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

Membership inference attacks attempt to determine whether a particular data point was part of a model’s training set, which risks violating privacy. The AAISM study guide highlights differential privacy as the most effective mitigation because it introduces mathematical noise that obscures individual contributions without significantly degrading model performance. Ensemble methods improve robustness but do not specifically protect privacy. Threat modeling and red teaming help identify risks but are not direct controls. The explicit mitigation control aligned with privacy preservation for membership inference is differential privacy.

Deep learning models learn high-dimensional, non-linear representations through layered parameterization that resists simple causal narratives. The internal mechanisms (e.g., distributed feature representations and complex statistical transformations) are difficult to map to human-interpretable rules, making explanation challenging. This is the primary reason for explainability difficulty in deep learning.

Option A addresses data origin/volatility, not explainability. Option B mischaracterizes model behavior as mutable “knowledge” without logs. Option C notes probabilistic foundations but that alone does not make systems inexplicable.

AAISM governance guidance emphasizes that stakeholder buy-in is sustained when the measurable value of AI initiatives is clearly communicated. Value demonstrations include:

• improved efficiency

• reduced cost

• reduced risk

• business growth

Training (B) and risk optimization (C) are important but do not guarantee stakeholder support. A roadmap (D) guides planning but does not secure buy-in.

AAISM guidance on privacy-preserving AI highlights anonymization as the most effective means of protecting personal data used in training. By irreversibly removing or masking identifiable attributes, anonymization ensures that training data cannot be linked back to individuals, thereby meeting key privacy obligations under laws such as GDPR. Erasing data after training may limit exposure but does not protect it during the training process. Ensuring data quality improves accuracy but does not mitigate privacy risk. Hashing protects data integrity but does not guarantee anonymity, as hashes can sometimes be reversed or correlated. Therefore, anonymization is the recommended control for protecting personal data in AI training.

Differential privacy aims to protect the privacy of any single individual’s data contribution while still enabling useful aggregate learning and statistical analysis. Noise mechanisms are calibrated so that results remain informative for modeling (e.g., fraud patterns) without revealing whether any particular person’s data was included or enabling inference about them. Accuracy, speed, and compute efficiency can be secondary considerations, but the primary objective is privacy protection with utility preserved.

Model drift occurs when the statistical properties of input data and/or the relationship between features and outcomes change over time, causing degraded model performance. The AAISM guidance classifies data-centric causes (distribution shift, concept drift, and contamination) as the primary drivers and highlights that malicious contamination of training or incremental learning data (data poisoning) is a direct, high-likelihood driver of observable drift in production because it changes the effective data-generating process the model learns from. In contrast:

• Perfect knowledge is an attacker capability descriptor, not a drift cause.

• Membership inference targets privacy of the training set and does not inherently shift data distributions.

• Model stealing targets IP/confidentiality; it does not change the victim model’s data distribution or decision boundary in situ.

AAISM technical coverage identifies recall as the metric that specifically measures a model’s ability to capture all true positive cases out of the total actual positives. A high recall means the system minimizes false negatives, ensuring that relevant instances are not overlooked. Precision instead measures correctness among predicted positives, specificity focuses on true negatives, and the F1 score balances precision and recall but does not by itself indicate the completeness of capturing positives. The official study guide defines recall as the most direct metric for evaluating how well a model identifies all relevant positive cases, making it the correct answer.

AAISM materials identify human-in-the-loop governance as the most effective safeguard against risks such as hallucinations in AI systems used in high-stakes domains like healthcare. By ensuring that human experts validate outputs before they influence patient treatment decisions, organizations preserve accountability, safety, and accuracy. Penetration testing is a cybersecurity measure, not relevant to hallucination risk. AI impact analysis helps evaluate systemic effects but does not directly prevent faulty outputs. Data validation improves input quality but cannot fully prevent generative hallucinations. The key safeguard is human-in-the-loop oversight.

Output provenance verification (e.g., robust watermarking, cryptographic signing, content credentials, and chain-of-custody attestations) is the primary preventive and detective control to combat deepfakes at scale. It enables receivers and downstream systems to verify that media originates from trusted sources and has not been tampered with. While risk assessments (Option B) and governance policies (Option C) set expectations, they do not technically prevent forged media. Input validation (Option D) does not address media authenticity once generated or received.

AAISM’s risk management content describes red-teaming in generative AI as focused on deliberately crafting adversarial prompts to test whether the model produces unexpected or undesired outputs that violate safety, integrity, or compliance standards. The goal is not to stress system performance or randomly disrupt outputs, but rather to uncover vulnerabilities in how the model responds to manipulative inputs. This allows organizations to improve resilience against prompt injection, jailbreaking, or harmful content generation. The correct answer is therefore generate outputs that are unexpected using adversarial inputs.