Compatibility
Specification
Define and implement a process for the validation of the endpoint device's compatibility with operating systems and applications.
Threat coverage
Architectural relevance
Lifecycle
Not applicable
Not applicable
Validation/Red Teaming
Orchestration, AI Services supply chain, AI applications
Operations, Continuous monitoring
Not applicable
Ownership / SSRM
PI
Shared across the supply chain
Shared control ownership refers to responsibilities and activities related to LLM security that are distributed across multiple stakeholders within the AI supply chain, including the Cloud Service Provider (CSP), Model Provider (MP), Orchestrated Service Provider (OSP), Application Provider (AP), and Customer (AIC). These controls require coordinated actions, communication, and governance across all involved parties to ensure their effectiveness.
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 Model Provider-Orchestrated Service Provider (Shared MP-OSP)
The MP and OSP 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. Verify the CSP has documented and approved compatibility and configuration management policies, covering all endpoint types (internal, customer, third-party), including definitions of supported OS platforms and enforcement of consistent software baselines. 2. Confirm that compatibility validation is implemented through automated diagnostic tools, capable of identifying noncompliant endpoint configurations and triggering remedial actions (e.g., OS upgrade, patching) before granting network access. 3. Inspect whether the policy defines change control requirements for all configuration updates, including tracking of why, what, and how changes are made, and formal approval procedures. 4. Review implementation artifacts, such as compatibility test reports, tool outputs, OS standardization procedures, configuration baselines, and remediation logs. 5. Ensure misconfigured or outdated endpoints are detected and remediated proactively, with audit trails, automated enforcement mechanisms, and periodic policy review aligned to cloud security and operational requirements. From CCM: 1. Examine the process for endpoint compatibility validation. 2. Determine if the process produces a published compatibility matrix.
Standards mappings
ISO 42001 - A.4.5 ISO 42001 - 6.2.4 ISO 27001 - A.8.19 ISO 27001 - A.8.26
Addendum
N/A
No Mapping
Addendum
Define and implement a process for the validation of the endpoint device's compatibility with operating systems and applications.
MS-2.6-005
Addendum
NIST AI 600-1 does not fully cover the UEM-03 topic that requires a process to validate compatibility with the OS, only the activity of testing AI system architecture.
C4 SR-02 C5 AM-05
Addendum
N/A
AI-CAIQ questions (1)
Is a process defined and implemented to validate endpoint device compatibility with operating systems and applications?