Certified: The GIAC GSLC Audio Course

In this episode, we treat AI risk management as a security and governance responsibility, not as an afterthought attached to shiny new tools. When organizations adopt AI quickly, the first failures are often not technical in a narrow sense, but operational: sensitive data ends up in the wrong place, outputs are trusted too much, and systems get used in ways they were never designed to handle. AI can support productivity and decision-making, but it also introduces new pathways for data leakage, new opportunities for manipulation through prompts, and new forms of misuse that can harm customers, employees, and the organization’s reputation. The goal is to protect data, protect people, and protect decisions by building controls that fit how AI is actually used in day-to-day work. This is not about banning tools or creating fear; it is about building boundaries that let teams get value safely. AI risk management works when it is concrete, enforceable, and embedded in workflows, because vague warnings are ignored under pressure. When leaders and practitioners treat AI as a system with inputs, access, and outputs, they can design controls that are both practical and effective. This episode gives you a disciplined way to think about those controls and why they matter.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Data leakage is one of the most immediate and damaging AI risks, and it should be defined plainly as sensitive information leaving your control boundaries. Control boundaries include your organization’s approved storage locations, your access control model, and your contractual and legal obligations about where data can be processed and retained. Leakage can occur when an employee pastes confidential data into an external assistant, when an internal system sends sensitive context to a model without proper filtering, or when logs and transcripts capture data that should never be stored. Leakage is not always malicious; it is often accidental, driven by convenience and a lack of clarity about what is safe to share. AI tools make leakage easier because they invite people to paste context, and the interface can feel like a private conversation even when it is not. Leaders must understand that the moment sensitive data leaves approved boundaries, the organization may lose the ability to guarantee deletion, retention limits, and access restrictions. That can create compliance exposure and reputational harm even if no attacker is involved. The right mindset is that AI is a data handling pathway, and it must be governed with the same seriousness as any other data processing system.

Prompt abuse is a different kind of risk, and it is best understood as manipulating the system’s outputs and behavior through carefully crafted inputs. An attacker or a curious user can use prompts to try to bypass restrictions, extract sensitive information, or induce the model to behave in ways that undermine your policies. Prompt abuse can be external, such as a customer interacting with an AI-enabled support bot, or internal, such as an employee attempting to get the system to reveal restricted content or generate prohibited instructions. The important point is that prompt abuse exploits the fact that many AI systems are designed to follow user instructions, and that instruction-following can be pushed into unsafe territory when controls are weak. Prompt abuse can also include indirect methods, such as embedding instructions inside documents, web pages, or data sources that the model is asked to summarize, causing the model to follow malicious embedded instructions rather than the user’s true intent. This is especially relevant for systems that retrieve and summarize content from untrusted sources, because the model can be influenced by what it reads. Leaders should treat prompt abuse as a form of input-based attack, analogous to injection problems in traditional systems, even though the mechanics differ. When you frame it this way, it becomes natural to apply familiar security thinking: validate inputs, constrain behavior, and monitor outputs.

Access controls are a foundational mitigation because AI capabilities must not be available to everyone in the same way, especially when systems can access sensitive context or take actions. Setting access controls means deciding who can use which AI tools, for which tasks, and with which data types, and then enforcing those rules through authentication, role-based permissions, and environment separation. It also means limiting who can configure system prompts, connect data sources, and deploy changes to AI behavior, because configuration is power. Access controls should align with job roles and the principle of least privilege, because giving broad access to powerful systems expands the blast radius of mistakes and misuse. In many organizations, the first step is simply ensuring that AI systems require organizational authentication rather than anonymous access, and that usage is logged for accountability. More mature controls include separating environments so that experimental systems cannot access production data, and restricting which groups can connect internal knowledge bases or customer data stores. Access control design should also consider third parties and contractors, because they may have access to systems and data but different obligations and risk profiles. When access is controlled deliberately, AI becomes less likely to be used in high-risk ways by default. This is one of the most practical ways to reduce risk without eliminating value.

A common pitfall is feeding confidential data into AI tools without safeguards, often because teams do not realize the data is confidential in the moment or because they assume the tool’s interface implies privacy. This pitfall shows up in help desk and support contexts, where people paste logs, customer records, screenshots, or internal incident details to get faster assistance. It also shows up in development contexts, where code and configuration are pasted for debugging, even when those artifacts contain secrets, proprietary logic, or sensitive architecture details. The danger is that once data is submitted, it may be stored, used for service improvement, or exposed to personnel outside your organization depending on the tool and the contract. Even if the vendor has strong security, you may still be violating your own policies or regulatory obligations by sending the data. This pitfall also creates a false sense of safety, because the immediate value of an answer can obscure the longer-term exposure. Preventing it requires both policy clarity and technical guardrails, because relying on awareness alone will fail under time pressure. The best programs assume people will try to paste data and therefore engineer systems that prevent or reduce harm when it happens. This is a predictable human behavior problem, not a moral problem.

A quick win that reduces leakage risk is classifying data and restricting AI inputs based on data class, because classification provides a simple rule set that people and systems can follow. If data is classified as public, internal, confidential, or restricted, then the organization can define which classes are allowed in which AI tools. For example, public and internal data might be allowed in certain approved assistants, while confidential and restricted data might require an internal model deployment with strict controls or might be prohibited entirely. The power of this approach is that it scales, because teams do not need a new policy for every data type; they need a simple mapping from class to allowed handling. This also enables technical enforcement, such as filtering or blocking uploads of certain data types or patterns, and it supports training that is clear and actionable. Classification also helps with vendor management, because you can define contractually what data classes may be processed and what retention and deletion requirements apply. The goal is to reduce ambiguity in the moment, because ambiguity is where people make risky choices under pressure. When data classes map to AI usage rules, risk management becomes a practical habit.

Consider a scenario where an employee pastes customer data into an assistant because they want help drafting a response or analyzing a support issue. The employee likely believes they are helping the customer faster, and that intent is understandable, but the act may violate data handling obligations. In a mature program, the response begins with preventing the action where possible, such as using tooling that blocks sensitive patterns or that restricts external AI tools from receiving certain classes of data. If the action occurs, the program should have a defined incident pathway so the event is treated as a data handling issue, with steps to assess what data was shared, which system received it, and what retention and deletion options exist. The response should also include coaching, because the employee needs a safe alternative, such as an approved internal tool, redaction patterns, or a template that allows assistance without exposing customer identifiers. The scenario also underscores the need for clear acceptable-use rules that are easy to follow, because employees in the moment need guidance that is practical, not a long policy document. Monitoring can also help detect such events through usage logs and content scanning, allowing the organization to respond quickly. The lesson is that the scenario will happen somewhere in your organization, so governance should be designed for the reality of human behavior. When you provide safe paths, employees can remain productive without taking hidden risks.

Monitoring outputs is a necessary layer because even when inputs are controlled, AI systems can generate sensitive content, policy-violating content, or misleading guidance that causes harm. Output monitoring can include scanning for sensitive data patterns, checking for prohibited content categories, and reviewing high-impact outputs before they are used externally. In security contexts, output monitoring is especially important when models summarize incident data, propose remediations, or draft communications, because incorrect or overly confident output can cause operational mistakes. Monitoring should also include auditing for unusual usage patterns, such as repeated attempts to get the system to produce restricted content or large volumes of queries that suggest abuse. Output monitoring should be tied to escalation paths, because detecting a violation is only useful if the organization can respond, correct, and improve controls. It is also important to design monitoring with privacy in mind, because monitoring that captures too much can create its own data handling risk. The goal is to monitor enough to detect problems and enforce policy, without creating a surveillance system that undermines trust. A balanced approach uses targeted detection for sensitive patterns and high-risk contexts, paired with sampling and periodic review. When output monitoring is treated as operational hygiene, it becomes an early warning system rather than a reactive discovery after harm occurs.

Model misuse is a broader category that includes using AI systems to generate harmful instructions, scams, or content that enables wrongdoing. In organizational settings, misuse can include generating social engineering messages, crafting phishing templates, writing malicious code, or producing misleading content that impersonates internal authority. Misuse can also be subtle, such as using AI to justify biased decisions or to produce convincing but false explanations that influence stakeholders. Addressing misuse requires both policy and controls, because some users will attempt risky behavior intentionally while others will stumble into it through curiosity. Controls can include restricting certain capabilities, limiting access to powerful features, and applying content filters that block clearly harmful outputs. Policies should define unacceptable uses clearly and tie them to consequences, but policies alone will not stop misuse if tools are widely accessible and unmonitored. The organization should also provide safe alternatives for legitimate needs, such as approved templates for communications and training on recognizing social engineering patterns. In a mature program, misuse is treated as a security risk that can be monitored, investigated, and mitigated, not as an abstract ethics concern. Leaders should ensure that AI governance includes misuse scenarios explicitly, because ignoring them invites embarrassing and damaging events. When misuse is anticipated, controls can be built before incidents occur.

AI-related security events need incident paths that are defined in advance, because during an event you do not want to invent process while risk unfolds. Incident paths should cover events like suspected data leakage through AI tools, prompt abuse attempts that succeed or repeatedly occur, policy violations in generated outputs, and misuse of AI systems to craft scams or malicious content. The path should define who is notified, how evidence is collected, how containment happens, and how communications are handled. Evidence collection might include usage logs, model configuration snapshots, and records of inputs and outputs where appropriate and allowed, because understanding what happened requires reconstructing the interaction. Containment might include disabling a feature, restricting access temporarily, or adjusting filters and policy gates. Post-incident actions should include improving controls, updating acceptable-use rules, and tuning monitoring so the same pattern is detected earlier next time. This is also where vendor coordination might be required, especially if the tool is external and you need retention details or deletion confirmation. Treating AI events as real incidents also helps organizations avoid minimizing them as user mistakes, because mistakes can still create reportable exposure. When incident paths are clear, the organization can respond calmly and effectively.

A memory anchor that captures the operational discipline is control inputs, control access, monitor outputs always, because those three levers map directly to the main risk pathways. Controlling inputs reduces leakage and reduces the chance that the model receives sensitive data or malicious instructions that change behavior. Controlling access reduces misuse by limiting who can use the system and who can connect it to sensitive data sources or action capabilities. Monitoring outputs catches both accidental and intentional violations, and it provides detection of harmful behavior that slips past input controls. The always part matters because risk is continuous; models are used every day, and drift or policy changes can alter behavior over time. This anchor helps leaders and practitioners avoid focusing on only one control layer, such as policy statements, while ignoring technical enforcement and monitoring. It also provides a simple way to evaluate new AI proposals: how will inputs be controlled, how will access be controlled, and how will outputs be monitored. When these questions have clear answers, governance is more likely to be effective. The anchor is a practical tool for keeping AI risk discussions grounded.

Vendor transparency is a critical requirement because external AI tools often involve data handling and retention practices that can create compliance and security exposure. Organizations should require clarity on how data is transmitted, stored, retained, and deleted, and whether data is used for model improvement or shared across tenants. They should also require clarity on who can access the data on the vendor side and what controls exist to prevent unauthorized access. Transparency should extend to logging and auditability, because organizations may need to investigate incidents and demonstrate compliance. Retention controls matter because even if a user accidentally submits sensitive data, the organization needs to know whether it can be deleted and what evidence of deletion can be provided. Vendor transparency also affects risk classification, because certain tools may be suitable only for public or internal data, while others may be suitable for more sensitive classes under stricter contracts. The point is not to demand perfection; it is to know the reality so governance can match it. Without transparency, leaders cannot make informed risk decisions, and the organization may accept obligations it cannot meet. Requiring transparency is one of the simplest ways to prevent hidden risk from entering the environment.

As a mini-review, keep three AI risks and one control for each in mind so governance stays actionable. Data leakage risk can be controlled by data classification rules that restrict what can be entered into AI tools and by technical controls that block sensitive patterns where feasible. Prompt abuse risk can be controlled by input validation and guardrails, including limiting the model’s ability to follow untrusted instructions and monitoring for repeated bypass attempts. Model misuse risk can be controlled by role-based access controls that limit who can access powerful capabilities and by policy enforcement that blocks clearly harmful outputs and logs attempts. These pairings matter because they show that each risk has a practical control lever, and that governance is not merely awareness training. The mini-review also reinforces that controls should be layered, because no single control is sufficient in all contexts. When leaders can name risks and controls simply, they can support governance decisions and resource allocation more effectively. This is how AI risk management becomes part of normal security practice rather than an ad hoc reaction to incidents.

To conclude, write one AI acceptable-use rule for your team that is specific enough to follow and specific enough to enforce. A strong rule defines what classes of data are allowed, what kinds of decisions the tool may support, and what actions are prohibited, such as submitting customer identifiers or confidential incident details into unapproved tools. The rule should also define the required oversight for high-impact uses, making clear that AI outputs are advisory and must be validated before being used for approvals or external communications. Pair the rule with a safe alternative, such as an approved internal tool or a redaction approach, because rules without alternatives create pressure to bypass. Ensure the rule is backed by monitoring and incident pathways, so violations are detected and handled consistently rather than ignored until harm occurs. Start small and practical, because adoption depends on clarity, and clarity depends on simplicity. Over time, you can expand the rules into a broader policy set, but one well-written rule is a meaningful first step. When teams have clear acceptable-use guidance and the organization controls inputs, controls access, and monitors outputs, AI can be used productively without becoming a new source of unmanaged security risk.