Input Monitoring
Specification
Log and monitor all input events (content and metadata) to enable auditing and reporting on the usage of AI models.
Threat coverage
Architectural relevance
Lifecycle
Data collection, Data curation, Data storage
Training
Evaluation, Validation/Red Teaming, Re-evaluation
Orchestration, AI Services supply chain, AI applications
Operations, Continuous monitoring, Continuous improvement
Data deletion
Ownership / SSRM
PI
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
Auditing guidelines
1. Inquiring with Control Owners 1.1 Conduct interviews with personnel responsible for logging and monitoring all input events (content and metadata) to cloud AI processing infrastructure to understand their processes for capturing, storing, and analyzing workload input data for auditing infrastructure usage and reporting on compute resource utilization across customers. Verify their understanding of input event logging requirements for cloud infrastructure, monitoring procedures for customer workload patterns and resource performance, and reporting capabilities that enable comprehensive auditing of AI infrastructure interactions and capacity analytics. 2. Inspecting Records and Documents 2.1 Confirm input logging covers all cloud infrastructure endpoints including compute APIs, storage interfaces, customer portals, and third-party cloud service integrations. 2.2 Verify logs capture customer identity, workload source, timestamp, resource allocation, and input payload structure for AI infrastructure requests. 2.3 Check that logging does not capture sensitive customer workload data unless explicitly required for infrastructure functionality and properly protected under customer agreements. 2.4 Validate logging covers both direct customer inputs to infrastructure services and indirect inputs processed through automated scaling and resource management systems. 2.5 Confirm that cloud infrastructure logs are used to detect resource abuse, security violations, or malformed requests affecting infrastructure security and customer isolation. 2.6 Review retention settings to ensure cloud infrastructure input logs are stored in alignment with customer agreements and regulatory compliance requirements. 2.7 Ensure cloud infrastructure input logs feed into usage analytics dashboards for capacity planning and customer experience monitoring. 2.8 Verify access to cloud infrastructure input logs is role-restricted to authorized infrastructure personnel and fully auditable for customer data protection. 2.9 Examine monitoring capabilities to ensure real-time visibility into cloud infrastructure usage patterns, resource performance metrics, and customer utilization trends. 2.10 Validate that metadata logging includes comprehensive infrastructure context such as resource parameters, service configurations, customer details, and performance metrics. 2.11 Review reporting mechanisms to confirm they provide adequate audit trails for cloud infrastructure governance, customer compliance, and capacity analytics. 2.12 Confirm logging APIs and input collection services provide tenants access to their logs. 2.13 Validate input logging mechanisms are embedded in AI services (e.g., model endpoints). 2.14 Ensure logs capture tenant ID, region, service version, and API path. 2.15 Confirm guardrails prevent inadvertent access to other tenants' input logs. 2.16 Check for logs covering service-to-service input invocations. 2.17 Validate SLAs are met for input log availability and retention. 2.18 Verify CSP personnel access to logs is logged and reviewed.
Standards mappings
ISO 42001 B.6.2.8 ISO 27001 A.5.37
Addendum
N/A
Article 13 (3) Article 15 (5) Article 26 (1) Article 26 (4)
Addendum
Contrarily to the AICM control that provides an increased level of detail, the EU AI Act establishes more general requirements that may be interpreted as encompassing the aspects tackled in the control.
MP-5.1-001
Addendum
N/A
C4 BC-03 C4 RE-02 C4 RE-03 C5 OPS-11 C5 PI-01
Addendum
N/A
AI-CAIQ questions (1)
Are all input events (content and metadata) logged and monitored to enable auditing and reporting on the usage of AI models?