Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Adapting cybersecurity frameworks to manage frontier AI risks: A defense-in-depth approach

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2408.07933 v1 pith:PBN5P5EK submitted 2024-08-15 cs.CY cs.CR

classification cs.CYcs.CR
keywords approachfrontierlifecyclemanagementcybersecurityframeworkriskactivities
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

The complex and evolving threat landscape of frontier AI development requires a multi-layered approach to risk management ("defense-in-depth"). By reviewing cybersecurity and AI frameworks, we outline three approaches that can help identify gaps in the management of AI-related risks. First, a functional approach identifies essential categories of activities ("functions") that a risk management approach should cover, as in the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) and AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF). Second, a lifecycle approach instead assigns safety and security activities across the model development lifecycle, as in DevSecOps and the OECD AI lifecycle framework. Third, a threat-based approach identifies tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by malicious actors, as in the MITRE ATT&CK and MITRE ATLAS databases. We recommend that frontier AI developers and policymakers begin by adopting the functional approach, given the existence of the NIST AI RMF and other supplementary guides, but also establish a detailed frontier AI lifecycle model and threat-based TTP databases for future use.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools