AAISM Exam Dumps - Isaca AI-Centric Security Management Questions and Answers

In AAISM governance guidance, risk documentation is described as the structured record that defines the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance levels for AI initiatives. By outlining acceptable levels of risk, documentation ensures decision-makers can approve, monitor, and adjust AI projects within defined boundaries. While it may also serve audit functions, technical analysis, or communication to stakeholders, its primary role is to formalize risk acceptance thresholds and integrate them into governance and decision-making. This aligns directly with the governance requirement to align AI adoption with organizational risk appetite.

The most effective strategy tominimize attack surfacesin AI agent security is to applycompartmentalization and least privilege enforcement.

AAISM control frameworks emphasize:

Isolation of components (e.g., training, inference, data pipelines) to limit lateral movement.

Principle ofleast privilegeto restrict access only to what is required for function.

Hardening AI pipelines through segmentation rather than relying solely on manual reviews or monitoring.

Pre-trained models and log centralization are useful but do not directly reduce the attack surface.Manual code reviewsare important but insufficient against runtime exploitation.

Thus,compartmentalization with least privilege enforcementis the most effective technical safeguard.

AAISM’s risk management guidance notes that the most effective application of AI in incident response is in automating triage activities. AI systems can rapidly analyze logs, alerts, and telemetry to prioritize incidents, reducing response times and allowing human analysts to focus on critical issues. Streamlining testing and improving playbooks are valuable but secondary benefits. Ensuring chain of custody is critical for legal admissibility of evidence but is primarily a human and process-driven control, not AI’s strength. The greatest efficiency and effectiveness comes from AI-driven triage automation.

AAISM risk management guidance clarifies that the organization’s risk tolerance is the most important factor in determining how much monitoring is needed. Risk tolerance specifies the amount of risk the organization is willing to accept and defines the threshold for triggering monitoring or mitigation activities. Risk appetite is broader and strategic, while tolerance sets the operational limits. The number of users may influence scale, and compensating controls may affect resilience, but neither dictates monitoring intensity as directly as risk tolerance.

AAISM risk guidance notes that the most stringent recovery objectives apply to industrial control systems, as downtime can directly disrupt critical infrastructure, manufacturing, or safety operations. Health support systems also require high availability, but industrial control often underpins safety-critical and real-time environments where delays can result in catastrophic outcomes. Credit risk models and navigation systems are important but less critical in terms of immediate physical and operational impact. Thus, industrial control systems require the tightest RTO.

AAISM study materials stress that weak access controls are the most easily exploited vulnerability in AI systems. Without strong access restrictions, adversaries can directly query, extract, manipulate, or overload models, leading to data leakage or compromised outputs. While inaccurate generalizations, DoS vulnerabilities, or susceptibility to input manipulation are serious, they typically require more effort or specific conditions. Weak access control provides the most direct and immediate entry point for attackers. As such, it is identified as the most easily exploited vulnerability.

AAISM highlights that the core ethical risk in AI is the perpetuation of bias that results in unfair or discriminatory outcomes. Therefore, the most important validation step is ensuring that outputs of AI systems are free from adverse biases. A responsible development policy, stakeholder approvals, and privacy reviews all contribute to governance, but they do not directly ensure ethical outcomes. Validation of output fairness is the critical safeguard for ensuring AI does not violate ethical principles.

According to AAISM governance principles, when AI functionality is added to existing services, the first consideration is contractual and service-level accountability. If AI outputs cannot be predefined, the existing service agreements may no longer reflect performance responsibilities or liability. Revising or updating the agreement ensures governance alignment, accountability, and risk management for AI-driven behavior. Phased approaches and performance explanations are valuable but occur later in project management. Developer accountability for customer inquiries is not a primary governance step. The most immediate consideration is revising service agreements when AI introduces new uncertainties.

AAISM vendor governance guidance identifies regular audits of vendor processes as the most effective method of ensuring compliance with ethical and security standards. Independent audits provide verifiable assurance that vendors are meeting agreed-upon requirements. Self-attestation, internal monitoring, or documentation sharing provide some transparency but do not guarantee compliance. The best practice, particularly for high-risk AI deployments, is independent and recurring audits of vendor processes.

The AAISM materials highlight that one of the primary legal risks with generative AI systems is the unauthorized use of copyrighted or intellectual property–protected data drawn from internet sources. To mitigate lawsuits, the most effective recommendation is to implement filtering logic that actively excludes data flagged for intellectual property risks before ingestion or generation. While disclosing compliance policies, appointing governance roles, or reviewing logs are supportive measures, they do not directly prevent the core liability of using restricted content. The study guide explicitly emphasizes that proactive filtering and data governance controls are the most effective safeguards against legal disputes concerning content origin.