced authenticators like passkeys, recognition of subscriber-controlled wallets, and updated password rules. These additions aim to balance robust protection with usability.

Overall, the revision represents a strategic shift from the previous edition, incorporating lessons from real-world breaches and advancements in identity technology. By setting a more comprehensive and collaborative framework, NIST aims to help organizations make digital interactions safer, more trustworthy, and more user-friendly while maintaining strong defenses against rapidly evolving threats.

“It is increasingly important for organizations to assess and manage digital identity
security risks, such as unauthorized access due to impersonation. As organizations
consult these guidelines, they should consider potential impacts to the confidentiality,
integrity, and availability of information and information systems that they manage, and
that their service providers and business partners manage, on behalf of the individuals
and communities that they serve.
Federal agencies implementing these guidelines are required to meet statutory
responsibilities, including those under the Federal Information Security Modernization
Act (FISMA) of 2014 [FISMA] and related NIST standards and guidelines. NIST
recommends that non-federal organizations implementing these guidelines follow
comparable standards (e.g., ISO/IEC 27001) to ensure the secure operation of their
digital systems.”

Download the complete guide HERE

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

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

Interpretation of Ethical AI Deployment under the EU AI Act

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

State of Agentic AI Security and Governance

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

Tags: Digital Identity Security

Comments (1)

Aug 14 2025

Securing Agentic AI: Emerging Risks and Governance Imperatives

Category: AI — disc7 @ 11:43 pm

Agentic AI—systems capable of planning, taking initiative, and pursuing goals with minimal oversight—represents a major shift from traditional, narrow AI tools. This autonomy enables powerful new capabilities but also creates unprecedented security risks. Autonomous agents can adapt in real time, set their own subgoals, and interact with complex systems in ways that are harder to predict, control, or audit.

Key challenges include unpredictable emergent behaviors, coordinated actions in multi-agent environments, and goal misalignment that leads to reward hacking or exploitation of system weaknesses. An agent that seems safe in testing may later bypass security controls, manipulate inputs, or collude with other agents to gain unauthorized access or disrupt operations. These risks are amplified by continuous operation, where small deviations can escalate into severe breaches over time.

Further, agentic systems can autonomously use tools, integrate with third-party services, and even modify their own code—blurring security boundaries. Without strict oversight, these capabilities risk leaking sensitive data, introducing unvetted dependencies, and enabling sophisticated supply chain or privilege escalation attacks. Managing these threats will require new governance, monitoring, and control strategies tailored to the autonomous and adaptive nature of agentic AI.

Agentic AI has the potential to transform industries—from software engineering and healthcare to finance and customer service. However, without robust security measures, these systems could be exploited, behave unpredictably, or trigger cascading failures across both digital and physical environments.

As their capabilities grow, security must be treated as a foundational design principle, not an afterthought—integrated into every stage of development, deployment, and ongoing oversight.

Agentic AI Security

The Agentic AI Bible

Interpretation of Ethical AI Deployment under the EU AI Act

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

State of Agentic AI Security and Governance

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

Tags: AI Governance, Securing Agentic AI

Comments (2)

Aug 06 2025

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

Category: AI,Information Security — disc7 @ 4:06 pm

As AI adoption accelerates, especially in regulated or high-impact sectors, the European Union is setting the bar for responsible development. Article 15 of the EU AI Act lays out clear obligations for providers of high-risk AI systems—focusing on accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity throughout the AI system’s lifecycle. Here’s what that means in practice—and why it matters now more than ever.

1. Security and Reliability From Day One

The AI Act demands that high-risk AI systems be designed with integrity and resilience from the ground up. That means integrating controls for accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity not only at deployment but throughout the entire lifecycle. It’s a shift from reactive patching to proactive engineering.

2. Accuracy Is a Design Requirement

Gone are the days of vague performance promises. Under Article 15, providers must define and document expected accuracy levels and metrics in the user instructions. This transparency helps users and regulators understand how the system should perform—and flags any deviation from those expectations.

3. Guarding Against Exploitation

AI systems must also be robust against manipulation, whether it’s malicious input, adversarial attacks, or system misuse. This includes protecting against changes to the AI’s behavior, outputs, or performance caused by vulnerabilities or unauthorized interference.

4. Taming Feedback Loops in Learning Systems

Some AI systems continue learning even after deployment. That’s powerful—but dangerous if not governed. Article 15 requires providers to minimize or eliminate harmful feedback loops, which could reinforce bias or lead to performance degradation over time.

5. Compliance Isn’t Optional—It’s Auditable

The Act calls for documented procedures that demonstrate compliance with accuracy, robustness, and security standards. This includes verifying third-party contributions to system development. Providers must be ready to show their work to market surveillance authorities (MSAs) on request.

6. Leverage the Cyber Resilience Act

If your high-risk AI system also falls under the scope of the EU Cyber Resilience Act (CRA), good news: meeting the CRA’s essential cybersecurity requirements can also satisfy the AI Act’s demands. Providers should assess the overlap and streamline their compliance strategies.

7. Don’t Forget the GDPR

When personal data is involved, Article 15 interacts directly with the GDPR—especially Articles 5(1)(d), 5(1)(f), and 32, which address accuracy and security. If your organization is already GDPR-compliant, you’re on the right track, but Article 15 still demands additional technical and operational precision.

Final Thought:

Article 15 raises the bar for how we build, deploy, and monitor high-risk AI systems. It doesn’t just aim to prevent failures—it pushes providers to deliver trustworthy, resilient, and secure AI from the start. For organizations that embrace this proactively, it’s not just about avoiding fines—it’s about building AI systems that earn trust and deliver long-term value.

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

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

Interpretation of Ethical AI Deployment under the EU AI Act

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

State of Agentic AI Security and Governance

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

Tags: Article 15, EU AI Act

Comments (10)

Aug 06 2025

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

Category: Information Security — disc7 @ 1:33 pm

Transforming Cybersecurity & Compliance into Strategic Strength

In an era of ever-tightening regulations and ever-evolving threats, Deura InfoSec Consulting (DISC LLC) stands out by turning compliance from a checkbox into a proactive asset.

🛡️ What We Offer: Core Services at a Glance

1. vCISO Services

Access seasoned CISO-level expertise—without the cost of a full-time executive. Our vCISO services provide strategic leadership, ongoing security guidance, executive reporting, and risk management aligned with your business needs.

2. Compliance & Certification Support

Whether you’re targeting ISO 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 42001, NIST, GDPR, SOC 2, HIPAA, or PCI DSS, DISC supports your entire journey—from assessments and gap analysis to policy creation, control implementation, and audit preparation.

3. Security Risk Assessments

Identify risks across infrastructure, cloud, vendors, and business-critical systems using frameworks such as MITRE ATT&CK (via CALDERA), with actionable risk scorecards and remediation roadmaps.

4. Risk‑based Strategic Planning

We bridge the gap from your current (“as‑is”) security state to your desired (“to‑be”) maturity level. Our process includes strategic roadmapping, metrics to measure progress, and embedding business-aligned security into operations.

5. Security Awareness & Training

Equip your workforce and leadership with tailored training programs—ranging from executive briefings to role-based education—in vital areas like governance, compliance, and emerging threats.

6. Penetration Testing & Tool Oversight

Using top-tier tools like Burp Suite Pro and OWASP ZAP, DISC uncovers vulnerabilities in web applications and APIs. These assessments are accompanied by remediation guidance and optional managed detection support.

7. At DISC LLC, we help organizations harness the power of data and artificial intelligence—responsibly. Our AIMS (Artificial Intelligence Management System) & Data Governance solutions are designed to reduce risk, ensure compliance, and build trust. We implement governance frameworks that align with ISO 27001, ISO 27701, ISO 42001, GDPR, EU AI ACT, HIPAA, and CCPA, supporting both data accuracy and AI accountability. From data classification policies to ethical AI guidelines, bias monitoring, and performance audits, our approach ensures your AI and data strategies are transparent, secure, and future-ready. By integrating AI and data governance, DISC empowers you to lead with confidence in a rapidly evolving digital world.

🔍 Why DISC Works

Fixed-fee, hands‑on approach: No bloated documents, just precise and efficient delivery aligned with your needs.
Expert-led services: With 20+ years in security and compliance, DISC’s consultants guide you at every stage.
Audit-ready processes: Leverage frameworks and tools like GRC platform to streamline compliance, reduce overhead, and stay audit-ready.
Tailored to SMBs & enterprises: From startups to established firms, DISC crafts solutions scalable to your size and skillset.

🚀 Ready to Elevate Your Security?

DISC LLC is more than a service provider—it’s your long-term advisor. Whether you’re combating cyber risk or scaling your compliance posture, our services deliver predictable value and empower you to make security a strategic advantage.

Get started today with a free consultation, including a one-hour session with a vCISO, to see where your organization stands—and where it needs to go.

Info@deurainfosec.com |   https://www.deurainfosec.com | 📞 (707) 998-5164

Expertise-in-Virtual-CISO-vCISO-Services-2 Download

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Comments (10)

Aug 06 2025

State of Agentic AI Security and Governance

Category: AI — disc7 @ 9:28 am

OWASP report “State of Agentic AI Security and Governance v1.0”

Agentic AI: The Future Is Autonomous — and Risky

Agentic AI is no longer a lab experiment—it’s rapidly becoming the foundation of next-gen software, where autonomous agents reason, make decisions, and execute multi-step tasks across APIs and tools. While the economic upside is massive, so is the risk. As OWASP’s State of Agentic AI Security and Governance report highlights, these systems require a complete rethink of security, compliance, and operational control.

1. Agents Are Not Just Smarter—They’re Also Riskier

Unlike traditional AI, Agentic AI systems operate with memory, access privileges, and autonomy. This makes them vulnerable to manipulation: prompt injection, memory poisoning, and abuse of tool integrations. Left unchecked, they can expose sensitive data, trigger unauthorized actions, and bypass conventional monitoring entirely.

2. New Tech, New Threat Surface

Agentic AI introduces risks that traditional security models weren’t built for. Agents can be hijacked or coerced into harmful behavior. Insider threats grow more complex when users exploit agents to perform actions under the radar. With dynamic RAG pipelines and tool calling, a single prompt can become a powerful exploit vector.

3. Frameworks and Protocols Lag Behind

Popular open-source and SaaS frameworks like AutoGen, crewAI, and LangGraph are powerful—but most lack native security features. Protocols like A2A and MCP enable cross-agent communication, but they introduce new vulnerabilities like spoofed identities, data leakage, and action misalignment. Developers are now responsible for stitching together secure systems from pieces that were never designed with security first.

4. A New Compliance Era Has Begun

Static compliance is obsolete. Regulations like the EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF, and ISO/IEC 42001 call for real-time oversight, red-teaming, human-in-the-loop (HITL) controls, and signed audit logs. States like Texas and California are already imposing fines, audit mandates, and legal accountability for autonomous decisions.

5. Insiders Now Have Superpowers

Agents deployed inside organizations often carry privileged access. A malicious insider can abuse that access—exfiltrating data, poisoning RAG sources, or hijacking workflows—all through benign-looking prompts. Worse, most traditional monitoring tools won’t catch these abuses because the agent acts on the user’s behalf.

6. Adaptive Governance Is Now Mandatory

The report calls for adaptive governance models. Think: real-time dashboards, tiered autonomy ladders, automated policy updates, and kill switches. Governance must move at the speed of the agents themselves, embedding ethics, legal constraints, and observability into the code—not bolting them on afterward.

7. Benchmarks and Tools Are Emerging

Security benchmarking is still evolving, but tools like AgentDojo, DoomArena, and Agent-SafetyBench are laying the groundwork. They focus on adversarial robustness, intrinsic safety, and behavior under attack. Expect continuous red-teaming to become as common as pen testing.

8. Self-Governing AI Systems Are the Future

AI agents that evolve and self-learn can’t be governed manually. The report urges organizations to build systems that self-monitor, self-report, and self-correct—all while meeting emerging global standards. Static risk models, annual audits, and post-incident reviews just won’t cut it anymore.

🧠 Final Thought

Agentic AI is here—and it’s powerful, productive, and dangerous if not secured properly. OWASP’s guidance makes it clear: the future belongs to those who embrace proactive security, continuous governance, and adaptive compliance. Whether you’re a developer, CISO, or AI product owner, now is the time to act.

The EU AI Act: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

EU AI ACT 2024

EU publishes General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Compliance Obligations Begin August 2025

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

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

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

Clause 4 of ISO 42001: Understanding an Organization and Its Context and Why It Is Crucial to Get It Right.

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: Agentic AI Governance, Agentic AI Security

Comments (0)

Aug 06 2025

IBM’s Five-Pillar Framework for Securing Generative AI: A Lifecycle-Based Approach to Risk Management

Category: AI — disc7 @ 7:39 am

IBM introduces a structured approach to securing generative AI by focusing on protection at each phase of the AI lifecycle. The framework emphasizes securing three critical elements: the data consumed by AI systems, the model itself (during development/training), and the usage environment (live inference). These are supported by robust infrastructure controls and governance mechanisms to oversee fairness, bias, and drift over time.

In the data collection and handling stage, risks include centralized repositories that grant broad access to intellectual property and personally identifiable information (PII). To mitigate threats like data exfiltration or misuse, IBM recommends rigorous access controls, encryption, and continuous risk assessments tailored to specific data types.

Next, during model development and training, the framework warns about threats such as data poisoning and the insertion of malicious code. It advises implementing secure development practices—scanning for vulnerabilities, enforcing access policies, and treating the model build process with the same rigor as secure software development.

When it comes to model inference and live deployment, organizations face risks like prompt‑injection, adversarial attacks, and unauthorized usage. IBM recommends real-time monitoring, anomaly detection, usage policies, and safeguards to validate inputs and outputs in live AI environments.

Beyond securing each phase of the pipeline, the framework emphasizes the importance of securing the underlying infrastructure—infrastructure-as-a-service, compute nodes, storage systems—so that large language models and associated applications operate in hardened, compliant environments.

Crucially, IBM insists on embedding strong AI governance: policies, oversight structures, and continuous monitoring to detect bias, drift, and compliance issues. Governance should integrate with existing regulatory frameworks like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and adapt alongside evolving regulations such as the EU AI Act.

Additionally, IBM’s broader work—including partnerships with AWS and internal tools like X‑Force Red—surfaced common gaps in security posture: many organizations prioritize innovation over security. Findings indicate that most active generative AI initiatives lack foundational controls across these five pillars: data, model, usage, infrastructure, and governance.

Opinion

IBM’s framework delivers a well-structured, holistic approach to the complex challenge of securing generative AI. By breaking security into discrete but interlinked phases — data, model, usage, infrastructure, governance — it helps organizations methodically build defenses where vulnerabilities are most likely. It’s also valuable that IBM aligns its framework with broader models such as NIST and incorporates continuous governance, which is essential in fast-moving AI environments.

That said, the real test lies in execution. Many enterprises still grapple with “shadow AI” — unsanctioned AI tools used by employees — and IBM’s own recent breach report suggests that only around 3% of organizations studied have adequate AI access controls in place, despite steep average breach costs ($670K extra from shadow AI alone). This gap between framework and reality underscores the need for cultural buy-in, investment in tooling, and staff training alongside technical controls.

All told, IBM’s Framework for Securing Generative AI is a strong starting point—especially when paired with governance, red teaming, infrastructure hardening, and awareness programs. But its impact will vary widely depending on how well organizations integrate its principles into everyday operations and security culture.

Generative AI, Cybersecurity, and Ethics

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

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

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

Clause 4 of ISO 42001: Understanding an Organization and Its Context and Why It Is Crucial to Get It Right.

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: Generative AI Security, IBM's Five-Pillar Framework, Risk management

Comments (0)

Aug 05 2025

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

Category: AI,Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 11:10 am

Lifecycle Risk Management
Under the EU AI Act, providers of high-risk AI systems are obligated to establish a formal risk management system that spans the entire lifecycle of the AI system—from design and development to deployment and ongoing use.
Continuous Implementation
This system must be established, implemented, documented, and maintained over time, ensuring that risks are continuously monitored and managed as the AI system evolves.
Risk Identification
The first core step is to identify and analyze all reasonably foreseeable risks the AI system may pose. This includes threats to health, safety, and fundamental rights when used as intended.
Misuse Considerations
Next, providers must assess the risks associated with misuse of the AI system—those that are not intended but are reasonably predictable in real-world contexts.
Post-Market Data Analysis
The system must include regular evaluation of new risks identified through the post-market monitoring process, ensuring real-time adaptability to emerging concerns.
Targeted Risk Measures
Following risk identification, providers must adopt targeted mitigation measures tailored to reduce or eliminate the risks revealed through prior assessments.
Residual Risk Management
If certain risks cannot be fully eliminated, the system must ensure these residual risks are acceptable, using mitigation strategies that bring them to a tolerable level.
System Testing Requirements
High-risk AI systems must undergo extensive testing to verify that the risk management measures are effective and that the system performs reliably and safely in all foreseeable scenarios.
Special Consideration for Vulnerable Groups
The risk management system must account for potential impacts on vulnerable populations, particularly minors (under 18), ensuring their rights and safety are adequately protected.
Ongoing Review and Adjustment
The entire risk management process should be dynamic, regularly reviewed and updated based on feedback from real-world use, incident reports, and changing societal or regulatory expectations.

🔐 Main Requirement Summary:

Providers of high-risk AI systems must implement a comprehensive, documented, and dynamic risk management system that addresses foreseeable and emerging risks throughout the AI lifecycle—ensuring safety, fundamental rights protection, and consideration for vulnerable groups.

The EU AI Act: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

EU AI ACT 2024

EU publishes General-Purpose AI Code of Practice: Compliance Obligations Begin August 2025

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

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

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

Clause 4 of ISO 42001: Understanding an Organization and Its Context and Why It Is Crucial to Get It Right.

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: EU AI Act, Risk management

Comments (2)

Aug 04 2025

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

Category: AI,ISO 42001,IT Governance — disc7 @ 3:29 pm

1. The New Era of AI Governance
AI is now part of everyday life—from facial recognition and recommendation engines to complex decision-making systems. As AI capabilities multiply, businesses urgently need standardized frameworks to manage associated risks responsibly. ISO 42001:2023, released at the end of 2023, offers the first global management system standard dedicated entirely to AI systems.

2. What ISO 42001 Offers
The standard establishes requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS). It covers everything from ethical use and bias mitigation to transparency, accountability, and data governance across the AI lifecycle.

3. Structure and Risk-Based Approach
Built around the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) methodology, ISO 42001 guides organizations through formal policies, impact assessments, and continuous improvement cycles—mirroring the structure used by established ISO standards like ISO 27001. However, it is tailored specifically for AI management needs.

4. Core Benefits of Adoption
Implementing ISO 42001 helps organizations manage AI risks effectively while demonstrating responsible and transparent AI governance. Benefits include decreased bias, improved user trust, operational efficiency, and regulatory readiness—particularly relevant as AI legislation spreads globally.

5. Complementing Existing Standards
ISO 42001 can integrate with other management systems such as ISO 27001 (information security) or ISO 27701 (privacy). Organizations already certified to other standards can adapt existing controls and processes to meet new AI-specific requirements, reducing implementation effort.

6. Governance Across AI Lifecycle
The standard covers every stage of AI—from development and deployment to decommissioning. Key controls include leadership and policy setting, risk and impact assessments, transparency, human oversight, and ongoing monitoring of performance and fairness.

7. Certification Process Overview
Certification follows the familiar ISO 17021 process: a readiness assessment, then stage 1 and stage 2 audits. Once certified, organizations remain valid for three years, with annual surveillance audits to ensure ongoing adherence to ISO 42001 clauses and controls.

8. Market Trends and Regulatory Context
Interest in ISO 42001 is rising quickly in 2025, driven by global AI regulation like the EU AI Act. While certification remains voluntary, organizations adopting it gain competitive advantage and pre-empt regulatory obligations.

9. Controls Aligned to Ethical AI
ISO 42001 includes 38 distinct controls grouped into control objectives addressing bias mitigation, data quality, explainability, security, and accountability. These facilitate ethical AI while aligning with both organizational and global regulatory expectations.

10. Forward-Looking Compliance Strategy
Though certification may become more common in 2026 and beyond, organizations should begin early. Even without formal certification, adopting ISO 42001 practices enables stronger AI oversight, builds stakeholder trust, and sets alignment with emerging laws like the EU AI Act and evolving global norms.

Opinion:
ISO 42001 establishes a much-needed framework for responsible AI management. It balances innovation with ethics, governance, and regulatory alignment—something no other AI-focused standard has fully delivered. Organizations that get ahead by building their AI governance around ISO 42001 will not only manage risk better but also earn stakeholder trust and future-proof against incoming regulations. With AI accelerating, ISO 42001 is becoming a strategic imperative—not just a nice-to-have.

ISO 42001 Implementation Playbook for AI Leaders: A Step-by-Step Workbook to Establish, Implement, Maintain, and Continually Improve Your Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS)

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

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

Clause 4 of ISO 42001: Understanding an Organization and Its Context and Why It Is Crucial to Get It Right.

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: AI Governance, ISO 42001

Comments (4)

Aug 04 2025

Cyber Risk in Context: Why Boards Must See the Full Picture

Category: Cyber Strategy,Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 9:22 am

Cybersecurity is critical — but it’s not the only thing on a board’s mind. Executive leaders must make strategic decisions across the entire business, often with limited capital. So when CISOs ask for budget based solely on rising threats, without showing how it stacks up against other priorities, it becomes difficult to justify the spend.

Let’s consider a real-world scenario.

A company has $15 million in capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Multiple departments bring urgent and well-supported requests:

The CISO presents a cyber risk analysis using the FAIR model, showing that threat levels have surged due to automated AI-driven attacks. There’s now a 12% chance of a $15 million breach, and a 6% chance of a loss exceeding $35 million. A $6 million investment could reduce both the likelihood and potential impact by half.
The Chief Compliance Officer flags a looming regulatory risk. Without a $4 million compliance program upgrade, the company could face sanctions under new data transfer rules, risking both fines and disrupted global operations.
The Chief Marketing Officer argues that $5 million is needed to counter a competitor’s aggressive campaign launch. Without it, brand visibility may drop significantly, leading to an estimated $25 million decline in annual revenue.
The Strategy Lead proposes a $5 million acquisition of a startup with a product that complements their core offering. Early analysis projects a 30% return on investment within the first 12 months.
The Head of Workplace Safety requests $3 million to modernize outdated safety equipment and procedures. Incident reports are rising, and the potential cost of a serious injury — not to mention reputational damage — could be far greater.
The CIO outlines a $4 million plan to implement AI across customer service and logistics. The projected first-year impact: $2 million in savings and $6 million in additional revenue.

Each proposal has merit. But only $15 million is available. Should cybersecurity receive funding without evaluating how it compares to these other strategic needs?

Absolutely not.

Boards don’t decide based on fear — they decide based on business value. For cybersecurity to compete, it must be communicated in business terms: risk-adjusted ROI, financial exposure, and alignment with strategic goals. The days of saying “this is a critical vulnerability” without quantifying business impact are over.

Cyber risk is business risk — and it must be treated that way.

So here’s the real question: Are you making the case for cybersecurity in isolation? Or are you enabling informed, enterprise-level decisions?

How to be a Chief Risk Officer: A handbook for the modern CRO

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: Boards Must See the Full Picture, CRO

Comments (0)

Aug 04 2025

Stop Evaluating Cyber Risk in a Vacuum: Align Security with Business Objectives

Category: Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 8:01 am

Despite years of progress in the cybersecurity industry, one flawed mindset still lingers: assessing cyber risk as if it exists in a silo. Far too many organizations continue to focus on the “risk to information assets” — systems, servers, and data — while ignoring the larger picture: how those risks threaten the achievement of strategic business objectives.

This technical-first approach is understandable, especially for teams deeply embedded in IT or security operations. After all, threats like ransomware, phishing, and vulnerabilities in software systems are concrete, measurable, and urgent. But when cyber risk is framed solely in terms of what systems are vulnerable or which data might be exposed, the conversation never leaves the server room. It doesn’t reach the boardroom — or if it does, it’s lost in translation.

Why the Disconnect Matters

Business leaders don’t make decisions based on firewalls or patch levels. They prioritize growth, revenue, brand trust, customer retention, and regulatory compliance. If cyber risk isn’t explicitly tied to those business outcomes, it’s deprioritized — not because leadership doesn’t care, but because it hasn’t been made relevant.

Consider two ways of reporting the same issue:

Traditional framing: “Critical vulnerability in our ERP system could lead to data loss.”
Business-aligned framing: “If exploited, this vulnerability could halt our ability to process $8M in monthly sales orders, delaying shipments and damaging customer relationships during peak season.”

Which one gets budget approved faster?

The Real Risk Is to Business Continuity and Competitive Position

Data is an asset, yes — but only because it powers business functions. A compromise isn’t just a “security incident,” it’s a disruption to revenue streams, operational continuity, or brand reputation. If a phishing attack leads to credential theft, the real risk isn’t “loss of credentials” — it’s potential wire fraud, regulatory penalties, or a hit to investor confidence.

To manage cyber risk effectively, organizations must shift from asking “What’s the risk to this system?” to “What’s the risk to our ability to execute this critical business process?”

What Needs to Change?

Map technical risks to business outcomes.
Every asset, system, and data flow should be tied to a business function. Don’t just classify systems by “sensitivity level”; classify them by their impact on revenue, operations, or customer experience.
Involve finance and operations early.
Risk quantification must include input from finance, not just IT. If you want to talk about “impact,” use language CFOs understand: financial exposure, downtime cost, productivity loss, and potential liabilities.
Use scenarios, not scores.
Risk scores (like CVSS) are useful for prioritizing technical work, but they don’t capture business context. A CVSS 9.8 on a dev server may matter less than a CVSS 5 on a production payment system. Scenario-based risk assessments, tailored to your business, provide more actionable insights.
Educate your board with what matters to them.
Boards don’t need to understand encryption algorithms — they need to understand if a cyber risk could delay a product launch, spark a PR crisis, or violate a regulation that leads to fines.

The Bottom Line

Treating cyber risk as separate from business risk is not just outdated — it’s dangerous. In today’s digital economy, the two are inseparable. The organizations that thrive will be those that break down the silos between IT and the business, and assess cyber threats through the lens of what truly matters: achieving strategic objectives.

Your firewall isn’t just protecting data. It’s protecting the future of your business.

The Complete Guide to Business Risk Management

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: Cyber risk, cyber risk quantification, with Business Objectives

Comments (0)

Jul 31 2025

Governance Over Guesswork: A Strategic Approach to AI Risk Assessment

Category: AI,Security Risk Assessment — disc7 @ 12:22 pm

“How to Conduct an AI Risk Assessment” (Nudge Security)

Rising AI Risks Demand Structured Assessment
As generative AI use spreads rapidly within organizations, informal tool adoption is creating governance blind spots. Although many have moved past initial panic, daily emergence of new AI tools continues to raise security and compliance concerns.
Discovery Is the Foundation
A critical first step is discovering the AI tools being used across the organization—including those introduced outside IT’s visibility. Without automated inventory, you can’t secure or govern what you don’t know exists.
Integration Mapping Is Essential
Next, map which AI tools are integrated into core business systems. Review OAuth grants, APIs and app connections to identify potential data leakage pathways. Ask: what data is shared, who approved it, and how are identities protected?
Supply‑Chain & Vendor Exposure
Don’t overlook the AI used by SaaS vendors in your ecosystem. Many rely on third-party AI providers—necessitating detailed scrutiny of vendor AI supply chains, sub-processors, and third- or fourth-party data flow.
Governance Framework Alignment
To structure assessments, organizations should anchor AI risk work within recognized frameworks like NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, EU AI Act, and ISO 27001/SOC 2. This helps ensure consistency and traceability.
Security Controls & Monitoring
Risk evaluation should include access controls (e.g. RBAC), data encryption, audit logs, and consistent vendor security reviews. Continuous monitoring helps detect anomalies in AI usage.
Human‑Centric Governance
AI risk management isn’t just technical—it’s behavioral. Real-time nudges, policy just-in-time guidance, and education help users avoid risky behavior before it occurs. Nudge Security emphasizes user-friendly interventions.
Continuous Feedback & Iteration
Governance must be dynamic. Policies, tool inventories, and risk assessments need regular updates as tools evolve, use cases change, and new regulations emerge.
Make the Case with Visibility
Platforms like Nudge Security offer SaaS and AI discovery, tracking supply‑chain exposure, and enabling just‑in‑time governance nudges that guide secure user behavior without slowing innovation.
Mitigating Technical Threats
Governance also requires awareness of specific AI threats—like prompt injection, adversarial manipulation, supply‑chain exploitation, or agentic‑AI misuse—all of which require both automated guardrails and red‑teaming strategies.

10 Best Questions to Ask When Evaluating an AI Vendor

What automated discovery mechanisms do you support to detect both known and unknown AI tools in use across the organization?
Can you map integrations between your AI platform and core systems or SaaS tools, including OAuth grants and third-party processors?
Do you publish an AI Bill of Materials (AIBOM) that details underlying AI models and third‑party suppliers or sub‑processors?
How do you support alignment with frameworks like NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, or the EU AI Act during risk assessments?
What data protection measures do you implement—such as encryption, RBAC, retention controls, and audit logging?
How do you help organizations govern shadow AI usage at scale, including user Nudges or real-time policy enforcement?
Do you provide continuous monitoring and alerting for anomalous or potentially risky AI usage patterns?
What defenses do you offer against specific AI threats, such as prompt injection, model adversarial attacks, or agentic AI exploitation?
Have you been independently assessed or certified against any AI or security standards—SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 42001 or AI-specific audits?
How do you support vendor governance—e.g., tracking whether third- and fourth‑party SaaS providers in your ecosystem are using AI in ways that might impact our risk profile?

AI Risk Management, Analysis, and Assessment

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

What are the benefits of AI certification Like AICP by EXIN

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: AI Risk Management, Analysis, and Assessment

Comments (0)

Jul 30 2025

Shadow AI: The Hidden Threat Driving Data Breach Costs Higher

Category: AI,Information Security — disc7 @ 9:17 am

1

IBM’s latest Cost of a Data Breach Report (2025) highlights a growing and costly issue: “shadow AI”—where employees use generative AI tools without IT oversight—is significantly raising breach expenses. Around 20% of organizations reported breaches tied to shadow AI, and those incidents carried an average $670,000 premium per breach, compared to firms with minimal or no shadow AI exposure IBM+Cybersecurity Dive.

The latest IBM/Ponemon Institute report reveals that the global average cost of a data breach fell by 9% in 2025, down to $4.44 million—the first decline in five years—mainly driven by faster breach identification and containment thanks to AI and automation. However, in the United States, breach costs surged 9%, reaching a record high of $10.22 million, attributed to higher regulatory fines, rising detection and escalation expenses, and slower AI governance adoption. Despite rapid AI deployment, many organizations lag in establishing oversight: about 63% have no AI governance policies, and some 87% lack AI risk mitigation processes, increasing exposure to vulnerabilities like shadow AI. Shadow AI–related breaches tend to cost more—adding roughly $200,000 per incident—and disproportionately involve compromised personally identifiable information and intellectual property. While AI is accelerating incident resolution—which for the first time dropped to an average of 241 days—the speed of adoption is creating a security oversight gap that could amplify long-term risks unless governance and audit practices catch up IBM.

2

Although only 13% of organizations surveyed reported breaches involving AI models or tools, a staggering 97% of those lacked proper AI access controls—showing that even a small number of incidents can have profound consequences when governance is poor IBM Newsroom.

3

When shadow AI–related breaches occurred, they disproportionately compromised critical data: personally identifiable information in 65% of cases and intellectual property in 40%, both higher than global averages for all breaches.

4

The absence of formal AI governance policies is striking. Nearly two‑thirds (63%) of breached organizations either don’t have AI governance in place or are still developing one. Even among those with policies, many lack approval workflows or audit processes for unsanctioned AI usage—fewer than half conduct regular audits, and 61% lack governance technologies.

5

Despite advances in AI‑driven security tools that help reduce detection and containment times (now averaging 241 days, a nine‑year low), the rapid, unchecked rollout of AI technologies is creating what IBM refers to as security debt, making organizations increasingly vulnerable over time.

6

Attackers are integrating AI into their playbooks as well: 16% of breaches studied involved use of AI tools—particularly for phishing schemes and deepfake impersonations, complicating detection and remediation efforts.

7

The financial toll remains steep. While the global average breach cost has dropped slightly to $4.44 million, US organizations now average a record $10.22 million per breach. In many cases, businesses reacted by raising prices—with nearly one‑third implementing hikes of 15% or more following a breach.

8

IBM recommends strengthening AI governance via root practices: access control, data classification, audit and approval workflows, employee training, collaboration between security and compliance teams, and use of AI‑powered security monitoring. Investing in these practices can help organizations adopt AI safely and responsibly IBM.

🧠 My Take

This report underscores how shadow AI isn’t just a budding IT curiosity—it’s a full-blown risk factor. The allure of convenient AI tools leads to shadow adoption, and without oversight, vulnerabilities compound rapidly. The financial and operational fallout can be severe, particularly when sensitive or proprietary data is exposed. While automation and AI-powered security tools are bringing detection times down, they can’t fully compensate for the lack of foundational governance.

Organizations must treat AI not as an optional upgrade, but as a core infrastructure requiring the same rigour: visibility, policy control, audits, and education. Otherwise, they risk building a house of cards: fast growth over fragile ground. The right blend of technology and policy isn’t optional—it’s essential to prevent shadow AI from becoming a shadow crisis.

The Invisible Threat: Shadow AI

Governance in The Age of Gen AI: A Director’s Handbook on Gen AI

Securing Generative AI : Protecting Your AI Systems from Emerging Threats

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

What are the benefits of AI certification Like AICP by EXIN

Think Before You Share: The Hidden Privacy Costs of AI Convenience

The AI Readiness Gap: High Usage, Low Security

Mitigate and adapt with AICM (AI Controls Matrix)

DISC InfoSec’s earlier posts on the AI topic

Secure Your Business. Simplify Compliance. Gain Peace of Mind

Tags: AI Governance, Shadow AI

Comments (0)

« Previous Page — Next Page »

🏢 Strategic Benefits for ShareVault

🗺️ ISO/IEC 42001 Implementation Roadmap for ShareVault

Phase 1: Initiation & Scoping

Phase 2: Gap Analysis & Risk Assessment

Phase 3: Policy & Governance Framework

Phase 4: Data & Model Governance

Phase 5: Operational Controls & Monitoring

Phase 6: Stakeholder Engagement & Transparency

Phase 7: Certification & Continuous Improvement

🧠 Bonus Tip: Align with Other Standards

📌 Milestone Highlights

🔹 1. Unacceptable Risk (Prohibited AI)

🔹 2. High Risk

🔹 3. Limited Risk

🔹 4. Minimal or No Risk

🧭 EU AI Act AI System Risk Classification Decision Tree

Step 1: Check for Prohibited Practices

Step 2: Check for High-Risk Use Cases

Step 3: Check for Transparency Requirements (Limited Risk)

Step 4: Everything Else

⚖️ Quick Classification Examples:

1. Purpose and Scope

2. Core Maturity Domains

3. Governance and Oversight

4. Risk Management Integration

5. Security and Technical Controls

6. Compliance and Ethical Considerations

7. Operational Excellence

8. Maturity Levels

9. Practical Assessment Method

10. Value for Organizations

My Opinion

1. A Critical Voice in a Transformative Moment

2. The Rise of Fragmented Intelligence

3. Introducing the Concept of “Mother AI”

4. A Striking Analogy

5. Ethics, Oversight, and Coordination

6. Innovation vs. Control

7. The Bigger Picture

My Opinion

My Take

Related Reading Highlights

In Summary

1. Overview: How the AI Act Treats Open-Source vs. Closed-Source Models

2. Benefits of Open-Source Models under the AI Act

a) Greater Transparency & Documentation

b) Lower Compliance Burden (in Certain Cases)

c) Encourages Innovation, Collaboration & Inclusion

3. Drawbacks of Open-Source under the AI Act

a) Disproportionate Regulatory Burden

b) Loopholes and Misuse Risks

c) Still Subject to Core Obligations

d) Additional Practical & Legal Complications

4. Closed-Source Models: Benefits & Drawbacks

Benefits

Drawbacks

5. Synthesis: Choosing Between Open-Source and Closed-Source under the AI Act

6. Final Thoughts

TL;DR

Introduction: The Double-Edged Sword of Agentic AI

1. Autonomous Misbehavior and Operational Disruption

2. Regulatory Compliance Failures

3. Shadow AI and Unmanaged Access

4. Data Exposure Through Autonomous Agents

5. Supply Chain and Partner Vulnerabilities

Conclusion: Agentic AI Needs First-Class Security Governance

1. Security and Reliability From Day One

2. Accuracy Is a Design Requirement

3. Guarding Against Exploitation

4. Taming Feedback Loops in Learning Systems

5. Compliance Isn’t Optional—It’s Auditable

6. Leverage the Cyber Resilience Act

7. Don’t Forget the GDPR

Final Thought:

Transforming Cybersecurity & Compliance into Strategic Strength

🛡️ What We Offer: Core Services at a Glance

1. vCISO Services

2. Compliance & Certification Support

3. Security Risk Assessments

4. Risk‑based Strategic Planning