Global Partners Release Secure AI System Development Guidelines

Courtecy of The Hacker News  (Click Here) 

"secure by design' approach" by NCSC

The U.K., U.S. EU & other global partners from at least 16 countries, have develo0ped guidelines for development of secure artificial intelligence systems.

The international community of the governing bodies and agencies of multiple traditional and federative nations have been racing to adapt to the realities called forth by the raise of AI and more specifically of LLM’s which effective gave the AI a significant push. The LLM’s have effectively given AI a voice if you will.

This article is a commentary of sorts on top of the article provided from  “The Hacker News” on 27.Nov.2023. We attempt a simplified read if you will.  

As you will read there you will quickly find the statements and quotes from reputable institutions. 

The latest guidelines released by the U.K., U.S., and partners from 16 countries are crucial for understanding how to develop secure artificial intelligence (AI) systems, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity applications.

Some Key Takeaways and what could this mean: 

  1. Security-Centric Development: The guidelines emphasize a “secure by design” approach, where cybersecurity is a non-negotiable part of the AI system development lifecycle. This entices controls to ensure secure design, development, deployment, operation, and maintenance. This could potentially mean a complete overhaul of the current controls structure and re-certification of companies.
  2. Ownership and Transparency: Advocacy for organizations to take ownership of the security outcomes of their AI systems. They also focus on the importance of transparency and accountability in AI development processes.
  3. Enhanced Cybersecurity for AI: The goal is to elevate the cybersecurity level of AI systems, ensuring their design, development, and deployment is secure. This is vital in many sectors like law, healthcare, civil engineering, defense &etc. where AI applications can significantly impact holistically.
  4. Risk Management: The guidelines build on efforts to manage AI-related risks, including thorough testing before production release, setting up safeguards against harms (like bias and discrimination), i.e. the medical field is one where discrimination as fundamental tool, there are also a plethora of privacy concerns.
  5. Vulnerability Reporting and Remediation: Companies are for now at least encouraged to support third-party discovery and reporting of vulnerabilities in their AI systems, such as bug bounty programs, to promptly identify and rectify security issues.
  6. Combatting Adversarial Attacks: Special attention is given to adversarial attacks targeting AI and machine learning (ML) systems. These attacks can disrupt AI functionality, making it possible for unauthorized actions or data breaches to occur. The guidelines suggest methods to counter such threats, including prompt injection attacks in large language models (LLMs) and data poisoning.

Impact to Compliant Companies ?

HIPPA, SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR & etc ?

Implementing these enhanced security measures in AI systems could increase the complexity of the development process. This might lead to higher operational costs, both in terms of financial resources and time required for development and testing. For a compliant company, this could mean allocating additional resources to meet these new standards.

Adhering to these guidelines may require specialized knowledge in AI cybersecurity, could and probably will necessitate additional training for existing staff or hiring new experts. Thi swill most certainly be a significant investment for some companies, especially smaller ones with limited resources.

The additional security measures and testing protocols will extend the development timeline for AI systems. This will impact the company’s ability to release products quickly, potentially affecting competitiveness in fast-moving markets.

Accordion ContentIncreased security measures also mean an increased responsibility. Any failure in ensuring the security of AI systems, especially in sensitive areas like healthcare or finance, could lead to liability issues and damage to the company’s reputation.

Aligning the new guidelines with the existing  frameworks will require a careful balancing act. There could be areas where the guidelines impose stricter controls, necessitating a reevaluation and possible overhaul of current practices.

While security is crucial, an overemphasis on security measures could potentially hinder innovation and user experience. Finding the right balance between security, functionality, and user-friendliness will be challenging. It is important to note however that security breaches are often a death sentence for most smaller companies.

For companies already navigating multiple compliance frameworks, integrating another set of guidelines could add to the compliance burden. This will lead to what is often referred to as “compliance fatigue,” where the focus shifts more towards meeting guidelines rather than on innovation and product development.

The guidelines’ emphasis on facilitating third-party discovery and reporting of vulnerabilities, such as through bug bounty programs, while beneficial for security, could demand significant resources. Managing and responding to vulnerability reports requires dedicated staff and systems.

Based On:

Skip to content