AICM AtlasCSA AI Controls Matrix
TVM · Threat & Vulnerability Management
TVM-08Cloud & AI Related

Vulnerability Prioritization

Specification

Use a risk-based model for effective prioritization of vulnerability remediation using an industry recognized framework.

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

Resource provisioning

Development

Design, Training

Evaluation

Re-evaluation

Deployment

Orchestration, AI Services supply chain, AI applications

Delivery

Operations, Maintenance, Continuous monitoring, Continuous improvement

Retirement

Archiving, Data deletion, Model disposal

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

[All Actors]
1. Develop and document a patch testing process to validate that patches do not introduce new vulnerabilities or affect system functionality.

2. Test patches in a controlled environment before deployment to production systems to minimize risk.

3. Ensure that all critical systems and applications undergo rigorous patch validation to ensure compliance and security.

4. Regularly review and update patch-testing and risk-scoring criteria to reflect new technologies, emerging threats and regulatory requirements.

5. Maintain auditable records of patch tests, validation results, approvals and deployment dates to demonstrate accountability and compliance.

6. Establish a process for validating patches after deployment to ensure their effectiveness in addressing identified vulnerabilities.

7. Adopt a common framework (e.g CVSSv3) to prioritize vulnerabilities consistently across all partners.

Auditing guidelines

1. Verify that the Cloud Service Provider (CSP) systematically adopts a model to support efforts in effectively and efficiently prioritizing remediations to vulnerabilities identified within the security perimeter.

2. Examine the above-mentioned model to verify that it adopts of a risk-based approach.

3. Examine the above-mentioned model to verify its compliance with industry recognized standards and frameworks.

Standards mappings

ISO 42001No Gap
8.8 Management of technical vulnerabilities (27001)
A.6.2.6 AI system Operation and monitoring (42001)
Addendum

N/A

EU AI ActNo Gap
Article 3 (49) (b)
Article 9 (1)
Article 41
Addendum

N/A

NIST AI 600-1Full Gap
No Mapping
Addendum

NIST AI 600-1 does not mention use of a risk-based model for effective prioritization of vulnerability remediation using an industry recognized framework.

BSI AIC4No Gap
C4 SR-02
C5 OPS-18
Addendum

N/A

AI-CAIQ questions (1)

TVM-08.1

Are risk-based models utilized to prioritize vulnerability remediation using an industry-recognized framework effectively?