Pass the Isaca AI-Centric Security Management AAISM Questions and answers with CertsForce

AAISM guidance states that when adopting AI, the most important step is to conduct a risk assessment and update the enterprise risk register. This ensures AI-specific risks are identified, documented, and integrated into the organization’s existing governance structures. Benchmarking peers provides context but does not address internal risk. Implementing methodologies and frameworks are important, but they precede or follow the assessment process. The decisive step that connects adoption to enterprise risk governance is updating the risk register with AI-specific risks.

Data lineage records and monitors the end-to-end journey of data—sources, movements, transformations, storage locations, uses, and dependencies—providing traceability, auditability, and accountability across the AI lifecycle. “Origin” is a single point (provenance), “transformation” is one step within the flow, and “processing” is a general activity rather than a governance record of the entire path.

AAISM defines cryptographic tracking and verification as the best control for ensuring the integrity of training data. By applying hashing and verification methods, organizations can confirm that datasets remain unaltered and authentic throughout collection, storage, and processing. Collecting only necessary data, proper storage, or clear documentation all support governance and compliance, but they do not guarantee that the data has not been tampered with. Integrity is specifically ensured by cryptographic verification techniques.

AAISM identifies fairness constraints (e.g., constrained optimization, debiasing objectives, conditional generation controls, and post-processing calibrations) as the most direct, measurable method to mitigate disparate outcomes in generative systems. While data augmentation can help with coverage, and adversarial training improves robustness, fairness constraints explicitly target distributional fairness and outcome equity in generated content, aligning with governance and compliance goals.

The most effective SOC application of AI is in detecting subtle, hard-to-find attack patterns that reduce false negatives.

AAISM technical control guidance notes that AI in SOCs is best applied to:

Enhance detection accuracy and sensitivity to anomalies.

Assist analysts in identifying hidden patterns that traditional rule-based systems miss.

Augment—not replace—human decision-making for high-confidence outcomes.

Options B and C incorrectly shift responsibility entirely to AI, which contradicts governance principles requiring human oversight. Option D is useful for efficiency, but the primary effectiveness comes from improving detection quality.

Therefore, the most effective use is to reduce false negatives and detect subtle attacks.

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 prescribes Preparation as the foundational phase of AI incident response. The first priority is to form and empower a cross-functional incident response (IR) team with AI/ML expertise (security, data science, product, legal/compliance). Only once the accountable team exists can you define playbooks, communications, containment/eradication steps, recovery processes, and escalation paths. Without a designated team, procedures and channels lack ownership and effectiveness.

AAISM identifies percentage of AI projects in compliance as the most relevant KRI for evaluating AI risk management effectiveness. This metric directly reflects adherence to governance, regulatory, and security requirements. The number of models deployed (A) or systems with AI components (B) indicate scale, not risk management quality. Training requests (D) show awareness levels but do not measure effectiveness of risk management. Compliance percentage provides a direct, measurable indication of how well risks are being governed and mitigated.

Prompt hacking manipulates large language models by injecting adversarial instructions into inputs to bypass or override safeguards. The AAISM framework identifies adversarial testing as the most effective way to simulate such manipulative attempts, expose vulnerabilities, and improve the resilience of controls. Load testing evaluates performance, input testing checks format validation, and regression testing validates functionality after changes. None of these directly address the manipulation of natural language inputs. Adversarial testing is therefore the correct approach to mitigate prompt hacking risks.

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.