Governance, Risk & Compliance

5 articles

Agent Security Agentic Permissions AI Agent Security AI Governance Evidence Ai Impact Ai Integration AI Red Teaming AI SDLC & Product Security AI Security AI Security Engineer Career Ai Security Engineering AI Security Foundations AI Security Monitoring AI Security Tools AI Supply Chain AI System Inventory Architecture and Trust Boundaries Ats Systems Attack Career Development Corporate Culture Corporate Culture And Leadership Culture Security Cyber Security cybersecurity Cybersecurity Strategy Data Exposure and Privacy Defend Detection Engineering Distributed Governance Distributed Systems Economic Governance Education Evaluation and Regression Testing Evidence Future of Work governance Governance And Resilience Governance Evidence and Customer Trust Governance, Risk & Compliance Hiring & Talent Hiring Strategy Incident Response & Observability Leadership And Governance LLM Application Security Logging and Telemetry Map MLOps & Platform Security Model and Provider Risk Model Supply Chain Operational Risk Organizational Governance Organizational Resilience Platform Governance Privacy & Data Protection Prompt Injection Psychological Safety psychometrics RAG Authorization RAG Security Recruitment And Talent Red Teaming & Evaluations red-team seceng-workbench Secure Architecture & Design Secure RAG Security Architecture Stochastic Governance Stochastic Resilience Systemic Resilience Talent Acquisition Technical Intelligence Threat Modeling Toolchain Integrity Training & Workshops Vendor Risk & Procurement Workforce Science Workplace Evolution

Evidence

How to Read the State of AI Security Engineering Report: Methodology, Caveats, and Responsible Interpretation

A serious annual report is not only a collection of findings. It is also a contract with the reader about how those findings should be interpreted. The more ambitious the report, the more important the methodology becomes.

10 min read

Evidence

Private Benchmarks for AI Security: Skills, Operating Models, Controls, and Governance Evidence

Private AI security benchmarks can help organizations compare skills, operating models, control coverage, evidence maturity, and role expectations against defined datasets or frameworks, but they must be presented as directional advisory tools rather than certification, audit opinion, or proof of internal security maturity.

9 min read

Evidence

Claim-Readiness for AI Security: Marketing Pages, Trust Centers, Sales Claims, and Governance Evidence

Claim-readiness means AI security, privacy, governance, benchmark, sponsorship, and trust-center claims are mapped to reviewable evidence, scoped carefully, caveated honestly, and separated from unsupported product endorsement or research overstatement.

9 min read

Evidence

Compliance for AI Security Engineers: Mapping OWASP, NIST AI RMF, ISO 42001, SOC 2, and CSA AICM

AI security compliance should translate frameworks into concrete engineering controls and governance evidence. OWASP helps with LLM application risks, NIST AI RMF with risk management, ISO 42001 with management-system structure, SOC 2 with trust-service evidence, and CSA AICM with control mapping, but none of these prove an AI system is secure on their own.

9 min read

Evidence

Human-in-the-Loop Is Not a Security Control Unless You Design It Like One

Human-in-the-loop is only a security control when the approval is timely, informed, auditable, placed before meaningful action, and backed by authority to deny or modify the action. Otherwise it becomes a weak UX pattern that shifts responsibility to users without giving them enough information to exercise judgment.

13 min read