InfoSec and Compliance – With 20 years of blogging experience, DISC InfoSec blog is dedicated to providing trusted insights and practical solutions for professionals and organizations navigating the evolving cybersecurity landscape. From cutting-edge threats to compliance strategies, this blog is your reliable resource for staying informed and secure. Dive into the content, connect with the community, and elevate your InfoSec expertise!
— What ISO 42001 Is and Its Purpose ISO 42001 is a new international standard for AI governance and management systems designed to help organizations systematically manage AI-related risks and regulatory requirements. Rather than acting as a simple checklist, it sets up an ongoing framework for defining obligations, understanding how AI systems are used, and establishing controls that fit an organization’s specific risk profile. This structure resembles other ISO management system standards (such as ISO 27001) but focuses on AI’s unique challenges.
— ISO 42001’s Role in Structured Governance At its core, ISO 42001 helps organizations build consistent AI governance practices. It encourages comprehensive documentation, clear roles and responsibilities, and formalized oversight—essentials for accountable AI development and deployment. This structured approach aligns with the EU AI Act’s broader principles, which emphasize accountability, transparency, and risk-based management of AI systems.
— Documentation and Risk Management Synergies Both ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act call for thorough risk assessments, lifecycle documentation, and ongoing monitoring of AI systems. Implementing ISO 42001 can make it easier to maintain records of design choices, testing results, performance evaluations, and risk controls, which supports regulatory reviews and audits. This not only creates a stronger compliance posture but also prepares organizations to respond with evidence if regulators request proof of due diligence.
— Complementary Ethical and Operational Practices ISO 42001 embeds ethical principles—such as fairness, non-discrimination, and human oversight—into the organizational governance culture. These values closely match the normative goals of the EU AI Act, which seeks to prevent harm and bias from AI systems. By internalizing these principles at the management level, organizations can more coherently translate ethical obligations into operational policies and practices that regulators expect.
— Not a Legal Substitute for Compliance Obligations Importantly, ISO 42001 is not a legal guarantee of EU AI Act compliance on its own. The standard remains voluntary and, as of now, is not formally harmonized under the AI Act, meaning certification does not automatically confer “presumption of conformity.” The Act includes highly specific requirements—such as risk class registration, mandated reporting timelines, and prohibitions on certain AI uses—that ISO 42001’s management-system focus does not directly satisfy. ISO 42001 provides the infrastructure for strong governance, but organizations must still execute legal compliance activities in parallel to meet the letter of the law.
— Practical Benefits Beyond Compliance Even though it isn’t a standalone compliance passport, adopting ISO 42001 offers many practical benefits. It can streamline internal AI governance, improve audit readiness, support integration with other ISO standards (like security and quality), and enhance stakeholder confidence in AI practices. Organizations that embed ISO 42001 can reduce risk of missteps, build stronger evidence trails, and align cross-functional teams for both ethical practice and regulatory readiness.
My Opinion ISO 42001 is a valuable foundation for AI governance and a strong enabler of EU AI Act compliance—but it should be treated as the starting point, not the finish line. It helps organizations build structured processes, risk awareness, and ethical controls that align with regulatory expectations. However, because the EU AI Act’s requirements are detailed and legally enforceable, organizations must still map ISO-level controls to specific Act obligations, maintain live evidence, and fulfill procedural legal demands beyond what ISO 42001 specifies. In practice, using ISO 42001 as a governance backbone plus tailored compliance activities is the most pragmatic and defensible approach.
garak (Generative AI Red-teaming & Assessment Kit) is an open-source tool aimed specifically at testing Large Language Models and dialog systems for AI-specific vulnerabilities: prompt injection, jailbreaks, data leakage, hallucinations, toxicity, etc.
It supports many LLM sources: Hugging Face models, OpenAI APIs, AWS Bedrock, local ggml models, etc.
Typical usage is via command line, making it relatively easy to incorporate into a Linux/pen-test workflow.
For someone interested in “governance,” garak helps identify when an AI system violates safety, privacy or compliance expectations before deployment.
BlackIce — Containerized Toolkit for AI Red-Teaming & Security Testing
BlackIce is described as a standardized, containerized red-teaming toolkit for both LLMs and classical ML models. The idea is to lower the barrier to entry for AI security testing by packaging many tools into a reproducible Docker image.
It bundles a curated set of open-source tools (as of late 2025) for “Responsible AI and Security testing,” accessible via a unified CLI interface — akin to how Kali bundles network-security tools.
For governance purposes: BlackIce simplifies running comprehensive AI audits, red-teaming, and vulnerability assessments in a consistent, repeatable environment — useful for teams wanting to standardize AI governance practices.
LibVulnWatch — Supply-Chain & Library Risk Assessment for AI Projects
While not specific to LLM runtime security, LibVulnWatch focuses on evaluating open-source AI libraries (ML frameworks, inference engines, agent-orchestration tools) for security, licensing, supply-chain, maintenance and compliance risks.
It produces governance-aligned scores across multiple domains, helping organizations choose safer dependencies and keep track of underlying library health over time.
For an enterprise building or deploying AI: this kind of tool helps verify that your AI stack — not just the model — meets governance, audit, and risk standards.
Giskard offers LLM vulnerability scanning and red-teaming capabilities (prompt injection, data leakage, unsafe behavior, bias, etc.) via both an open-source library and an enterprise “Hub” for production-grade systems.
It supports “black-box” testing: you don’t need internal access to the model — as long as you have an API or interface, you can run tests.
For AI governance, Giskard helps in evaluating compliance with safety, privacy, and fairness standards before and after deployment.
🔧 What This Means for Kali Linux / Pen-Test-Oriented Workflows
The emergence of tools like garak, BlackIce, and Giskard shows that AI governance and security testing are becoming just as “testable” as traditional network or system security. For people familiar with Kali’s penetration-testing ecosystem — this is a familiar, powerful shift.
Because they are Linux/CLI-friendly and containerizable (especially BlackIce), they can integrate neatly into security-audit pipelines, continuous-integration workflows, or red-team labs — making them practical beyond research or toy use.
Using a supply-chain-risk tool like LibVulnWatch alongside model-level scanners gives a more holistic governance posture: not just “Is this LLM safe?” but “Is the whole AI stack (dependencies, libraries, models) reliable and auditable?”
⚠️ A Few Important Caveats (What They Don’t Guarantee)
Tools like garak and Giskard attempt to find common issues (jailbreaks, prompt injection, data leakage, harmful outputs), but cannot guarantee absolute safety or compliance — because many risks (e.g. bias, regulatory compliance, ethics, “unknown unknowns”) depend heavily on context (data, environment, usage).
Governance is more than security: It includes legal compliance, privacy, fairness, ethics, documentation, human oversight — many of which go beyond automated testing.
AI-governance frameworks are still evolving; even red-teaming tools may lag behind novel threat types (e.g. multi-modality, chain-of-tool-calls, dynamic agentic behaviors).
🎯 My Take / Recommendation (If You Want to Build an AI-Governance Stack Now)
If I were you and building or auditing an AI system today, I’d combine these tools:
Start with garak or Giskard to scan model behavior for injection, toxicity, privacy leaks, etc.
Use BlackIce (in a container) for more comprehensive red-teaming including chaining tests, multi-tool or multi-agent flows, and reproducible audits.
Run LibVulnWatch on your library dependencies to catch supply-chain or licensing risks.
Complement that with manual reviews, documentation, human-in-the-loop audits and compliance checks (since automated tools only catch a subset of governance concerns).
🧠 AI Governance & Security Lab Stack (2024–2025)
Kali doesn’t yet ship AI governance tools by default — but:
✅ Almost all of these run on Linux
✅ Many are CLI-based or Dockerized
✅ They integrate cleanly with red-team labs
✅ You can easily build a custom Kali “AI Governance profile”
My recommendation: Create:
A Docker compose stack for garak + Giskard + promptfoo
A CI pipeline for prompt & agent testing
A governance evidence pack (logs + scores + reports)
Map each tool to ISO 42001 / NIST AI RMF controls
below is a compact, actionable mapping that connects the ~10 tools we discussed to ISO/IEC 42001 clauses (high-level AI management system requirements) and to the NIST AI RMF Core functions (GOVERN / MAP / MEASURE / MANAGE). I cite primary sources for the standards and each tool so you can follow up quickly.
Notes on how to read the table • ISO 42001 — I map to the standard’s high-level clauses (Context (4), Leadership (5), Planning (6), Support (7), Operation (8), Performance evaluation (9), Improvement (10)). These are the right level for mapping tools into an AI Management System. Cloud Security Alliance+1 • NIST AI RMF — I use the Core functions: GOVERN / MAP / MEASURE / MANAGE (the AI RMF core and its intended outcomes). Tools often map to multiple functions. NIST Publications • Each row: tool → primary ISO clauses it supports → primary NIST functions it helps with → short justification + source links.
NIST AI RMF: MEASURE (testing, metrics, evaluation), MAP (identify system behavior & risks), MANAGE (remediation actions). NIST Publications+1
Why: Giskard automates model testing (bias, hallucination, security checks) and produces evidence/metrics used in audits and continuous evaluation. GitHub
2) promptfoo (prompt & RAG test suite / CI integration)
ISO 42001: 7 Support (documented procedures, competence), 8 Operation (validation before deployment), 9 Performance evaluation (continuous testing). Cloud Security Alliance
Why: promptfoo provides automated prompt tests, integrates into CI (pre-deployment gating) and produces test artifacts for governance traceability. GitHub+1
Why: LlamaFirewall is explicitly designed as a last-line runtime guardrail for agentic systems — enforcing policies and detecting task-drift/prompt injection at runtime. arXiv
ISO 42001: 8 Operation (adversarial testing), 9 Performance evaluation (benchmarks & stress tests), 10 Improvement (feed results back to controls). Cloud Security Alliance
NIST AI RMF: MEASURE (adversarial performance metrics), MAP (expose attack surface), MANAGE (prioritize fixes based on attack impact). NIST Publications+2arXiv+2
Why: These tools expand coverage of red-team tests (free-form and evolutionary adversarial prompts), surfacing edge failures and jailbreaks that standard tests miss. arXiv+1
7) Meta SecAlign (safer model / model-level defenses)
ISO 42001: 8 Operation (safe model selection/deployment), 6 Planning (risk-aware model selection), 7 Support (model documentation). Cloud Security Alliance+1
NIST AI RMF: MAP (model risk characteristics), MANAGE (apply safer model choices / mitigations), MEASURE (evaluate defensive effectiveness). NIST Publications+1
Why: A “safer” model built to resist manipulation maps directly to operational and planning controls where the organization chooses lower-risk building blocks. arXiv
8) HarmBench (benchmarks for safety & robustness testing)
ISO 42001: 9 Performance evaluation (standardized benchmarks), 8 Operation (validation against benchmarks), 10 Improvement (continuous improvement from results). Cloud Security Alliance
NIST AI RMF: MEASURE (standardized metrics & benchmarks), MAP (compare risk exposure across models), MANAGE (feed measurement results into mitigation plans). NIST Publications
Why: Benchmarks are the canonical way to measure and compare model trustworthiness and to demonstrate compliance in audits. arXiv
ISO 42001: 5 Leadership & 7 Support (policy, competence, awareness — guidance & training resources). Cloud Security Alliance
NIST AI RMF: GOVERN (policy & stakeholder guidance), MAP (inventory of recommended tools & practices). NIST Publications
Why: Curated resources help leadership define policy, identify tools, and set organizational expectations — foundational for any AI management system. Cyberzoni.com
Quick recommendations for operationalizing the mapping
Create a minimal mapping table inside your ISMS (ISO 42001) that records: tool name → ISO clause(s) it supports → NIST function(s) it maps to → artifact(s) produced (reports, SBOMs, test results). This yields audit-ready evidence. (ISO42001 + NIST suggestions above).
Automate evidence collection: integrate promptfoo / Giskard into CI so that each deployment produces test artifacts (for ISO 42001 clause 9).
Supply-chain checks: run LibVulnWatch and AI-Infra-Guard periodically to populate SBOMs and vulnerability dashboards (helpful for ISO 7 & 6).
Runtime protections: embed LlamaFirewall or runtime monitors for agentic systems to satisfy operational guardrail requirements.
Adversarial coverage: schedule periodic automated red-teaming using AutoRed / RainbowPlus / HarmBench to measure resilience and feed results into continual improvement (ISO clause 10).
At DISC InfoSec, our AI Governance services go beyond traditional security. We help organizations ensure legal compliance, privacy, fairness, ethics, proper documentation, and human oversight — addressing the full spectrum of responsible AI practices, many of which cannot be achieved through automated testing alone.
The Road to Enterprise AGI: Why Reliability Matters More Than Intelligence
1️⃣ Why Practical Reliability Matters
Many current AI systems — especially large language models (LLMs) and multimodal models — are non-deterministic: the same prompt can produce different outputs at different times.
For enterprises, non-determinism is a huge problem:
Compliance & auditability: Industries like finance, healthcare, and regulated manufacturing require traceable, reproducible decisions. An AI that gives inconsistent advice is essentially unusable in these contexts.
Risk management: If AI recommendations are unpredictable, companies can’t reliably integrate them into business-critical workflows.
Integration with existing systems: ERP, CRM, legal review systems, and automation pipelines need predictable outputs to function smoothly.
Murati’s research at Thinking Machines Lab directly addresses this. By working on deterministic inference pipelines, the goal is to ensure AI outputs are reproducible, reducing operational risk for enterprises. This moves generative AI from “experimental assistant” to a trusted tool. (a tool called Tinker that automates the creation of custom frontier AI models)
2️⃣ Enterprise Readiness
Security & Governance Integration: Enterprise adoption requires AI systems that comply with security policies, privacy standards, and governance rules. Murati emphasizes creating auditable, controllable AI.
Customization & Human Alignment: Businesses need AI that can be configured for specific workflows, tone, or operational rules — not generic “off-the-shelf” outputs. Thinking Machines Lab is focusing on human-aligned AI, meaning the system can be tailored while maintaining predictable behavior.
Operational Reliability: Enterprise-grade software demands high uptime, error handling, and predictable performance. Murati’s approach suggests that her AI systems are being designed with industrial-grade reliability, not just research demos.
3️⃣ The Competitive Edge
By tackling reproducibility and reliability at the inference level, her startup is positioning itself to serve companies that cannot tolerate “creative AI outputs” that are inconsistent or untraceable.
This is especially critical in sectors like:
Healthcare: AI-assisted diagnoses need predictable outputs.
Regulated Manufacturing & Energy: Decision-making and operational automation must be deterministic to meet safety standards.
Murati isn’t just building AI that “works,” she’s building AI that can be safely deployed in regulated, risk-sensitive environments. This aligns strongly with InfoSec, vCISO, and compliance priorities, because it makes AI audit-ready, predictable, and controllable — moving it from a curiosity or productivity tool to a reliable enterprise asset. In Short Building Trustworthy AGI: Determinism, Governance, and Real-World Readiness…
Murati’s Thinking Machines in Talks for $50 Billion Valuation
1. Sam Altman — CEO of OpenAI, the company behind ChatGPT — recently issued a sobering warning: he expects “some really bad stuff to happen” as AI technology becomes more powerful.
2. His concern isn’t abstract. He pointed to real‑world examples: advanced tools such as Sora 2 — OpenAI’s own AI video tool — have already enabled the creation of deepfakes. Some of these deepfakes, misusing public‑figure likenesses (including Altman’s own), went viral on social media.
3. According to Altman, these are only early warning signs. He argues that as AI becomes more accessible and widespread, humans and society will need to “co‑evolve” alongside the technology — building not just tech, but the social norms, guardrails, and safety frameworks that can handle it.
4. The risks are multiple: deepfakes could erode public trust in media, fuel misinformation, enable fraud or identity‑related crimes, and disrupt how we consume and interpret information online. The technology’s speed and reach make the hazards more acute.
5. Altman cautioned against overreliance on AI‑based systems for decision-making. He warned that if many users start trusting AI outputs — whether for news, advice, or content — we might reach “societal‑scale” consequences: unpredictable shifts in public opinion, democracy, trust, and collective behavior.
6. Still, despite these grave warnings, Altman dismissed calls for heavy regulatory restrictions on AI’s development and release. Instead, he supports “thorough safety testing,” especially for the most powerful models — arguing that regulation may have unintended consequences or slow beneficial progress.
7. Critics note a contradiction: the same company that warns of catastrophic risks is actively releasing powerful tools like Sora 2 to the public. That raises concerns about whether early release — even in the name of “co‑evolution” — irresponsibly accelerates exposure to harm before adequate safeguards are in place.
8. The bigger picture: what happens now will likely shape how society, law, and norms adapt to AI. If deepfake tools and AI‑driven content become commonplace, we may face a future where “seeing is believing” no longer holds true — and navigating truth vs manipulation becomes far harder.
9. In short: Altman’s warning serves partly as a wake‑up call. He’s not just flagging technical risk — he’s asking society to seriously confront how we consume, trust, and regulate AI‑powered content. At the same time, his company continues to drive that content forward. It’s a tension between innovation and caution — with potentially huge societal implications.
🔎 My Opinion
I think Altman’s public warning is important and overdue — it’s rare to see an industry leader acknowledge the dangers of their own creations so candidly. This sort of transparency helps start vital conversations about ethics, regulation, and social readiness.
That said, I’m concerned that releasing powerful AI capabilities broadly, while simultaneously warning they might cause severe harm, feels contradictory. If companies push ahead with widespread deployment before robust guardrails are tested and widely adopted, we risk exposing society to misinformation, identity fraud, erosion of trust, and social disruption.
Given how fast AI adoption is accelerating — and how high the stakes are — I believe a stronger emphasis on AI governance, transparency, regulation, and public awareness is essential. Innovation should continue, but not at the expense of public safety, trust, and societal stability.
How to Assess Your Current Compliance Framework Against ISO 42001
Published by DISCInfoSec | AI Governance & Information Security Consulting
The AI Governance Challenge Nobody Talks About
Your organization has invested years building robust information security controls. You’re ISO 27001 certified, SOC 2 compliant, or aligned with NIST Cybersecurity Framework. Your security posture is solid.
Then your engineering team deploys an AI-powered feature.
Suddenly, you’re facing questions your existing framework never anticipated: How do we detect model drift? What about algorithmic bias? Who reviews AI decisions? How do we explain what the model is doing?
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Traditional compliance frameworks weren’t designed for AI systems. ISO 27001 gives you 93 controls—but only 51 of them apply to AI governance. That leaves 47 critical gaps.
This isn’t a theoretical problem. It’s affecting organizations right now as they race to deploy AI while regulators sharpen their focus on algorithmic accountability, fairness, and transparency.
At DISCInfoSec, we’ve built a free assessment tool that does something most organizations struggle with manually: it maps your existing compliance framework against ISO 42001 (the international standard for AI management systems) and shows you exactly which AI governance controls you’re missing.
Not vague recommendations. Not generic best practices. Specific, actionable control gaps with remediation guidance.
What Makes This Tool Different
1. Framework-Specific Analysis
Select your current framework:
ISO 27001: Identifies 47 missing AI controls across 5 categories
SOC 2: Identifies 26 missing AI controls across 6 categories
NIST CSF: Identifies 23 missing AI controls across 7 categories
Each framework has different strengths and blindspots when it comes to AI governance. The tool accounts for these differences.
2. Risk-Prioritized Results
Not all gaps are created equal. The tool categorizes each missing control by risk level:
Critical Priority: Controls that address fundamental AI safety, fairness, or accountability issues
High Priority: Important controls that should be implemented within 90 days
Medium Priority: Controls that enhance AI governance maturity
This lets you focus resources where they matter most.
3. Comprehensive Gap Categories
The analysis covers the complete AI governance lifecycle:
AI System Lifecycle Management
Planning and requirements specification
Design and development controls
Verification and validation procedures
Deployment and change management
AI-Specific Risk Management
Impact assessments for algorithmic fairness
Risk treatment for AI-specific threats
Continuous risk monitoring as models evolve
Data Governance for AI
Training data quality and bias detection
Data provenance and lineage tracking
Synthetic data management
Labeling quality assurance
AI Transparency & Explainability
System transparency requirements
Explainability mechanisms
Stakeholder communication protocols
Human Oversight & Control
Human-in-the-loop requirements
Override mechanisms
Emergency stop capabilities
AI Monitoring & Performance
Model performance tracking
Drift detection and response
Bias and fairness monitoring
4. Actionable Remediation Guidance
For every missing control, you get:
Specific implementation steps: Not “implement monitoring” but “deploy MLOps platform with drift detection algorithms and configurable alert thresholds”
Realistic timelines: Implementation windows ranging from 15-90 days based on complexity
ISO 42001 control references: Direct mapping to the international standard
5. Downloadable Comprehensive Report
After completing your assessment, download a detailed PDF report (12-15 pages) that includes:
Executive summary with key metrics
Phased implementation roadmap
Detailed gap analysis with remediation steps
Recommended next steps
Resource allocation guidance
How Organizations Are Using This Tool
Scenario 1: Pre-Deployment Risk Assessment
A fintech company planning to deploy an AI-powered credit decisioning system used the tool to identify gaps before going live. The assessment revealed they were missing:
Algorithmic impact assessment procedures
Bias monitoring capabilities
Explainability mechanisms for loan denials
Human review workflows for edge cases
Result: They addressed critical gaps before deployment, avoiding regulatory scrutiny and reputational risk.
Scenario 2: Board-Level AI Governance
A healthcare SaaS provider’s board asked, “Are we compliant with AI regulations?” Their CISO used the gap analysis to provide a data-driven answer:
62% AI governance coverage from their existing SOC 2 program
18 critical gaps requiring immediate attention
$450K estimated remediation budget
6-month implementation timeline
Result: Board approved AI governance investment with clear ROI and risk mitigation story.
Scenario 3: M&A Due Diligence
A private equity firm evaluating an AI-first acquisition used the tool to assess the target company’s governance maturity:
Target claimed “enterprise-grade AI governance”
Gap analysis revealed 31 missing controls
Due diligence team identified $2M+ in post-acquisition remediation costs
Result: PE firm negotiated purchase price adjustment and built remediation into first 100 days.
Scenario 4: Vendor Risk Assessment
An enterprise buyer evaluating AI vendor solutions used the gap analysis to inform their vendor questionnaire:
Identified which AI governance controls were non-negotiable
Created tiered vendor assessment based on AI risk level
Built contract language requiring specific ISO 42001 controls
Result: More rigorous vendor selection process and better contractual protections.
The Strategic Value Beyond Compliance
While the tool helps you identify compliance gaps, the real value runs deeper:
1. Resource Allocation Intelligence
Instead of guessing where to invest in AI governance, you get a prioritized roadmap. This helps you:
Justify budget requests with specific control gaps
Allocate engineering resources to highest-risk areas
The EU AI Act, proposed US AI regulations, and industry-specific requirements all reference concepts like impact assessments, transparency, and human oversight. ISO 42001 anticipates these requirements. By mapping your gaps now, you’re building proactive regulatory readiness.
3. Competitive Differentiation
As AI becomes table stakes, how you govern AI becomes the differentiator. Organizations that can demonstrate:
Systematic bias monitoring
Explainable AI decisions
Human oversight mechanisms
Continuous model validation
…win in regulated industries and enterprise sales.
4. Risk-Informed AI Strategy
The gap analysis forces conversations between technical teams, risk functions, and business leaders. These conversations often reveal:
AI use cases that are higher risk than initially understood
Opportunities to start with lower-risk AI applications
Need for governance infrastructure before scaling AI deployment
What the Assessment Reveals About Different Frameworks
ISO 27001 Organizations (51% AI Coverage)
Strengths: Strong foundation in information security, risk management, and change control.
Critical Gaps:
AI-specific risk assessment methodologies
Training data governance
Model drift monitoring
Explainability requirements
Human oversight mechanisms
Key Insight: ISO 27001 gives you the governance structure but lacks AI-specific technical controls. You need to augment with MLOps capabilities and AI risk assessment procedures.
SOC 2 Organizations (59% AI Coverage)
Strengths: Solid monitoring and logging, change management, vendor management.
Critical Gaps:
AI impact assessments
Bias and fairness monitoring
Model validation processes
Explainability mechanisms
Human-in-the-loop requirements
Key Insight: SOC 2’s focus on availability and processing integrity partially translates to AI systems, but you’re missing the ethical AI and fairness components entirely.
Key Insight: NIST CSF provides the risk management philosophy but lacks prescriptive AI controls. You need to operationalize AI governance with specific procedures and technical capabilities.
The ISO 42001 Advantage
Why use ISO 42001 as the benchmark? Three reasons:
1. International Consensus: ISO 42001 represents global agreement on AI governance requirements, making it a safer bet than region-specific regulations that may change.
2. Comprehensive Coverage: It addresses technical controls (model validation, monitoring), process controls (lifecycle management), and governance controls (oversight, transparency).
3. Audit-Ready Structure: Like ISO 27001, it’s designed for third-party certification, meaning the controls are specific enough to be auditable.
Getting Started: A Practical Approach
Here’s how to use the AI Control Gap Analysis tool strategically:
Determine build vs. buy decisions (e.g., MLOps platforms)
Create phased implementation plan
Step 4: Governance Foundation (Months 1-2)
Establish AI governance committee
Create AI risk assessment procedures
Define AI system lifecycle requirements
Implement impact assessment process
Step 5: Technical Controls (Months 2-4)
Deploy monitoring and drift detection
Implement bias detection in ML pipelines
Create model validation procedures
Build explainability capabilities
Step 6: Operationalization (Months 4-6)
Train teams on new procedures
Integrate AI governance into existing workflows
Conduct internal audits
Measure and report on AI governance metrics
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
1. Treating AI Governance as a Compliance Checkbox
AI governance isn’t about checking boxes—it’s about building systematic capabilities to develop and deploy AI responsibly. The gap analysis is a starting point, not the destination.
2. Underestimating Timeline
Organizations consistently underestimate how long it takes to implement AI governance controls. Training data governance alone can take 60-90 days to implement properly. Plan accordingly.
3. Ignoring Cultural Change
Technical controls without cultural buy-in fail. Your engineering team needs to understand why these controls matter, not just what they need to do.
4. Siloed Implementation
AI governance requires collaboration between data science, engineering, security, legal, and risk functions. Siloed implementations create gaps and inconsistencies.
5. Over-Engineering
Not every AI system needs the same level of governance. Risk-based approach is critical. A recommendation engine needs different controls than a loan approval system.
The Bottom Line
Here’s what we’re seeing across industries: AI adoption is outpacing AI governance by 18-24 months. Organizations deploy AI systems, then scramble to retrofit governance when regulators, customers, or internal stakeholders raise concerns.
The AI Control Gap Analysis tool helps you flip this dynamic. By identifying gaps early, you can:
Deploy AI with appropriate governance from day one
Avoid costly rework and technical debt
Build stakeholder confidence in your AI systems
Position your organization ahead of regulatory requirements
The question isn’t whether you’ll need comprehensive AI governance—it’s whether you’ll build it proactively or reactively.
Take the Assessment
Ready to see where your compliance framework falls short on AI governance?
DISCInfoSec specializes in AI governance and information security consulting for B2B SaaS and financial services organizations. We help companies bridge the gap between traditional compliance frameworks and emerging AI governance requirements.
We’re not just consultants telling you what to do—we’re pioneer-practitioners implementing ISO 42001 at ShareVault while helping other organizations navigate AI governance.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing, prompting countries and industries worldwide to introduce new rules, norms, and governance frameworks. ISO/IEC 42001 represents a major milestone in this global movement by formalizing responsible AI management. It does so through an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) that guides organizations in overseeing AI systems safely and transparently throughout their lifecycle.
Achieving certification under ISO/IEC 42001 demonstrates that an organization manages its AI—from strategy and design to deployment and retirement—with accountability and continuous improvement. The standard aligns with related ISO guidelines covering terminology, impact assessment, and certification body requirements, creating a unified and reliable approach to AI governance.
The certification journey begins with defining the scope of the organization’s AI activities. This includes identifying AI systems, use cases, data flows, and related business processes—especially those that rely on external AI models or third-party services. Clarity in scope enables more effective governance and risk assessment across the AI portfolio.
A robust risk management system is central to compliance. Organizations must identify, evaluate, and mitigate risks that arise throughout the AI lifecycle. This is supported by strong data governance practices, ensuring that training, validation, and testing datasets are relevant, representative, and as accurate as possible. These foundations enable AI systems to perform reliably and ethically.
Technical documentation and record-keeping also play critical roles. Organizations must maintain detailed materials that demonstrate compliance and allow regulators or auditors to evaluate the system. They must also log lifecycle events—such as updates, model changes, and system interactions—to preserve traceability and accountability over time.
Beyond documentation, organizations must ensure that AI systems are used responsibly in the real world. This includes providing clear instructions to downstream users, maintaining meaningful human oversight, and ensuring appropriate accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity. These operational safeguards anchor the organization’s quality management system and support consistent, repeatable compliance.
Ultimately, ISO/IEC 42001 delivers major benefits by strengthening trust, improving regulatory readiness, and embedding operational discipline into AI governance. It equips organizations with a structured, audit-ready framework that aligns with emerging global regulations and moves AI risk management into an ongoing, sustainable practice rather than a one-time effort.
My opinion: ISO/IEC 42001 is arriving at exactly the right moment. As AI systems become embedded in critical business functions, organizations need more than ad-hoc policies—they need a disciplined management system that integrates risk, governance, and accountability. This standard provides a practical blueprint and gives vCISOs, compliance leaders, and innovators a common language to build trustworthy AI programs. Those who adopt it early will not only reduce risk but also gain a significant competitive and credibility advantage in an increasingly regulated AI ecosystem.
We help companies 👇safely use AI without risking fines, leaks, or reputational damage
Protect your AI systems — make compliance predictable. Expert ISO-42001 readiness for small & mid-size orgs. Get a AI Risk vCISO-grade program without the full-time cost. Think of AI risk like a fire alarm—our register tracks risks, scores impact, and ensures mitigations are in place before disaster strikes.
ISO 42001 assessment → Gap analysis 👇 → Prioritized remediation → See your risks immediately with a clear path from gaps to remediation. 👇
Evaluate your organization’s compliance with mandatory AIMS clauses through our 5-Level Maturity Model – Limited-Time Offer — Available Only Till the End of This Month!
Get your Compliance & Risk Assessment today and uncover hidden gaps, maturity insights, and improvement opportunities that strengthen your organization’s AI Governance and Security Posture.
✅ Identify compliance gaps ✅ Receive actionable recommendations ✅ Boost your readiness and credibility
A practical, business‑first service to help your organization adopt AI confidently while staying compliant with ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, and emerging global AI regulations.
What You Get
1. AI Risk & Readiness Assessment (Fast — 7 Days)
Identify all AI use cases + shadow AI
Score risks across privacy, security, bias, hallucinations, data leakage, and explainability
Heatmap of top exposures
Executive‑level summary
2. AI Governance Starter Kit
AI Use Policy (employee‑friendly)
AI Acceptable Use Guidelines
Data handling & prompt‑safety rules
Model documentation templates
AI risk register + controls checklist
3. Compliance Mapping
ISO/IEC 42001 gap snapshot
NIST AI RMF core functions alignment
EU AI Act impact assessment (light)
Prioritized remediation roadmap
4. Quick‑Win Controls (Implemented for You)
Shadow AI blocking / monitoring guidance
Data‑protection controls for AI tools
Risk‑based prompt and model review process
Safe deployment workflow
5. Executive Briefing (30 Minutes)
A simple, visual walkthrough of:
Your current AI maturity
Your top risks
What to fix next (and what can wait)
Why Clients Choose This
Fast: Results in days, not months
Simple: No jargon — practical actions only
Compliant: Pre‑mapped to global AI governance frameworks
Low‑effort: We do the heavy lifting
Pricing (Flat, Transparent)
AI Governance Readiness Package — $2,500
Includes assessment, roadmap, policies, and full executive briefing.
Optional Add‑Ons
Implementation Support (monthly) — $1,500/mo
ISO 42001 Readiness Package — $4,500
Perfect For
Teams experimenting with generative AI
Organizations unsure about compliance obligations
Firms worried about data leakage or hallucination risks
Companies preparing for ISO/IEC 42001, or EU AI Act
Next Step
Book the AI Risk Snapshot Call below (free, 15 minutes). We’ll review your current AI usage and show you exactly what you will get.
Use AI with confidence — without slowing innovation.
AI governance and security have become central priorities for organizations expanding their use of artificial intelligence. As AI capabilities evolve rapidly, businesses are seeking structured frameworks to ensure their systems are ethical, compliant, and secure. ISO 42001 certification has emerged as a key tool to help address these growing concerns, offering a standardized approach to managing AI responsibly.
Across industries, global leaders are adopting ISO 42001 as the foundation for their AI governance and compliance programs. Many leading technology companies have already achieved certification for their core AI services, while others are actively preparing for it. For AI builders and deployers alike, ISO 42001 represents more than just compliance — it’s a roadmap for trustworthy and transparent AI operations.
The certification process provides a structured way to align internal AI practices with customer expectations and regulatory requirements. It reassures clients and stakeholders that AI systems are developed, deployed, and managed under a disciplined governance framework. ISO 42001 also creates a scalable foundation for organizations to introduce new AI services while maintaining control and accountability.
For companies with established Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) functions, ISO 42001 certification is a logical next step. Pursuing it signals maturity, transparency, and readiness in AI governance. The process encourages organizations to evaluate their existing controls, uncover gaps, and implement targeted improvements — actions that are critical as AI innovation continues to outpace regulation.
Without external validation, even innovative companies risk falling behind. As AI technology evolves and regulatory pressure increases, those lacking a formal governance framework may struggle to prove their trustworthiness or readiness for compliance. Certification, therefore, is not just about checking a box — it’s about demonstrating leadership in responsible AI.
Achieving ISO 42001 requires strong executive backing and a genuine commitment to ethical AI. Leadership must foster a culture of responsibility, emphasizing secure development, data governance, and risk management. Continuous improvement lies at the heart of the standard, demanding that organizations adapt their controls and oversight as AI systems grow more complex and pervasive.
In my opinion, ISO 42001 is poised to become the cornerstone of AI assurance in the coming decade. Just as ISO 27001 became synonymous with information security credibility, ISO 42001 will define what responsible AI governance looks like. Forward-thinking organizations that adopt it early will not only strengthen compliance and customer trust but also gain a strategic advantage in shaping the ethical AI landscape.
AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative. Ready to start? Scroll down and try our free ISO-42001 Awareness Quiz at the bottom of the page!
🌐 “Does ISO/IEC 42001 Risk Slowing Down AI Innovation, or Is It the Foundation for Responsible Operations?”
🔍 Overview
The post explores whether ISO/IEC 42001—a new standard for Artificial Intelligence Management Systems—acts as a barrier to AI innovation or serves as a framework for responsible and sustainable AI deployment.
🚀 AI Opportunities
ISO/IEC 42001 is positioned as a catalyst for AI growth:
It helps organizations understand their internal and external environments to seize AI opportunities.
It establishes governance, strategy, and structures that enable responsible AI adoption.
It prepares organizations to capitalize on future AI advancements.
🧭 AI Adoption Roadmap
A phased roadmap is suggested for strategic AI integration:
Starts with understanding customer needs through marketing analytics tools (e.g., Hootsuite, Mixpanel).
Progresses to advanced data analysis and optimization platforms (e.g., GUROBI, IBM CPLEX, Power BI).
Encourages long-term planning despite the fast-evolving AI landscape.
🛡️ AI Strategic Adoption
Organizations can adopt AI through various strategies:
Defensive: Mitigate external AI risks and match competitors.
Adaptive: Modify operations to handle AI-related risks.
Offensive: Develop proprietary AI solutions to gain a competitive edge.
⚠️ AI Risks and Incidents
ISO/IEC 42001 helps manage risks such as:
Faulty decisions and operational breakdowns.
Legal and ethical violations.
Data privacy breaches and security compromises.
🔐 Security Threats Unique to AI
The presentation highlights specific AI vulnerabilities:
Data Poisoning: Malicious data corrupts training sets.
Model Stealing: Unauthorized replication of AI models.
Model Inversion: Inferring sensitive training data from model outputs.
🧩 ISO 42001 as a GRC Framework
The standard supports Governance, Risk Management, and Compliance (GRC) by:
Increasing organizational resilience.
Identifying and evaluating AI risks.
Guiding appropriate responses to those risks.
🔗 ISO 27001 vs ISO 42001
ISO 27001: Focuses on information security and privacy.
ISO 42001: Focuses on responsible AI development, monitoring, and deployment.
Together, they offer a comprehensive risk management and compliance structure for organizations using or impacted by AI.
🏗️ Implementing ISO 42001
The standard follows a structured management system:
Context: Understand stakeholders and external/internal factors.
Leadership: Define scope, policy, and internal roles.
Planning: Assess AI system impacts and risks.
Support: Allocate resources and inform stakeholders.
Operations: Ensure responsible use and manage third-party risks.
Evaluation: Monitor performance and conduct audits.
Improvement: Drive continual improvement and corrective actions.
💬 My Take
ISO/IEC 42001 doesn’t hinder innovation—it channels it responsibly. In a world where AI can both empower and endanger, this standard offers a much-needed compass. It balances agility with accountability, helping organizations innovate without losing sight of ethics, safety, and trust. Far from being a brake, it’s the steering wheel for AI’s journey forward.
Would you like help applying ISO 42001 principles to your own organization or project?
Feel free to contact us if you need assistance with your AI management system.
ISO/IEC 42001 can act as a catalyst for AI innovation by providing a clear framework for responsible governance, helping organizations balance creativity with compliance. However, if applied rigidly without alignment to business goals, it could become a constraint that slows decision-making and experimentation.
AIMS and Data Governance – Managing data responsibly isn’t just good practice—it’s a legal and ethical imperative.Â
Click the ISO 42001 Awareness Quiz — it will open in your browser in full-screen mode
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.
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.
“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 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
Broaden risk programs to include AI-specific risks (e.g., drift, explainability gaps).
Embed governance throughout the AI lifecycle—from design to monitoring.
Shift to continuous oversight—use real-time alerts and risk sprints.
Clarify accountability across legal, compliance, audit, data science, and business teams.
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.
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.
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.
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.
President Trump’s long‑anticipated executive 20‑page “AI Action Plan” was unveiled during his “Winning the AI Race” speech in Washington, D.C. The document outlines a wide-ranging federal push to accelerate U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence.
The plan is built around three central pillars: Infrastructure, Innovation, and Global Influence. Each pillar includes specific directives aimed at streamlining permitting, deregulating, and boosting American influence in AI globally.
Under the infrastructure pillar, the plan proposes fast‑tracking data center permitting and modernizing the U.S. electrical grid—including expanding new power sources—to meet AI’s intensive energy demands.
On innovation, it calls for removing regulatory red tape, promoting open‑weight (open‑source) AI models for broader adoption, and federal efforts to pre-empt or symbolically block state AI regulations to create uniform national policy.
The global influence component emphasizes exporting American-built AI models and chips to allies to forestall dependence on Chinese AI technologies such as DeepSeek or Qwen, positioning U.S. technology as the global standard.
A series of executive orders complemented the strategy, including one to ban “woke” or ideologically biased AI in federal procurement—requiring that models be “truthful,” neutral, and free from DEI or political content.
The plan also repealed or rescinded previous Biden-era AI regulations and dismantled the AI Safety Institute, replacing it with a pro‑innovation U.S. Center for AI Standards and Innovation focused on economic growth rather than ethical guardrails.
Workforce development received attention through new funding streams, AI literacy programs, and the creation of a Department of Labor AI Workforce Research Hub. These seek to prepare for economic disruption but are limited in scope compared to the scale of potential AI-driven change.
Observers have praised the emphasis on domestic infrastructure, streamlined permitting, and investment in open‑source models. Yet critics warn that corporate interests, especially from major tech and energy industries, may benefit most—sometimes at the expense of public safeguards and long-term viability.
⚠️ Lack of regulatory guardrails
The AI Action Plan notably lacks meaningful guardrails or regulatory frameworks. It strips back environmental permitting requirements, discourages state‑level regulation by threatening funding withdrawals, bans ideological considerations like DEI from federal AI systems, and eliminates previously established safety standards. While advocating a “try‑first” deployment mindset, the strategy overlooks critical issues ranging from bias, misinformation, copyright and data use to climate impact and energy strain. Experts argue this deregulation-heavy stance risks creating brittle, misaligned, and unsafe AI ecosystems—with little accountability or public oversight
A comparison of Trump’s AI Action Plan and the EU AI Act, focusing on guardrails, safety, security, human rights, and accountability:
1. Regulatory Guardrails
EU AI Act: Introduces a risk-based regulatory framework. High-risk AI systems (e.g., in critical infrastructure, law enforcement, and health) must comply with strict obligations before deployment. There are clear enforcement mechanisms with penalties for non-compliance.
Trump AI Plan: Focuses on deregulation and rapid deployment, removing many guardrails such as environmental and ethical oversight. It rescinds Biden-era safety mandates and discourages state-level regulation, offering minimal federal oversight or compliance mandates.
➡ Verdict: The EU prioritizes regulated innovation, while the Trump plan emphasizes unregulated speed and growth.
2. AI Safety
EU AI Act: Requires transparency, testing, documentation, and human oversight for high-risk AI systems. Emphasizes pre-market evaluation and post-market monitoring for safety assurance.
Trump AI Plan: Shutters the U.S. AI Safety Institute and replaces it with a pro-growth Center for AI Standards, focused more on competitiveness than technical safety. No mandatory safety evaluations for commercial AI systems.
➡ Verdict: The EU mandates safety as a prerequisite; the U.S. plan defers safety to industry discretion.
3. Cybersecurity and Technical Robustness
EU AI Act: Requires cybersecurity-by-design for AI systems, including resilience against manipulation or data poisoning. High-risk AI systems must ensure integrity, robustness, and resilience.
Trump AI Plan: Encourages rapid development and deployment but provides no explicit cybersecurity requirements for AI models or infrastructure beyond vague infrastructure support.
➡ Verdict: The EU embeds security controls, while the Trump plan omits structured cyber risk considerations.
4. Human Rights and Discrimination
EU AI Act: Prohibits AI systems that pose unacceptable risks to fundamental rights (e.g., social scoring, manipulative behavior). Strong safeguards for non-discrimination, privacy, and civil liberties.
Trump AI Plan: Bans AI models in federal use that promote “woke” or DEI-related content, aiming for so-called “neutrality.” Critics argue this amounts to ideological filtering, not real neutrality, and may undermine protections for marginalized groups.
➡ Verdict: The EU safeguards rights through legal obligations; the U.S. approach is politicized and lacks rights-based protections.
5. Accountability and Oversight
EU AI Act: Creates a comprehensive governance structure including a European AI Office and national supervisory authorities. Clear roles for compliance, enforcement, and redress.
Trump AI Plan: No formal accountability mechanisms for private AI developers or federal use beyond procurement preferences. Lacks redress channels for affected individuals.
➡ Verdict: EU embeds accountability through regulation; Trump’s plan leaves accountability vague and market-driven.
6. Transparency Requirements
EU AI Act: Requires AI systems (especially those interacting with humans) to disclose their AI nature. High-risk models must document datasets, performance, and design logic.
Trump AI Plan: No transparency mandates for AI models—either in federal procurement or commercial deployment.
➡ Verdict: The EU enforces transparency, while the Trump plan favors developer discretion.
7. Bias and Fairness
EU AI Act: Demands bias detection and mitigation for high-risk AI, with auditing and dataset scrutiny.
Trump AI Plan: Frames anti-bias mandates (like DEI or fairness audits) as ideological interference, and bans such requirements from federal procurement.
➡ Verdict: EU takes bias seriously as a safety issue; Trump’s plan politicizes and rejects fairness frameworks.
8. Stakeholder and Public Participation
EU AI Act: Drafted after years of consultation with stakeholders: civil society, industry, academia, and governments.
Trump AI Plan: Developed behind closed doors with little public engagement and strong industry influence, especially from tech and energy sectors.
➡ Verdict: The EU Act is consensus-based, while Trump’s plan is executive-driven.
9. Strategic Approach
EU AI Act: Balances innovation with protection, ensuring AI benefits society while minimizing harm.
Trump AI Plan: Views AI as an economic and geopolitical race, prioritizing speed, scale, and market dominance over systemic safeguards.
⚠️ Conclusion: Lack of Guardrails in the Trump AI Plan
The Trump AI Action Plan aggressively promotes AI innovation but does so by removing guardrails rather than installing them. It lacks structured safety testing, human rights protections, bias mitigation, and cybersecurity controls. With no regulatory accountability, no national AI oversight body, and an emphasis on ideological neutrality over ethical safeguards, it risks unleashing AI systems that are fast, powerful—but potentially misaligned, unsafe, and unjust.
In contrast, the EU AI Act may slow innovation at times but ensures it unfolds within a trusted, accountable, and rights-respecting framework. U.S. as prioritizing rapid innovation with minimal oversight, while the EU takes a structured, rules-based approach to AI development. Calling it the “Wild Wild West” of AI governance isn’t far off — it captures the perception that in the U.S., AI developers operate with few legal constraints, limited government oversight, and an emphasis on market freedom rather than public safeguards.
A Nation of Laws or a Race Without Rules?
America has long stood as a beacon of democratic governance, built on the foundation of laws, accountability, and institutional checks. But in the race to dominate artificial intelligence, that tradition appears to be slipping. The Trump AI Action Plan prioritizes speed over safety, deregulation over oversight, and ideology over ethical alignment.
In stark contrast, the EU AI Act reflects a commitment to structured, rights-based governance — even if it means moving slower. This emerging divide raises a critical question: Is the U.S. still a nation of laws when it comes to emerging technologies, or is it becoming the Wild West of AI?
If America aims to lead the world in AI—not just through dominance but by earning global trust—it may need to return to the foundational principles that once positioned it as a leader in setting international standards, rather than treating non-compliance as a mere business expense. Notably, Meta has chosen not to sign the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice for general-purpose AI (GPAI) models.
The penalties outlined in the EU AI Act do enforce compliance. The Act is equipped with substantial enforcement provisions to ensure that operators—such as AI providers, deployers, importers, and distributors—adhere to its rules. example question below, guess what is an appropriate penality for explicitly prohibited use of AI system under EU AI Act.
A technology company was found to be using an AI system for real-time remote biometric identification, which is explicitly prohibited by the AI Act. What is the appropriate penalty for this violation?
A) A formal warning without financial penalties B) An administrative fine of up to €7.5 million or 1% of the total global annual turnover in the previous financial year C) An administrative fine of up to €15 million or 3% of the total global annual turnover in the previous financial year D) An administrative fine of up to €35 million or 7% of the total global annual turnover in the previous financial year
The SEC has charged a major tech company for deceiving investors by exaggerating its use of AI—highlighting that the falsehood was about AI itself, not just product features. This signals a shift: AI governance has now become a boardroom-level issue, and many organizations are unprepared.
Advice for CISOs and execs:
Be audit-ready—any AI claims must be verifiable.
Involve GRC early—AI governance is about managing risk, enforcing controls, and ensuring transparency.
Educate your board—they don’t need to understand algorithms, but they must grasp the associated risks and mitigation plans.
If your current AI strategy is nothing more than a slide deck and hope, it’s time to build something real.
AI Washing
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has been actively pursuing actions against companies for misleading statements about their use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), a practice often referred to as “AI washing”.Â
Here are some examples of recent SEC actions in this area:
Presto Automation: The SEC charged Presto Automation for making misleading statements about its AI-powered voice technology used for drive-thru order taking. Presto allegedly failed to disclose that it was using a third party’s AI technology, not its own, and also misrepresented the extent of human involvement required for the product to function.
Delphia and Global Predictions: These two investment advisers were charged with making false and misleading statements about their use of AI in their investment processes. The SEC found that they either didn’t have the AI capabilities they claimed or didn’t use them to the extent they advertised.
Nate, Inc.: The founder of Nate, Inc. was charged by both the SEC and the DOJ for allegedly misleading investors about the company’s AI-powered app, claiming it automated online purchases when they were primarily processed manually by human contractors.
Key takeaways from these cases and SEC guidance:
Transparency and Accuracy: Companies need to ensure their AI-related disclosures are accurate and avoid making vague or exaggerated claims.
Distinguish Capabilities: It’s important to clearly distinguish between current AI capabilities and future aspirations.
Substantiation: Companies should have a reasonable basis and supporting evidence for their AI-related claims.
Disclosure Controls: Companies should establish and maintain disclosure controls to ensure the accuracy of their AI-related statements in SEC filings and other communications.
The SEC has made it clear that “AI washing” is a top enforcement priority, and companies should be prepared for heightened scrutiny of their AI-related disclosures.Â
Aaron McCray, Field CISO at CDW, discusses the evolving role of the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). He emphasizes that CISOs are transitioning from traditional cybersecurity roles to strategic advisors who guide enterprise-wide AI governance and risk management. This shift, termed “CISO 3.0,” involves aligning AI initiatives with business objectives and compliance requirements.
McCray highlights the challenges of integrating AI-driven security tools, particularly regarding visibility, explainability, and false positives. He notes that while AI can enhance security operations, it also introduces complexities, such as the need for transparency in AI decision-making processes and the risk of overwhelming security teams with irrelevant alerts. Ensuring that AI tools integrate seamlessly with existing infrastructure is also a significant concern.
The article underscores the necessity for CISOs and their teams to develop new skill sets, including proficiency in data science and machine learning. McCray points out that understanding how AI models are trained and the data they rely on is crucial for managing associated risks. Adaptive learning platforms that simulate real-world scenarios are mentioned as effective tools for closing the skills gap.
When evaluating third-party AI tools, McCray advises CISOs to prioritize accountability and transparency. He warns against tools that lack clear documentation or fail to provide insights into their decision-making processes. Red flags include opaque algorithms and vendors unwilling to disclose their AI models’ inner workings.
In conclusion, McCray emphasizes that as AI becomes increasingly embedded across business functions, CISOs must lead the charge in establishing robust governance frameworks. This involves not only implementing effective security measures but also fostering a culture of continuous learning and adaptability within their organizations.
Feedback
The article effectively captures the transformative impact of AI on the CISO role, highlighting the shift from technical oversight to strategic leadership. This perspective aligns with the broader industry trend of integrating cybersecurity considerations into overall business strategy.
By addressing the practical challenges of AI integration, such as explainability and infrastructure compatibility, the article provides valuable insights for organizations navigating the complexities of modern cybersecurity landscapes. These considerations are critical for maintaining trust in AI systems and ensuring their effective deployment.
The emphasis on developing new skill sets underscores the dynamic nature of cybersecurity roles in the AI era. Encouraging continuous learning and adaptability is essential for organizations to stay ahead of evolving threats and technological advancements.
The cautionary advice regarding third-party AI tools serves as a timely reminder of the importance of due diligence in vendor selection. Transparency and accountability are paramount in building secure and trustworthy AI systems.
The article could further benefit from exploring specific case studies or examples of organizations successfully implementing AI governance frameworks. Such insights would provide practical guidance and illustrate the real-world application of the concepts discussed.
Overall, the article offers a comprehensive overview of the evolving responsibilities of CISOs in the context of AI integration. It serves as a valuable resource for cybersecurity professionals seeking to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by AI technologies.
AI is rapidly transforming systems, workflows, and even adversary tactics, regardless of whether our frameworks are ready. It isn’t bound by tradition and won’t wait for governance to catch up…When AI evaluates risks, it may enhance the speed and depth of risk management but only when combined with human oversight, governance frameworks, and ethical safeguards.
A new ISO standard, ISO 42005 provides organizations a structured, actionable pathway to assess and document AI risks, benefits, and alignment with global compliance frameworks.
Establishing an AI Strategy and Guardrails: To effectively integrate AI into an organization, leadership must clearly articulate the company’s AI strategy to all employees. This includes defining acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI, legal boundaries, and potential risks. Setting clear guardrails fosters a culture of responsibility and mitigates misuse or misunderstandings.
Transparency and Job Impact Communication: Transparency is essential, especially since many employees may worry that AI initiatives threaten their roles. Leaders should communicate that those who adapt to AI will outperform those who resist it. It’s also important to outline how AI will alter jobs by automating routine tasks, thereby allowing employees to focus on higher-value work.
Redefining Roles Through AI Integration: For instance, HR professionals may shift from administrative tasks—like managing transfers or answering policy questions—to more strategic work such as improving onboarding processes. This demonstrates how AI can enhance job roles rather than eliminate them.
Addressing Employee Sentiments and Fears: Leaders must pay attention to how employees feel and what they discuss informally. Creating spaces for feedback and development helps surface concerns early. Ignoring this can erode culture, while addressing it fosters trust and connection. Open conversations and vulnerability from leadership are key to dispelling fear.
Using AI to Facilitate Dialogue and Action: AI tools can aid in gathering and classifying employee feedback, sparking relevant discussions, and supporting ongoing engagement. Digital check-ins powered by AI-generated prompts offer structured ways to begin conversations and address concerns constructively.
Equitable Participation and Support Mechanisms: Organizations must ensure all employees are given equal opportunity to engage with AI tools and upskilling programs. While individuals will respond differently, support systems like centralized feedback platforms and manager check-ins can help everyone feel included and heard.
Feedback and Organizational Tone Setting: This approach sets a progressive and empathetic tone for AI adoption. It balances innovation with inclusion by emphasizing transparency, emotional intelligence, and support. Leaders must model curiosity and vulnerability, signaling that learning is a shared journey. Most importantly, the strategy recognizes that successful AI integration is as much about culture and communication as it is about technology. When done well, it transforms AI from a job threat into a tool for empowerment and growth.
p.s. “AGI shouldn’t be confused with GenAI. GenAI is a tool. AGI is a goal of evolving that tool to the extent that its capabilities match human cognitive abilities, or even surpasses them, across a wide range of tasks. We’re not there yet, perhaps never will be, or per haps it’ll arrive sooner than we expected. But when it comes to AGI, think about LLMs demonstrating and exceeding humanlike intelligence”
In a recent interview with Help Net Security, Brooke Johnson, Chief Legal Counsel and SVP of HR and Security at Ivanti, emphasized the critical role of legal departments in leading AI governance within organizations. She highlighted that unmanaged use of generative AI (GenAI) tools can introduce significant risks, including data privacy violations, algorithmic bias, and ethical concerns, particularly in sensitive areas like recruitment where flawed training data can lead to discriminatory outcomes.
Johnson advocates for a cross-functional approach to AI governance, involving collaboration among legal, HR, IT, and security teams. This strategy aims to create clear, enforceable policies that enable responsible innovation without stifling progress. At Ivanti, such collaboration has led to the establishment of an AI Governance Council (AIGC), which oversees the safe and ethical use of AI tools by reviewing applications and providing guidance on acceptable use cases.
Recognizing that a significant number of employees use GenAI tools without informing management, Johnson suggests that organizations should proactively assume AI is already in use. Legal teams should lead in defining safe usage parameters and provide practical training to employees, explaining the security implications and reasons behind certain restrictions.
To ensure AI policies are effectively operationalized, Johnson recommends conducting assessments to identify current AI tool usage, developing clear and pragmatic policies, and offering vetted, secure platforms to reduce reliance on unsanctioned alternatives. She stresses that AI governance should be treated as a dynamic process, with policies evolving alongside technological advancements and emerging threats, maintained through ongoing cross-functional collaboration across departments and geographies.
Securing AI in the Enterprise: A Step-by-Step Guide
Establish AI Security Ownership Organizations must define clear ownership and accountability for AI security. Leadership should decide whether AI governance falls under a cross-functional committee, IT/security teams, or individual business units. Establishing policies, defining decision-making authority, and ensuring alignment across departments are key steps in successfully managing AI security from the start.
Identify and Mitigate AI Risks AI introduces unique risks, including regulatory compliance challenges, data privacy vulnerabilities, and algorithmic biases. Organizations must evaluate legal obligations (such as GDPR, HIPAA, and the EU AI Act), implement strong data protection measures, and address AI transparency concerns. Risk mitigation strategies should include continuous monitoring, security testing, clear governance policies, and incident response plans.
Adopt AI Security Best Practices Businesses should follow security best practices, such as starting with small AI implementations, maintaining human oversight, establishing technical guardrails, and deploying continuous monitoring. Strong cybersecurity measures—such as encryption, access controls, and regular security audits—are essential. Additionally, comprehensive employee training programs help ensure responsible AI usage.
Assess AI Needs and Set Measurable Goals AI implementation should align with business objectives, with clear milestones set for six months, one year, and beyond. Organizations should define success using key performance indicators (KPIs) such as revenue impact, efficiency improvements, and compliance adherence. Both quantitative and qualitative metrics should guide AI investments and decision-making.
Evaluate AI Tools and Security Measures When selecting AI tools, organizations must assess security, accuracy, scalability, usability, and compliance. AI solutions should have strong data protection mechanisms, clear ROI, and effective customization options. Evaluating AI tools using a structured approach ensures they meet security and business requirements.
Purchase and Implement AI Securely Before deploying AI solutions, businesses must ask key questions about effectiveness, performance, security, scalability, and compliance. Reviewing trial options, pricing models, and regulatory alignment (such as GDPR or CCPA compliance) is critical to selecting the right AI tool. AI security policies should be integrated into the organization’s broader cybersecurity framework.
Launch an AI Pilot Program with Security in Mind Organizations should begin with a controlled AI pilot to assess risks, validate performance, and ensure compliance before full deployment. This includes securing high-quality training data, implementing robust authentication controls, continuously monitoring performance, and gathering user feedback. Clear documentation and risk management strategies will help refine AI adoption in a secure and scalable manner.
By following these steps, enterprises can securely integrate AI, protect sensitive data, and ensure regulatory compliance while maximizing AI’s potential.
The IBM blog on AI risk management discusses how organizations can identify, mitigate, and address potential risks associated with AI technologies. AI risk management is a subset of AI governance, focusing specifically on preventing and addressing threats to AI systems. The blog outlines various types of risks—such as data, model, operational, and ethical/legal risks—and emphasizes the importance of frameworks like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework to ensure ethical, secure, and reliable AI deployment. Effective AI risk management enhances security, decision-making, regulatory compliance, and trust in AI systems.
AI risk management can help close this gap and empower organizations to harness AI systems’ full potential without compromising AI ethics or security.
Understanding the risks associated with AI systems
Like other types of security risk, AI risk can be understood as a measure of how likely a potential AI-related threat is to affect an organization and how much damage that threat would do.
While each AI model and use case is different, the risks of AI generally fall into four buckets:
Data risks
Model risks
Operational risks
Ethical and legal risks
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF)
In January 2023, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) published the AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) to provide a structured approach to managing AI risks. The NIST AI RMF has since become a benchmark for AI risk management.
The AI RMF’s primary goal is to help organizations design, develop, deploy and use AI systems in a way that effectively manages risks and promotes trustworthy, responsible AI practices.
Developed in collaboration with the public and private sectors, the AI RMF is entirely voluntary and applicable across any company, industry or geography.
The framework is divided into two parts. Part 1 offers an overview of the risks and characteristics of trustworthy AI systems. Part 2, the AI RMF Core, outlines four functions to help organizations address AI system risks:
Govern: Creating an organizational culture of AI risk management
Map: Framing AI risks in specific business contexts
Predictive analytics offers significant benefits in cybersecurity by allowing organizations to foresee and mitigate potential threats before they occur. Using methods such as statistical analysis, machine learning, and behavioral analysis, predictive analytics can identify future risks and vulnerabilities. While challenges like data quality, model complexity, and evolving threats exist, employing best practices and suitable tools can improve its effectiveness in detecting cyber threats and managing risks. As cyber threats evolve, predictive analytics will be vital in proactively managing risks and protecting organizational information assets.
Trust Me: ISO 42001 AI Management System is the first book about the most important global AI management system standard: ISO 42001. The ISO 42001 standard is groundbreaking. It will have more impact than ISO 9001 as autonomous AI decision making becomes more prevalent.
Why Is AI Important?
AI autonomous decision making is all around us. It is in places we take for granted such as Siri or Alexa. AI is transforming how we live and work. It becomes critical we understand and trust this prevalent technology:
“Artificial intelligence systems have become increasingly prevalent in everyday life and enterprise settings, and they’re now often being used to support human decision making. These systems have grown increasingly complex and efficient, and AI holds the promise of uncovering valuable insights across a wide range of applications. But broad adoption of AI systems will require humans to trust their output.” (Trustworthy AI, IBM website, 2024)
