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

The AAISM study framework describes evasion attacks as attempts to manipulate or probe a trained model during inference by using crafted inputs that appear normal but cause the system to generate inconsistent or erroneous outputs. Contradictory results from nearly identical queries are a typical symptom of evasion, as the attacker is probing decision boundaries to find weaknesses. Poisoning attacks occur during training, not inference, while membership inference relates to exposing whether data was part of the training set, and model exfiltration involves extracting proprietary parameters or architecture. The clearest indication of contradictory outputs from similar queries therefore aligns directly with the definition of evasion attacks in AAISM materials.

AAISM guidance identifies metrics like error rate versus total predictions as a key performance indicator (KPI) for evaluating AI model effectiveness. KPIs provide measurable values to assess performance against objectives. Model validation is broader and occurs prior to production use, testing the model against predefined standards. Control self-assessment relates to governance processes, not predictive accuracy. Explainable decision-making refers to interpretability, not error-rate evaluation. Thus, analyzing incorrect predictions against total predictions is a performance measure, making it a KPI.

AAISM emphasizes that the primary objective of responsible AI is to establish and maintain trust in AI-driven decisions and predictions. Trust is achieved through transparency, accountability, fairness, and governance. While confidentiality and integrity are critical technical objectives, they are not the overarching purpose of responsible AI service provision. Autonomy and learning ability are features of AI, but without trust, adoption and compliance falter. The correct answer is that responsible AI services must focus on building trust in AI outcomes.

AAISM governance practices state that before categorizing technologies by risk, the first step is to ensure that all AI systems are documented in the organizational asset inventory. A complete inventory provides the foundation for subsequent risk analysis, accountability, and governance. Grouping solutions, identifying vulnerabilities, and assessing risk levels come afterward, once inventory accuracy is established. Without confirming that the technologies are recorded in the inventory, risk categorization may miss critical assets.

The AAISM governance framework notes that in multi-party AI ecosystems, the greatest challenge is ensuring clear accountability for AI outputs. When models from different parties interact, responsibility for errors, bias, or harmful recommendations can be unclear, leading to disputes and compliance gaps. While aggregate risk assessment and error identification are significant, they are secondary to the fundamental governance requirement of establishing transparent lines of responsibility. Without defined accountability, no stakeholder can reliably manage or mitigate risks. Therefore, the greatest challenge in such a distributed architecture is responsibility for AI outputs.

AAISM defines automation bias as the tendency of individuals to over-rely on AI-generated outputs even when contradictory real-world evidence is available. In this scenario, the driver ignores traffic signs and follows the AI’s instructions, showing blind reliance on automation. Selection bias relates to data sampling, reporting bias refers to misrepresentation of results, and confirmation bias involves interpreting information to fit pre-existing beliefs. The most accurate description is automation bias.

According to AAISM technical controls, the element of security frameworks that directly safeguards output integrity is ensuring that bias-related risks are maintained within acceptable ranges. This ensures that AI results remain consistent, fair, and reliable, preserving trust in outputs. Ethical awareness, architectural disclosure, and legal responsibilities are governance practices but do not directly secure output integrity. Output integrity is primarily protected through bias management and ongoing evaluation of fairness and accuracy.