AIS-01Cloud & AI Related

Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures

Specification

Establish, document, approve, communicate, apply, evaluate and maintain policies and procedures for application security. Review and update the policies and procedures at least annually or after significant system changes.

Threat coverage

Model manipulation

Data poisoning

Sensitive data disclosure

Model theft

Model/Service Failure

Insecure supply chain

Insecure apps/plugins

Denial of Service

Loss of governance

Architectural relevance

Physical infrastructure

Network

Compute

Storage

Application

Data

Lifecycle

Preparation

Data collection, Data curation, Data storage

Development

Training, Design, Guardrails

Evaluation

Evaluation, Validation/Red Teaming, Re-evaluation

Deployment

AI Services supply chain, AI applications, Orchestration

Delivery

Continuous monitoring, Continuous improvement, Maintenance, Operations

Retirement

Archiving, Model disposal, Data deletion

Ownership / SSRM

Shared Cloud Service Provider-Model Provider (Shared CSP-MP)

The CSP and MP are jointly responsible and accountable for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer.

Model

Owned by the Model Provider (MP)

The model provider (MP) designs, develops, and implements the control as part of their services or products to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with the Large Language Model (LLM). Model Providers are entities that develop, train, and distribute foundational and fine-tuned AI models for various applications. They create the underlying AI capabilities that other actors build upon. Model Providers are responsible for model architecture, training methodologies, performance characteristics, and documentation of capabilities and limitations. They operate at the foundation layer of the AI stack and may provide direct API access to their models. Examples: OpenAI (GPT, DALL-E, Whisper), Anthropic(Claude), Google(Gemini), Meta(Llama), as well as any customized model.

Orchestrated

Shared Orchestrated Service Provider-Application Provider (Shared OSP-AP)

The OSP and AP are jointly responsible and accountable for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer.

Application

Owned by the Application Provider (AP)

The Application Provider (AP) is responsible for the design, development, implementation, and enforcement of the control to mitigate security, privacy, or compliance risks associated with Large Language Model (LLM)/GenAI technologies in the context of the services or products they develop and offer. The AP is responsible and accountable for the implementation of the control within its own infrastructure/environment. If the control has downstream implications on the users/customers, the AP is responsible for enabling the customer and/or upstream partner in the implementation/configuration of the control within their risk management approach. The AP is accountable for carrying out the due diligence on its upstream providers (e.g MPs, Orchestrated Services) to verify that they implement the control as it relates to the service/product develop and offered by the AP. These providers build and offer end-user applications that leverage generative AI models for specific tasks such as content creation, chatbots, code generation, and enterprise automation. These applications are often delivered as software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions. These providers focus on user interfaces, application logic, domain-specific functionality, and overall user experience rather than underlying model development. Example: OpenAI (GPTs,Assistants), Zapier, CustomGPT, Microsoft Copilot (integrated into Office products), Jasper (AI-driven content generation), Notion AI (AI-enhanced productivity tools), Adobe Firefly (AI-generated media), and AI-powered customer service solutions like Amazon Rufus, as well as any organization that develops its AI-based application internally.

Implementation guidelines

[Applicable to all providers (CSP, MP, OSP, AP) excluding AIC unless otherwise specified]
1.Define Policy Scope: Establish provider-specific policy scopes as outlined in the provider-specific sections below. Ensure policies address the security of applications and interfaces throughout their lifecycle, including design, development, deployment, and maintenance.

2. Policy Governance Structure: Establish clear roles and responsibilities for maintaining application security policies, including involvement of cross-functional teams (e.g., security, development, operations) and oversight by governance bodies. Define approval workflows involving senior management, security leads, and legal/compliance teams to ensure alignment with organizational objectives.

3. Policy Documentation Requirements: Define structured documentation standards for application and interface security policies, including detailed procedures, technical standards, and implementation guidelines specific to each provider’s scope. Use consistent templates to document security controls, risk assessments, and mitigation strategies.

4. Policy Management Framework: Implement a structured review process for application security policies. Conduct reviews and updates at least annually or following significant system changes (e.g., new features, architecture updates, or identified vulnerabilities) that could alter risk exposure. Ensure alignment with relevant laws, regulations, and standards (e.g., GDPR, CCPA, ISO 27001, OWASP Top 10). Incorporate guidance from AI-specific frameworks such as NIST AI Risk Management Framework and OWASP LLM Top 10 where applicable.

5. Communication and Training Standards: Define requirements for communicating application security policies, including formal documentation distribution, mandatory training programs for developers and operators, and awareness campaigns for stakeholders. Establish standards for ensuring policy accessibility (e.g., internal portals) and comprehension across relevant teams.

6. Quality Control Standards: Define policies for quality assurance of application and interface security, including requirements for secure coding practices, vulnerability testing (e.g., static/dynamic analysis), penetration testing, and performance monitoring to ensure robust security controls are in place.

Auditing guidelines

1. Examine policy and procedures for adequacy, approval, communication, and effectiveness
as applicable to planning, delivery, and support of the organization’s application security
capabilities.

2. Examine policy and procedures for evidence of review at least annually.

Standards mappings

ISO 42001Partial Gap

42001: B.6.1.3
42001: A.6.2.1
42001: Clause A.6
27001: A.5.1
27001: A.8.25

Addendum

Clause mandating application & interface security policies & procedures. Explicit periodic review of these policies. Formal linkage to lifecycle and secure development practices.

EU AI ActPartial Gap

Article 15 (1)
Article 15 (2)
Article 15 (3)
Article 15 (4)
Article 15 (5)
Article 17 (1)
Article 53 (1) (c)
Article 55 (1) (d)
Article 56

Addendum

At least annual review of policies and procedures by the organization.

NIST AI 600-1Partial Gap

GV-2.1-001
MP-4.1-003
GV-6.1-005

Addendum

Implement a structured assessment framework, governance, risks, and procedures for application security controls, mirroring the review mechanisms used in risk management. Incorporate explicit policy review frequency requirements. Establish a policy change approval process to ensure continuous compliance with evolving applications security risks.

BSI AIC4No Gap

DEV-01
DEV-03
OPS-04
OPS-06
OPS-10
OPS-11
OPS-18
PS-01

Addendum

N/A

AI-CAIQ questions (2)

AIS-01.1

Are policies and procedures for application security established, documented, approved, communicated, applied, evaluated, and maintained?

AIS-01.2

Are the policies and procedures for application security reviewed and updated at least annually or upon significant system changes?