AICM AtlasCSA AI Controls Matrix
UEM · Universal Endpoint Management
UEM-07Cloud & AI Related

Operating Systems

Specification

Manage changes to endpoint operating systems, patch levels, and/or applications through the company's change management processes.

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

Training

Evaluation

Validation/Red Teaming, Re-evaluation

Deployment

Orchestration, AI Services supply chain, AI applications

Delivery

Operations, Maintenance, Continuous monitoring, Continuous improvement

Retirement

Not applicable

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

[Applicable to all actors except CSP]  
1. Align OS and critical application patching and update schedules across MP, OSP, AP, and AIC so all endpoints receive critical security updates 
within an agreed timeframe, minimizing any one party’s exposure to vulnerabilities.

2. Use UEM-driven reports to verify OS version and patch level compliance uniformly; all stakeholders should regularly 
exchange endpoint patch status or attestations to ensure mutual trust in each other’s device security posture.

3. Coordinate major operating system changes through a joint change management process – if one provider plans a 
significant OS upgrade or configuration change, notify and review with other stakeholders (e.g., via a cross-organization 
Change Advisory Board) to preempt compatibility or security issues.

4. Rapidly communicate and address emergency OS vulnerabilities as a team: if a zero-day patch is released, all parties 
agree to fast-track its deployment and inform one another when their endpoints have been updated, maintaining parity 
in defense.

Auditing guidelines

1. Verify that the CSP has a documented Change and Patch Management Policy for customer‑facing and corporate endpoints, defining supported OS versions, patch cadence, and enforcement mechanisms.

2. Inspect the policy for formal governance, roles/responsibilities, approval processes, and scheduled policy reviews.

3. Confirm the policy mandates automated compatibility checks and remediation tooling (e.g., patch agents, OS upgrade scripts) before endpoint network access.

4. Verify that the policy requires testing patches/OS upgrades in isolated environments and integrates vulnerability scans into the change workflow.

5. Review system outputs (inventory data, automated diagnostic logs, patch/uninstall records, change‑approval tickets, and audit trails) to ensure endpoints comply with CSP’s OS management policy.

From CCM: 
1. Examine the organization's change management policy for controls related to changes on endpoints.
2. Determine if such controls are in place for making changes to production and infrastructure systems and if the controls are evaluated as effective.

Standards mappings

ISO 42001No Gap
ISO 42001 - A.6.2.6
ISO 27001 - A.8.32
Addendum

N/A

EU AI ActFull Gap
No Mapping
Addendum

Manage changes to endpoint operating systems, patch levels, and/or applications through the company's change management processes.

NIST AI 600-1Partial Gap
MG-3.1-003
Addendum

The NIST AI 600-1 control only partial supports the UEM-07 topic of change management to endpoint devices. It only speaks to reassessing risks (which could be from changes that took place), but it doesn't address change management such as patching, updates, and or such activities, nor mention endpoints.

BSI AIC4Partial Gap
C4 PF-07
C5 AM-02
C5 AM-05
C5 DEV-03
Addendum

No C4 control speaks to UEM-07 topic of change, patch, update requirements for devices (i.e. endpoints).

AI-CAIQ questions (1)

UEM-07.1

Are changes to endpoint operating systems, patch levels, and/or applications managed through the organizational change management process?