As AI adoption accelerates across industries, fueled by innovations in predictive, generative, and agentic AI, organizations face unprecedented security challenges that traditional cybersecurity approaches cannot fully address. This white paper outlines a comprehensive framework for implementing Secure AI by Design principles throughout the AI development lifecycle.
The evolution of sophisticated, novel AI security threats presents unique vulnerabilities beyond traditional cybersecurity concerns. These threats require a fundamental shift from reactive security to proactive Secure by Design practices complemented by robust Defense-in-Depth (DiD) strategies.
Several frameworks provide valuable guidance for securing AI systems. The 2025 OWASP® Top 10 for LLMs and GenAI identifies critical vulnerabilities specific to AI systems, while MITRE ATLAS™ maps the AI attack surface through an attacker "kill chain" perspective. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI-RMF) offers a structured "Map, Measure, Manage, Govern" methodology that complements these technical approaches.
Implementing Secure AI by Design principles requires adapting the CIA triad (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability) to AI contexts and integrating security throughout the MLSecOps lifecycle. Security must be woven into every phase: scope, data preparation, model selection and training, testing, and deployment/monitoring. This layered approach is required for predictive and generative systems and is particularly crucial for autonomous, agentic AI systems that combine traditional software with AI capabilities.
Traditional security tools are insufficient for AI systems due to their probabilistic, non-deterministic nature. Organizations require specialized AI security tools including model scanners, vulnerability feeds, code signing solutions, red teaming capabilities, AI-aware access controls, and monitoring systems that can detect anomalous behavior in real time.
Introduction
The Evolution of AI Security Challenges
From predictive machine learning (ML) to generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), and now into the age of agentic AI, businesses are adopting the technology at bullet train speed across all sectors. In fact, 78% of global enterprises reported having integrated AI into their operations in 2024. (source) Security is running right alongside that speeding train to help ensure that corporate and customer data is protected. Verticals like financial services, bio-tech, and telecom—that have been using predictive machine learning for decades—are realizing that attackers are focusing more of their attention on what was once a little exploited area of an organization's attack surface. As artificial intelligence continues its rapid integration across critical infrastructure, enterprise systems, and consumer applications, the security landscape surrounding these technologies has evolved from a small train station into a bustling transit hub.
Understanding how to protect AI systems requires knowing how attackers target them. Unlike traditional cybersecurity focused on networks and data, AI faces unique vulnerabilities that exploit how these systems learn and operate. Attackers use methods like data poisoning, where they secretly insert harmful inputs into training data. For example, a company developing a content moderation AI might unknowingly train on data containing subtle patterns that later cause the system to allow harmful content through. This resembles contaminating ingredients before a recipe is made rather than tampering with the finished dish.
Another unique attack on AI systems are prompt injection attacks, where carefully worded inputs that can override safety measures. A traditional injection attack occurs when untrusted user input is inserted into code that is then executed by a system without proper validation. Injection attacks in AI are more complicated in part because AI systems are “non-deterministic.” This means that the AI can, and often will, generate different responses to the same input. Even if an AI has been instructed and trained on guardrails that prohibit unsafe answers, a carefully crafted prompt could “jump” the guardrails, and result in an unsafe response from an AI. In agentic AI this becomes even more concerning, such as an AI assistant that visits a website containing hidden instructions, these commands might redirect the AI's behavior without user knowledge, such as modifying a shopping order or revealing sensitive information.
Another serious threat that is unique to AI comes from model deserialization attacks. When AI models are packaged for storage or sharing, attackers can embed malicious code within them. When loaded by your application, this hidden code activates—like opening what appears to be a legitimate document that secretly installs malware on your computer.
Autonomous, agentic AI systems present additional risks due to their ability to make independent decisions and take actions. Imagine your AI home assistant interacts with a fraudulent website that embeds hidden commands in responses. These instructions override the AI's safety protocols, causing it to secretly order unauthorized items when performing routine tasks—all without your knowledge or detection until significant damage occurs.
The evolving and expanding attack surface of AI systems underscores the critical need for a Secure by Design approach to AI security. Rather than treating security as an afterthought or a series of bolt-on protections, organizations must embed security considerations throughout the entire AI development lifecycle. This proactive stance ensures that security controls are integrated into the system architecture from inception, addressing vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.
However, secure design principles alone are insufficient. A robust DiD strategy complements this approach by implementing multiple layers of security controls. By establishing overlapping protective mechanisms—from data validation and model monitoring to runtime protection and incident response capabilities—organizations can create resilient AI systems capable of withstanding sophisticated attacks even when individual security measures fail.
Understanding Secure AI by Design
CISA's Secure by Design framework establishes three foundational principles that have proven effective for building security into traditional software. These principles—taking ownership of security outcomes, embracing radical transparency and accountability, and building organizational structure and leadership to support security—can, and should, be applied to AI systems development.
Taking Ownership of Customer Security Outcomes in AI Development
Organizations developing and deploying AI systems should ensure that security is included throughout the entire lifecycle. This means security cannot be an afterthought or delegated solely to security teams—it must be a core commitment embraced by leadership and integrated into every phase of AI development.
In practice, taking ownership means establishing clear security requirements from the earliest design phases of AI systems. The concept of Machine Learning Security Operations, or MLSecOps, extends DevSecOps principles to machine learning workflows, addressing AI-specific vulnerabilities. As AI systems become increasingly autonomous, agentic, and complex, this ownership becomes even more important to prevent unwanted outcomes. Companies must take direct responsibility for securing their ML assets rather than passing that burden to end users.
Embrace Radical Transparency and Accountability in AI Security
Transparent AI systems allow stakeholders to understand security measures, data management controls, and potential vulnerabilities. Organizations should document and openly communicate how their AI systems are designed, trained, and protected. This includes maintaining detailed records of training data and model provenance, model architecture decisions, and security control implementations. MLSecOps also supports transparency by maintaining detailed documentation of ML model lineage and includes creating ML-specific Bills of Material (ML or AI-BOMs) that document not just code but also datasets, pretrained models, and frameworks used.
Accountability requires establishing clear metrics to evaluate AI security effectiveness, testing (e.g., red teaming), and regular assessments to identify potential weaknesses. Organizations should create formal processes for disclosing vulnerabilities and responding to security incidents.
Lead from the Top for AI Security
Effective MLSecOps requires organizations to lead from the top, embedding security throughout the AI development lifecycle. When executives support and champion security as a core value, it shapes every aspect of AI systems. Companies should dedicate specific messaging to these efforts, similar to how automotive companies highlight safety initiatives. Board-level oversight of AI security initiatives is essential, going beyond traditional CISO risk updates. These reports should specifically address AI product security and its impact on customer protection.
AI security professionals must have genuine authority to influence product investments and development priorities. This represents a shift from merely seeking "executive buy-in" to establishing customer security of AI systems as a fundamental business objective that is led from the top through concrete actions and resource allocation.
A dedicated Secure AI by Design council, with both centralized and distributed components, can drive security improvements throughout the organization, ensuring MLSecOps principles are consistently applied across all AI initiatives when technical and business leaders commit to AI security together.
Defense-in-Depth strategies become particularly crucial when implementing this principle. While the data, model, and infrastructure layers remain critical, the AI application introduces new risks related to autonomy, access, and data management.
By integrating the three CISA principles and DiD throughout the AI development process, organizations create resilient systems that maintain integrity even when individual security measures fail.
AI Security Frameworks and Standards
In this section, we cover a few well-known resources for securing GenAI systems. Our scope emphasizes the OWASP Top 10 and MITRE ATLAS specifically because they target concrete vulnerabilities and attack vectors in GenAI systems, offering actionable mitigation strategies for building security in. This technical vulnerability focus, combined with NIST AI-RMF's risk management approach, delivers immediate security value for implementation teams. While we acknowledge the importance of broader frameworks like the UK's National Cyber Security Centre's Machine Learning Principles and ISO 42001:2023's management standards, our targeted technical scope enables deeper analysis of exploitable weaknesses requiring immediate attention.
2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLMs and GenAI
The 2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLMs distills GenAI security vulnerabilities into a top 10 list that practitioners can use to help validate that they are addressing the most critical GenAI issues with their Secure by Design strategy.
Key Vulnerabilities
The 2025 report focuses on unique risks including:
Prompt injection attacks (using malicious inputs manipulate model outputs)
Training data poisoning (inadequate content filtering allowing harmful outputs)
Overreliance on AI outputs without human verification
Model stealing through extraction attacks
Insecure output handling
Authentication vulnerabilities specific to AI systems
Excessive information disclosure in model responses
Insufficient monitoring of AI system behavior
Supply chain vulnerabilities in AI components
Integration with Existing Practices
While the original OWASP Top 10 list addresses traditional web security concerns like injection, broken authentication, and cross-site scripting, the Top 10 for LLMs addresses the unique attack surface created by AI systems. Together, they provide comprehensive security guidance for modern applications like agentic AI. Using the original Top 10 alongside the LLM Top 10 will help organizations understand the interconnected risks between conventional applications and their AI components.
MITRE ATLAS Framework
The MITRE ATLAS framework maps the AI attack surface through the lens of the attacker “kill chain.” ATLAS documents AI-specific tactics like model evasion, poisoning, and extraction, along with detailed techniques that adversaries use to compromise AI systems—from crafting adversarial examples to exploiting prediction APIs.
The framework also provides corresponding defensive controls including input validation, model monitoring, and prediction throttling. These strategies help organizations implement appropriate safeguards at multiple stages of the AI and MLSecOps lifecycle.
Integration with Existing Practices
Just as the 2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLMs and GenAI complements the original OWASP Top 10, ATLAS extends the established MITRE ATT&CK® framework, allowing organizations to incorporate AI-specific defenses into existing security programs. This enables security teams to apply familiar threat modeling approaches to novel AI risks, leveraging established processes while addressing the unique challenges of securing GenAI systems.
NIST AI-RMF and Other Guidance
Beyond the frameworks mentioned above, there are several other resources that can provide valuable guidance for Secure AI by Design implementations.
The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI-RMF) offers a phased approach to AI security that uses a straightforward "Map, Measure, Manage, Govern" methodology. Because it is focused on the outcome of trustworthy AI, more than specific technical approaches, it is easy to adapt across different AI technologies and use cases.
Several international bodies have also developed notable guidance and compliance standards.
The UK's National Cyber Security Centre provides Machine Learning Principles that address specific security concerns in ML systems, offering practical recommendations for secure model development and deployment.
ISO 42001:2023 provides internationally recognized standards for AI management systems, helping organizations integrate AI security into broader governance structures.
Building Secure AI Systems by Design
Fundamental Security Requirements
The implementation of secure design principles for generative AI systems requires a focused approach to security fundamentals. The CIA triad forms the cornerstone of this framework when adapted to AI contexts:
Confidentiality in GenAI demands robust access controls and encryption for both training data and model parameters. This prevents unauthorized exposure of sensitive information that might be embedded within models or extracted through sophisticated prompting techniques.
Integrity requires mechanisms to verify that AI outputs remain accurate and unaltered. This includes defense against adversarial attacks that could subtly manipulate model responses, as well as ensuring traceability between inputs and outputs.
Availability focuses on maintaining consistent AI system performance while preventing denial of service through resource exhaustion or prompt injection attacks.
Effective model and data governance complements these principles through comprehensive inventories of models and datasets, clear documentation of data provenance and model limitations, regular security assessments focusing on AI-specific vulnerabilities, robust change management protocols, and continuous monitoring for drift or anomalous behavior.
MLSecOps creates a layered architecture where security is woven into every phase of AI system development. Organizations that implement security at only one stage leave critical vulnerabilities elsewhere in the pipeline—like securing your front door with four deadbolts while leaving the windows unlocked. To be truly effective, security for AI must span from the very initial scoping phase all the way through continuous monitoring in deployment.
As AI systems grow more complex and autonomous, securing them requires a holistic approach that extends beyond individual safeguards. Integrating security throughout the MLSecOps lifecycle is essential to address vulnerabilities at every phase—from initial scoping to continuous monitoring. By aligning security tasks with established frameworks like the 2025 OWASP Top 10 for LLMs and GenAI, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI-RMF, organizations can build AI solutions that are not only Secure by Design but also resilient to evolving threats. The following sections will explore the intersection of these frameworks with the MLSecOps lifecycle phases in more detail.
Secure by Design in the MLSecOps Lifecycle
Building Secure by Design AI systems requires a Defense-in-Depth approach, integrating security controls at every phase of the MLSecOps lifecycle. Addressing security in just one phase leaves critical vulnerabilities elsewhere, making it essential to embed safeguards from the initial scoping through to continuous monitoring. Moreover, as agentic AI systems—those capable of autonomous decision-making—become more prevalent, the convergence of MLSecOps with DevSecOps practices is crucial to manage the expanded attack surface and ensure consistent security policies across both AI-specific and traditional software risks. This integration enables comprehensive monitoring, policy enforcement, and incident response capabilities, which are essential for mitigating the unique threats posed by agentic AI.
This section maps security tasks within the MLSecOps lifecycle to the OWASP Top 10, MITRE ATLAS, and NIST AI-RMF frameworks, providing practical guidance on how to build AI systems that are Secure by Design.
Scope
The Scope phase aligns with NIST AI-RMF's "Map" function, focusing on identifying attack surfaces and defining security requirements early. This phase includes threat modeling tailored to AI systems, which helps in anticipating potential risks like prompt injection (OWASP LLM01) and supply chain vulnerabilities (OWASP LLM03). Threat models should consider the entire AI pipeline, from data ingestion to deployment, highlighting risks such as data poisoning and model inversion attacks. ML Techniques from MITRE ATLAS that can be threat modeled during this phase include ML supply chain compromise (i.e., vulnerabilities in pre-trained models, datasets, and dependencies that could be exploited, model reconnaissance (i.e., attempts to probe and understand model boundaries and behaviors), and exfiltration via ML inference.
Security requirements must specify controls for confidentiality, integrity, and availability, ensuring that AI systems can protect sensitive information embedded in training data (OWASP LLM02) and maintain accurate, unaltered outputs. Additionally, policy considerations must address regulatory compliance and ethical use of AI, aligning with NIST's “Governance” function. Effective governance frameworks should incorporate continuous risk assessment to adapt to evolving threats, reinforcing the need for dynamic security policies.
Data Preparation
The Data Preparation phase focuses on data integrity and privacy, aligning with the NIST AI-RMF "Measure" function. Key controls include data validation and labeling, which help prevent data and model poisoning (OWASP LLM04). Ensuring that data sources are vetted and trustworthy is crucial for mitigating risks of misinformation and adversarial inputs designed to corrupt model training.
Privacy and security considerations must include techniques like differential privacy and encryption to protect sensitive information during both the training and inference phases. Threat modeling should be refined here to include specific risks associated with the data supply chain, such as unauthorized access and tampering. Aligning these practices and preparing to defend against techniques described in the MITRE ATLAS matrix, such as "Data Manipulation," “Data Poisoning,” and "Exfiltration," helps build a robust defense mechanism.
Model Training
The Model Training phase is where secure coding practices and rigorous testing come into play. Aligning with NIST's "Manage" function, this phase must incorporate model risk assessments to identify vulnerabilities like improper output handling (OWASP LLM05) and vector and embedding weaknesses (OWASP LLM08). AI pipeline security, including dependency management and validation of pre-trained models, is critical for preventing supply chain risks. Appropriate controls and defenses around techniques in the ATLAS matrix that map to this phase include: "Exfiltration via ML Inference API”, "ML Model Access”, “Extract ML Model”, and “Poison Training Data”.
Key practices include secure coding standards tailored for AI, such as input validation and output sanitization, to defend against excessive agency risks (OWASP LLM06). Integrating security testing, including adversarial robustness assessments and model scanning for known vulnerabilities, ensures that models do not produce unsafe or biased outputs. Moreover, evaluating the trade-offs between performance and security during this phase helps in balancing risk and efficiency.
Testing
In the Testing phase, aligning with the NIST AI-RMF "Measure" function, security testing must be comprehensive and continuous. This includes adversarial testing (red teaming/penetration testing) to uncover vulnerabilities such as system prompt leakage (OWASP LLM07) and unbounded consumption (OWASP LLM10). Security testing methodologies should also validate compliance with regulatory standards and internal policies, ensuring that AI systems are robust against both technical and operational threats. Protection against ATLAS ML Techniques that should be tested for in this phase include, “Denial of ML Service,” Model Evasion,” “Prompt Extraction,” “Prompt Injection,” and “Inference Manipulation.”
It's useful to note that testing agentic AI systems presents unique challenges, as the behavior of AI agents can differ significantly when deployed as part of a larger ecosystem. Comprehensive testing must cover not only individual model components but also the interactions between them, identifying risks that emerge only in full-system operations. This phase should also incorporate behavioral analysis to detect anomalies and help ensure that AI agents act within predefined policy boundaries.
Deployment and Monitoring
The Deployment and Monitoring phases align with the NIST "Govern" function, emphasizing secure deployment patterns and continuous oversight. Security controls must include model signing to verify model authenticity and prevent unauthorized modifications. Additionally, supply chain vulnerability management should address risks associated with third-party libraries and pre-trained models integrated into the AI pipeline.
Continuous monitoring is critical for detecting emerging threats, such as misinformation (OWASP LLM09), and for ensuring that AI systems comply with evolving regulations. Monitoring should include anomaly detection mechanisms to identify deviations in model behavior, potentially indicating adversarial attacks or data drift. Policy enforcement must extend to incident response, ensuring that security breaches are promptly detected, contained, and addressed. ATLAS techniques to monitor for include: “Societal Harm,” Denial of Service,” “Model Tampering,” "Exfiltration" via both Inference APIs and Cyber Means, and “Jailbreaks.”
For agentic AI systems, monitoring requirements are more stringent due to the autonomous nature of decision-making processes. Effective monitoring must track not only model outputs but also the decision pathways and external interactions, providing comprehensive oversight of AI behaviors. It is also critical to watch for lateral movement and the attempt to access systems beyond authorized boundaries, particularly in agentic AI systems that interact with multiple environments. Lateral movement can occur when an AI agent leverages initial access to one system to navigate to adjacent systems, potentially expanding its reach beyond intended operational constraints. Such movement might manifest as an agent using credentials or permissions granted for one task to access unrelated databases, APIs, or computing resources. In agentic AI, this lateral movement presents unique challenges as the agent's autonomous nature means it may discover and exploit pathways that weren't anticipated during system design. Monitoring within these systems will need to focus on mapping the complete operational graph of agent activities, tracking not just what resources are accessed but the sequential relationship between access events.
Tools and Technologies for Secure by Design AI Systems
Traditional security tools were designed for deterministic systems with predictable behaviors. AI systems, by contrast, are probabilistic (non-deterministic), learn from data, and can evolve over time. This fundamental difference creates new attack surfaces and security challenges that conventional tools aren't equipped to handle.
AI Security Testing Tools
As noted in the previous sections, AI introduces new artifacts into the software development process—and new attack vectors. While existing tools can help with some AI system testing, the unique, non-deterministic nature of AI requires specialized AI aware security tools to properly assess the resilience of AI solutions.
AI Model and System Discovery: There's an old adage “you can't manage what you don't know” that applies to AI too, which is why AI model discovery is crucial for enterprises to effectively manage their AI assets, prevent redundancy, and ensure governance compliance. Without proper discovery mechanisms, organizations risk shadow AI deployments, compliance violations, and inefficient resource allocation.
A ModelOps platform is a specialized software system that manages the full lifecycle of AI/ML models from development to deployment and monitoring. These platforms automate and standardize processes for model versioning, deployment, governance, monitoring, and retraining. Enterprises can employ automated inventory systems through their ModelOps platforms to scan networks and identify deployed models, cataloging them with metadata about training data, performance metrics, and ownership. Data lineage tracking systems trace how data flows through AI pipelines, helping organizations understand dependencies between models and data sources. Discovery tools can monitor API calls to identify undocumented model usage, ensuring all AI systems are properly governed and cloud security tools can monitor and record access to public AI solutions. Model registries serve as central repositories that make models discoverable and reusable across departments. When risk assessment is integrated into these processes, the discovery tools can evaluate models against regulatory requirements, flagging high risk systems for further review and compliance measures.
Model Scanners: Like traditional application scanners, AI model scanners can operate in both static and dynamic modes. Static scanners analyze AI models without execution, examining code, weights, and architecture for vulnerabilities like backdoors or embedded bias. They function similarly to code analyzers but focus on ML-specific issues. Dynamic scanners, conversely, probe models during operation, testing them against adversarial inputs to identify vulnerabilities that emerge only at runtime. These tools systematically attempt prompt injections, jailbreaking techniques, and data poisoning to evaluate model resilience under active attack conditions.
AI Vulnerability Feeds: AI vulnerabilities are unique to AI and reporting on these vulnerabilities is not fully integrated into existing vulnerability solutions. AI specific feeds track emerging attack vectors, from novel prompt injection techniques to model extraction methods. Unlike traditional CVE databases, AI vulnerability feeds often include model-specific exploit information and effective mitigations.
AI Model Code Signing: Another traditional technique that should be adapted to AI solutions is code signing using cryptographic techniques to verify authenticity and integrity. The process involves: generating a digital signature of the model using the creator's private key, creating a cryptographic hash of the model component, and verification using the creator's public key. This approach establishes a chain of custody, documents provenance, and prevents tampering. Implementation methods include model cards with signatures, container signing, and component-level verification. Benefits include protection against supply chain attacks, establishing trust, creating audit trails, and supporting regulatory compliance.
AI Red Teaming and Penetration Testing: Red teaming and penetration testing adapt traditional security practices to AI contexts and extends dynamic model testing to the full AI system in production. Specialized red teams attempt to compromise AI systems through sophisticated attacks including language model manipulation, training data poisoning, and model inversion techniques. These specialized attacks require AI-powered testing tools because only AI can efficiently probe the vast, non-deterministic output space of modern AI systems. Human testers alone cannot adequately cover the countless permutations of inputs that might trigger harmful responses. AI-driven testing systems can systematically explore edge cases, generate thousands of adversarial examples, and identify statistical patterns in model behavior that would be impossible to detect manually. The inherent unpredictability of AI outputs necessitates AI-driven testing that can analyze response distributions rather than single instances, making AI an essential component in effectively securing AI systems.
AI Monitoring and Protection Tools
Even with robust pre-launch testing, AI needs special tooling for security in production, too.
AI-Aware Access Control: AI systems use vector databases to efficiently search and retrieve information based on semantic meaning rather than exact keyword matches, enabling them to find relevant content in high-dimensional space. These specialized databases are essential for modern AI applications like retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), as they can quickly search billions of numerical representations (embeddings) of text, images, and other data types while maintaining performance at scale. Traditional access control operates at document, field, or row level. Vector databases operate on embeddings that might represent parts of documents or concepts spanning multiple documents, making it difficult to map permissions cleanly. Without AI-aware access controls, organizations risk exposing intellectual property, sensitive code, or confidential information through seemingly innocent AI interactions.
Data Leak Protection (DLP): Traditional DLP tools monitor and help prevent unauthorized transmission of sensitive data, but AI-specific DLP solutions must go further. These specialized tools understand model behaviors and can detect when an AI system might inadvertently leak sensitive information through its outputs, even when that information was never explicitly provided as input. AI-aware DLP solutions can recognize pattern-based leakage, where models reconstruct sensitive data from training examples, and can enforce context-aware policies. Unlike conventional DLP tools focused on structured data patterns, AI-specific DLP understands semantic relationships and can identify when information might constitute a security violation even when it doesn't match predefined patterns. This capability is essential as AI models may generate novel representations of protected information.
Policy Enforcement: Policy enforcement tools operate at the semantic level, automatically monitoring and controlling AI systems to help ensure compliance with established guidelines. These specialized tools can flag or block operations that violate policies, such as attempts to generate harmful content or access restricted data sources. AI firewalls represent one implementation of policy enforcement, analyzing the meaning of content rather than just filtering network traffic. These firewalls inspect both inputs and outputs to prevent misuse in real-time. For example, when a policy prohibits generating malicious code, enforcement mechanisms can identify and block an AI coding assistant from producing attack code or scripts that might compromise internal systems. Similarly, in HR applications, policy enforcement can help ensure AI-driven applicant tracking systems don't systematically disadvantage protected groups by blocking outputs that demonstrate statistical bias.
Logging and Monitoring: AI-specific logging captures unique aspects of model behavior, including inference patterns, input-output relationships, and drift indicators. It can also capture all of the inputs and outputs from a system to understand which prompts elicited unwanted or inaccurate responses. This specialized monitoring creates audit trails for regulatory compliance while establishing baselines for detecting anomalous behavior that might indicate security breaches. Using specialized telemetry, the AI logging tracks temporal changes in model drift compared to baseline performance, and archives full prompt-response exchanges with metadata about context and decisions. AI aware log correlation tools can be used for complex response analysis to record model output hallucinations, bias, or potentially harmful content, then correlate these responses with specific input patterns. Attribution tracking maintains records of which model version produced which outputs, essential for accountability in high-stakes domains like healthcare diagnostics or financial advice. Confidence monitoring tracks certainty scores across interactions to identify when models might be operating outside their knowledge boundaries. AI-tuned logging systems capture AI-specific metrics and create evidence of compliance for AI regulations including but not limited to the EU AI Act. The result is an auditable history of AI decision making that supports both security and governance needs.
Agentic AI Monitoring: Agentic AI systems don't just respond to queries—they proactively take action, make decisions, and pursue objectives with limited human oversight. As AI systems become more autonomous, specialized monitoring becomes critical for security and risk management. Traditional monitoring tools track performance metrics but miss the unique risks of autonomous systems. Agentic AI monitoring provides decision pathway tracking that records not just what decisions were made, but why they were made, exposing the AI's reasoning process. It also handles resource utilization patterns, detecting when an AI begins consuming unusual amounts of computational resources that might indicate it's exploring unauthorized strategies. Moreover, it identifies behavioral drift detection when an AI's actions begin to slowly deviate from intended parameters, often in subtle ways that humans might not immediately notice.
Response Automation: When security incidents happen with traditional systems, response time is measured in minutes or hours. With AI systems, damage can scale exponentially in milliseconds. AI-specific response automation tools can take immediate action to contain threats. These systems can automatically restrict model access, roll back to safer model versions, or isolate compromised components without human intervention, minimizing damage when every millisecond matters. The critical difference with AI-specific response automation is that it operates at machine speed rather than human speed, using predefined security protocols to contain threats autonomously while preserving evidence for later investigation.
Conclusion
Secure AI by Design requires a fundamental shift in security thinking—from protecting static systems to securing dynamic, probabilistic models. Even within the world of AI, the switch from mostly predictive AI to mostly generative and now agentic systems demands a new perspective. By implementing secure design principles across the entire AI development lifecycle and leveraging AI-specific security tools, organizations can harness AI's transformative potential while mitigating unique risks that (if left unaddressed) could result in unfavorable reputational, financial, and legal consequences. As AI becomes increasingly integrated into the fabric of a successful business, prioritizing security from inception rather than as an afterthought is no longer optional—it's an imperative for responsible AI adoption and innovation.
Ready to secure your entire AI ecosystem? Contact us today to learn more about Prisma AIRS, the world’s most comprehensive AI security platform.
