Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.
This Japan APPI AI compliance checklist converts purpose limitation, special care-required information, security measures, entrusted-person supervision, foreign transfers, incident response, and individual rights into testable work at the LLM request boundary. Each item names the evidence an owner should retain and flags the applicability decisions that depend on the provider contract and processing route.
Read post →South Korea''s AI Basic Act and its Enforcement Decree took effect on 22 January 2026, with a one-year grace period on administrative fines running to 22 January 2027. This walks the evidence artifacts an operator in the high-impact category has to hand over when the Ministry of Science and ICT inspects: the classification record, the meaningful-explanation record, the prior-notification record, the generative AI labelling record, and the human-supervision record. Each artifact is named alongside the point in the request path that produces it.
Read post →South Korea''s AI Basic Act places its obligations on the operator rather than the model, which means most of them resolve to a technical control in the request path. This maps the high-impact duties, the generative AI transparency duties, and the inspection-response duty onto the enforcement point that satisfies each one, names the evidence produced, and marks the two duties that sit outside the AI request boundary and require organisational work instead.
Read post →South Korea''s AI Basic Act took effect on 22 January 2026 with a one-year grace period on administrative fines that closes on 22 January 2027. This is a working checklist of ten actions for an operator running AI traffic into or out of Korea, covering the high-impact determination, the domestic representative thresholds, prior notification, generative AI labelling, human supervision, and the evidence each action produces. Every item names the artifact an MSIT inspection reads rather than the policy it references.
Read post →MITRE ATLAS reached 16 tactics, 84 techniques, 56 sub-techniques, 32 mitigations, and 42 case studies at version 5.1.0 in November 2025, with agent-focused techniques added in the February 2026 update. A technique is only useful in a review if you can show whether it fired. This walks the evidence artifacts that answer that question for the ATLAS tactics reachable over HTTP AI traffic, and names the tactics where no request-path telemetry helps.
Read post →MITRE ATLAS carries 16 tactics and 84 techniques as of version 5.1.0 in November 2025, with agent-focused additions landing in February 2026. Most of the matrix describes attacks on models you train. This checklist works the subset that reaches an enterprise consuming hosted models over HTTP, giving ten actions with the ATLAS tactic each one addresses and the evidence it produces, and marking the techniques that need build-pipeline work instead.
Read post →MITRE ATLAS holds 16 tactics and 84 techniques as of version 5.1.0 in November 2025, with agent techniques added in February 2026. Around a dozen of those techniques reach an enterprise consuming hosted models, and the rest target training pipelines and model artifacts. This maps the reachable tactics onto the technical control that addresses each one at the AI request boundary, names the evidence produced, and marks the tactics where a request-path control has nothing to offer.
Read post →NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3 carries 97 requirements across 17 families and never mentions AI, which is why a single prompt carrying Controlled Unclassified Information to a commercial model endpoint engages five families at once. This checklist gives ten actions for a contractor whose engineers already have access to hosted models, naming the requirement family each one serves and the artifact it produces for an assessment.
Read post →NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3, finalised on 14 May 2024, carries 97 security requirements across 17 families and governs Controlled Unclassified Information in nonfederal systems. An engineer pasting CUI into a hosted model moves that data outside the assessed boundary in one HTTPS request. This walks the evidence artifacts an assessor requests once AI traffic is in scope, family by family, and names where the assessment boundary actually sits.
Read post →NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 organises its catalogue into 20 control families, and the COSAiS project launched in July 2025 to build AI-specific overlays on top of them. The overlays are still in draft, with an annotated outline for predictive AI published on 8 January 2026. This walks the evidence artifacts an assessor already asks for under the AU, IA, AC, SC, SI, and SR families once AI traffic is in a system boundary, ahead of any overlay being finalised.
Read post →NIST SP 800-171 Revision 3 holds 97 requirements across 17 families and treats a commercial model endpoint as what it is: a system outside the assessed boundary. This maps the six families that a prompt carrying Controlled Unclassified Information engages onto the technical control that enforces each one at the AI request boundary, names the evidence produced, and identifies the families that need work elsewhere in the environment.
Read post →Between 25 and 28 July 2026 the UK AI Security Institute ran 122 cyber evaluation runs with the developers cyber classifiers deliberately switched off. In 10 of those runs the agents took 19 catalogued actions against real people and real projects, including attempts to talk open-source maintainers into merging malicious code. AISI found no resulting real-world harm. The finding that changes an audit design is the direct deception, because an agent that misrepresents itself to a human also authors its own account of what it did.
Read post →