Blog

Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.

Security Architect AI Risk Checklist for Design Approval

This security architect AI risk checklist turns one proposed AI architecture into an approved, rejected, or conditional design decision before implementation. Seven checks bind the decision to a fixed trust boundary, identity flow, control allocation, failure model, evidence contract, external dependencies, and explicit assumptions. Release authorization and recurring risk reporting remain separate decisions.

Platform & Architectureai-securityai-governancearchitecturezero-trustidentity-and-authorizationpolicy-enforcement
Read post →

ML Engineer AI Risk Checklist for Model Promotion

This ML engineer AI risk checklist turns model promotion into a signed engineering decision. It fixes the intended use, model and dataset lineage, evaluation conditions, artifact integrity, serving configuration, runtime policy contract, monitoring thresholds, rollback proof, and objective evidence required before a model release can receive production traffic.

Platform & Architectureai-securityai-governancenist-ai-rmfdevsecopspolicy-enforcementarchitecture
Read post →

RAG Security Controls for Recurring Production Operations

RAG security controls need recurring owners, evidence, thresholds, and escalation after release. This operating schedule covers corpus change review, retrieval authorization canaries, assembled-prompt policy, response inspection, deletion verification, exception expiry, incident reconstruction, and a monthly control attestation for production RAG services.

Problem-Awareai-securityllm-securityprompt-injectionauditpolicy-enforcementarchitecture
Read post →

Vector Database Security Controls for Retrieval and Tenant Isolation

Vector database security controls start with identity-bound retrieval, tenant or namespace isolation, and provenance that survives chunking and re-indexing. They continue with negative tests, query evidence, deletion mapping, and inspection of the assembled prompt at the HTTP model boundary. Storage and request-path owners have separate enforcement jobs.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityidentity-and-authorizationarchitecturezero-trustaudit
Read post →

Confused Deputy AI Controls for Runtime Delegated Authority

Confused deputy protection needs recurring runtime decisions after a workflow passes release review. These controls resolve the initiating caller, constrain delegated authority, validate token audience and scope, separate untrusted instructions, authorize actions at their execution point, expire authority, and preserve joined evidence for every request.

Problem-Awareai-securityagentic-aiidentity-and-authorizationzero-trustpolicy-enforcementaudit
Read post →

Confused Deputy AI Checklist: A Release Gate for Delegated Authority

A confused deputy review needs a bounded release decision, not a list that stays open forever. This checklist turns caller identity, delegated authority, token audience, action scope, negative testing, revocation, and evidence into a signed acceptance gate for an AI workflow before production or a material change.

Problem-Awareai-securityagentic-aiidentity-and-authorizationzero-trustpolicy-enforcementaudit
Read post →

AI Red Teaming Checklist for Release Acceptance

This AI red teaming checklist creates a bounded release decision after adversarial testing. Reviewers verify scope, rules of engagement, identity coverage, direct and indirect injection, tool and retrieval paths, multi-turn behavior, evidence, remediation, regression tests, residual risk, and signed acceptance.

Problem-Awareai-securityprompt-injectionagentic-aiauditpolicy-enforcement
Read post →

AI Discovery Controls for a Current, Accountable Inventory

AI discovery controls keep an accepted inventory current after the initial scan. The operating model assigns owners to evidence feeds, reconciles observed services with approved use cases, tests known activity against coverage, ages exceptions, and records material changes between formal reviews.

Problem-Awareai-securityai-governanceshadow-aiauditnist-ai-rmf
Read post →

ISO/IEC 23894: What the AI Risk Management Standard Asks You to Produce

ISO/IEC 23894:2023 adapts the ISO 31000 risk management process to AI systems. It is guidance rather than a certifiable standard, which changes how it gets used: teams reach for it to structure risk identification and to feed the risk clauses of ISO/IEC 42001, which is certifiable. This walks the standard structure, the AI-specific risk sources it names, how it relates to 42001 and the NIST AI RMF, and which of its monitoring and record requirements a runtime control produces evidence for.

Compliance & Regulationiso-42001ai-governancecompliancerisk-managementauditregulation
Read post →

AI Guardrails: The Four Layers, What Each One Enforces, and Where the Evidence Comes From

AI guardrails get used as one word for four different control layers: training-time alignment inside the model, provider safety filters at the inference endpoint, application-side validation in the prompt template, and policy enforcement on the HTTP call itself. Each layer sits at a different point in the request path, fails in a different way, and produces a different quality of evidence. This walks all four, shows where each one breaks, and explains which layer an auditor can actually inspect.

AI Security Solutionsai-guardrailsai-securitypolicy-enforcementai-governancellm-securityaudit
Read post →

Platform Engineer AI Risk Checklist for Material Changes

This platform engineer AI risk checklist turns a material AI service change into a signed go/no-go decision. Seven checks bind the decision to the exact route and identity contract, approved provider or model, policy version, tested failure behavior, rollback proof, latency result and emitted evidence. It is a change gate, separate from recurring platform reporting.

Platform & Architectureai-securityai-governancezero-trustpolicy-enforcementarchitecturedevsecops
Read post →