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

AAISM’s risk management framework stresses that the most effective defense against deepfake-enabled fraud, such as payment diversion, is resilient payment approval processes. This includes multi-step verification, segregation of duties, and independent confirmations for high-value transactions. Employee training, policies, or limiting payment frequency may reduce exposure, but they cannot guarantee prevention. Only process-based controls enforce structural safeguards that prevent fraudulent instructions from being executed, even if a deepfake impersonation attempt is successful.

According to AAISM study guidance, the most direct and effective way to obtain large volumes of diverse data for application testing is through open-source data repositories. These repositories provide freely available, well-documented, and often standardized data that supports testing and benchmarking in a compliant manner. Model cards document AI behavior but do not provide data. Incorporating search content may introduce legal, privacy, and quality risks. Data augmentation is useful for expanding existing sets but does not provide the breadth or size required when starting with insufficient data. The recommended best practice for sourcing large testing datasets is therefore the use of open-source repositories.

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.

The AAISM framework explains that embedding unique identifiers—such as digital watermarks or model fingerprints—enables organizations to trace and verify model provenance. This technique is used for tracking ownership and intellectual property rights over models, particularly when sharing, licensing, or distributing AI systems. While identifiers may support certain security functions, their primary control objective is ownership verification, not preventing access, bias removal, or adversarial detection. The correct alignment with AAISM controls is tracking ownership.

AAISM categorizes the manipulation of an LLM at inference time, where crafted inputs cause outputs to serve attacker objectives, as an evasion attack. Evasion attacks exploit weaknesses in the model’s decision-making boundaries by altering queries to produce compromised or misleading outputs. Privilege escalation refers to unauthorized access rights, data poisoning targets the training phase, and model inversion reconstructs training data. In this case, manipulation of outputs to align with an attacker’s goals reflects an evasion attack.

AAISM materials identify the primary benefit of moderation controls in generative AI systems as their ability to filter out harmful, offensive, or inappropriate content before it is delivered to users. This safeguards organizational reputation, compliance, and user trust. While moderation may indirectly support compliance with privacy requirements, its main function is ensuring that outputs align with ethical and safety standards. Moderation does not enhance creativity or response speed. Its primary value is in controlling the quality of generated outputs by blocking harmful content.

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.

AAISM lifecycle governance guidance specifies that before any AI solution is moved into production, it must undergo testing, evaluation, validation, and verification to ensure accuracy, resilience, security, and compliance with standards. These steps confirm that the solution performs as expected under varied conditions. Conducting gap analysis is part of compliance checks but comes earlier in design. Management sign-off provides approval but cannot substitute for assurance of technical reliability. Deploying prototypes is a testing method but not the final assurance step. The critical requirement is a complete cycle of testing, validation, and verification.

AAISM materials emphasize that the most effective preventive safeguard is to ensure input sanitization. Preventive controls stop malicious or malformed inputs from reaching the model in the first place, thereby reducing the likelihood of prompt injection, evasion, or poisoning at inference time. Model output monitoring is a detective control, not preventive. Penetration testing is an assessment technique rather than a safeguard. Differential privacy protects data privacy but does not prevent adversarial input manipulation. Therefore, the most important preventive safeguard in a new AI product is robust input sanitization.

AAISM governance practices emphasize automation as the most effective way to maintain comprehensive, accurate, and scalable data classification and inventory management. An automated data cataloging tool integrated with all repositories ensures continuous visibility, reduces human error, and supports regulatory compliance. Centralized teams and manual processes provide oversight but cannot achieve the same scale and consistency. Periodic audits detect issues but are reactive rather than proactive. For effective governance, the best solution is automated cataloging integrated across data repositories.