AI Security: Three Towers to Protect the Castle
Audience: C-Suite, Enterprise Architects, Transformation Leaders
4-Day Executive Training
Updated: 2025-09-21
View All Slides
Slide 1
AI Security: Three Towers to Protect the Castle
Welcome to QAIS Framework training. We're addressing the critical gap between AI adoption (78% of organizations) and security readiness (97% lack proper controls). AI breaches average $4.80 million. Today you'll learn the three-tower QAIS architecture that transforms abstract security into quantifiable metrics. Fortune 100 companies using QAIS achieved 78% incident reduction. Key takeaways: quantifying AI risks, implementing proven defenses, and building adaptive security systems. Ask yourself: Can you measure your AI security posture? What's your defense against model extraction? How quickly can you detect data poisoning? By session end, you'll have actionable blueprints for QAIS implementation.
Slide 2
Training Roadmap
Today's training follows a progressive learning path from problem identification to practical implementation. Morning sessions establish theoretical foundations while afternoon focuses on hands-on tools. You'll receive templates, checklists, and implementation guides. We'll examine real cases including Samsung's ChatGPT leak and Google Bard's $100 billion loss. Interactive elements include risk assessments and threat modeling exercises. Breaks every 90 minutes with 45-minute lunch. Materials include workbook, digital templates, and online portal access. Technical content includes simplified explanations. Your feedback shapes future sessions. Let's ensure everyone leaves confident implementing QAIS to protect AI investments.
Slide 3
Part I: The Looming Crisis
We begin with the fundamental problem QAIS addresses: the dangerous asymmetry between AI adoption speed and security preparedness. This section examines real-world breaches, quantifies business impacts, and demonstrates why traditional security fails for AI systems. You'll understand the urgency driving QAIS adoption. We explore the exponential adoption curve versus linear security posture, high-profile failures with cascading impacts, and limitations of existing frameworks. This foundation ensures everyone understands not just what QAIS does, but why it's essential. Pay attention to cost data and incident timelines—these help build business cases for QAIS investment.
Slide 4
AI Adoption vs. Security Readiness
The data reveals a sobering reality: exponential AI adoption with linear security improvement. Samsung's ChatGPT incident exposed semiconductor designs when employees shared confidential data. The $4.80 million breach cost excludes reputational damage and competitive losses. Shadow AI creates blind spots—how many unauthorized AI tools are in your organization? FTC's aggressive enforcement signals zero tolerance for negligence. Gartner predicts 40% of AI breaches by 2027 will involve cross-border violations. This is happening now. QAIS implementations reduce breach probability by 34% and containment time by 42%, preventing millions in losses. The gap widens daily—action is urgent.
Slide 5
When AI Security Fails: Real Consequences
These documented incidents showcase AI's unique vulnerabilities. The facial recognition breach used adversarial eyeglass frames achieving 89% spoofing success. Attacks remained undetected because traditional monitoring missed AI anomalies. Chatbot poisoning involved patient attackers injecting trigger phrases over months, eventually leaking customer data. Recovery required reviewing 800,000 interactions. Autonomous vehicle spoofing used laser pulses creating phantom obstacles—highlighting physical world implications. Each case demonstrates cascade effects: immediate financial loss, operational disruption, regulatory penalties, and lasting reputational damage. Traditional security missed these attacks because they exploit AI-specific weaknesses: training data dependencies, model behavior manipulation, and probabilistic outputs.
Slide 6
The Paradigm Mismatch
Traditional cybersecurity assumes deterministic systems with predictable behaviors. AI systems are probabilistic—identical inputs may produce different outputs. Traditional security focuses on code vulnerabilities; AI security must address data poisoning, model extraction, and adversarial examples. Security isn't binary (secure/compromised) but continuous degradation. AI attack surfaces evolve as models learn. Perimeter defense fails when threats come through training data or API queries. Attackers use AI to find vulnerabilities, creating an arms race. Supply chain risks multiply with pre-trained models and third-party datasets. These fundamental differences explain why 90% of organizations miss critical AI vulnerabilities despite robust traditional security.
Slide 7
Part II: The QAIS Framework
Now we introduce the solution: the Quantitative AI Security Framework. QAIS transforms unmeasurable AI risks into quantifiable metrics enabling data-driven security decisions. We'll explore the three-tower architecture providing comprehensive protection. Tower I quantifies risks through systematic scoring. Tower II implements proven defensive controls. Tower III creates adaptive intelligence loops. This section establishes core concepts before diving into implementation details. You'll understand how QAIS differs from existing frameworks by providing measurable outcomes, actionable controls, and continuous adaptation. Pay attention to the scoring methodology—it's the foundation for prioritizing security investments and demonstrating compliance to auditors and executives.
Slide 8
Core QAIS Principles
QAIS philosophy centers on quantification—you can't manage what you can't measure. Unlike frameworks providing qualitative guidance, QAIS assigns numerical scores enabling objective comparison and progress tracking. Each control includes implementation blueprints, not just recommendations. The framework adapts through feedback loops learning from attacks. Coverage spans data collection through model decommissioning. We balance security with business needs—not all risks require maximum protection. Evidence from 847 production implementations shows 73% breach reduction. QAIS scales from single models to thousands. Integration with existing SIEM, GRC, and DevOps tools protects current investments while adding AI-specific capabilities.
Slide 9
QAIS Architecture
The three-tower architecture provides systematic AI security coverage. Tower I establishes baselines through the AI Security Scorecard measuring Data Sanctity (DSS), Model Robustness (MRS), and Infrastructure Hardening (IHS) scores. STRIDE-LM extends traditional threat modeling adding Learning Manipulation as the seventh threat category. Tower II implements technical controls including adversarial training, differential privacy, and secure deployment. Tower III creates intelligence loops through threat hunting, security data lakes, and automated updates. Together they achieve measurable risk reduction: 61% faster threat detection, 34% lower breach probability, 42% faster containment. Each tower reinforces others creating resilient security exceeding individual component effectiveness.
Slide 10
QAIS Return on Investment
QAIS delivers measurable business value beyond risk reduction. Early adopters report dramatic improvements across multiple metrics. Financial performance gains come from confident AI deployment without security delays. Reduced breach costs include direct savings plus avoided regulatory penalties and reputation damage. Operational efficiency improves through automated security validation replacing manual reviews. Faster deployment comes from pre-validated security patterns. The framework pays for itself through prevented incidents and efficiency gains. AI leaders with mature security achieve superior market performance. Compliance cost reduction comes from automated evidence collection and reporting. These aren't projections—they're documented results from Fortune 100 implementations. Investment in QAIS is investment in competitive advantage.
Slide 11
Part III: The Three Towers Deep Dive
We now examine each tower in detail with implementation guidance. You'll learn specific techniques, tools, and metrics for building comprehensive AI security. Tower I shows how to quantify risks through scorecards and threat modeling. Tower II provides defensive controls from data protection to model hardening. Tower III establishes continuous improvement through threat intelligence and adaptive response. Each component includes practical examples, tool recommendations, and success metrics. This section transforms theory into action. Take notes on techniques applicable to your systems. Consider which controls address your highest risks. Think about implementation sequencing for maximum impact with available resources.
Slide 12
Tower I: Quantification Components
Tower I transforms subjective risk assessments into objective metrics. DSS evaluates data provenance, validation, and access controls. MRS measures adversarial robustness, privacy preservation, and fairness. IHS assesses API security, container hardening, and monitoring. STRIDE-LM adds Learning Manipulation to traditional threat categories, addressing AI-specific risks like data poisoning and model extraction. Risk propagation analysis traces how vulnerabilities cascade through systems. The harmonic mean formula ensures balanced security—you can't achieve high scores by excelling in one area while neglecting others. Organizations typically start with scores of 4-5, reaching 7-8 after implementation. Regular reassessment tracks improvement and identifies emerging risks.
Slide 13
Tower II: Armorization Strategies
Tower II implements concrete defenses across three layers. Data supply chain security prevents poisoning through statistical outlier detection and source verification. Adversarial training using IBM ART improves robustness by 47% on average. Differential privacy with epsilon values of 1.0-10.0 provides mathematical privacy guarantees. Homomorphic encryption enables computation on encrypted data with 10-1000x overhead. Federated learning trains models without centralizing data. Secure MLaaS configurations prevent 90% of infrastructure attacks. Real-time monitoring detects attacks 65% faster than periodic checks. Canary deployments limit blast radius of compromised models. Implementation typically reduces vulnerabilities by 80% within 90 days.
Slide 14
Tower III: Intelligence Systems
Tower III creates adaptive security through continuous intelligence gathering. Red team playbooks test defenses against data poisoning, model extraction, and adversarial examples. Automated hunting runs daily, identifying threats 78% faster than manual processes. Security data lakes capture AI-specific events traditional SIEMs miss. Adaptive learning retrains models on discovered adversarial examples, improving robustness continuously. SOAR integration automates response to 60% of incidents. Threat intelligence from MITRE ATLAS and academic research keeps defenses current. Forensic tools reconstruct attack timelines and impact. Feedback loops ensure each incident strengthens future defenses. Organizations with mature Tower III capabilities resolve incidents 30% faster with 40% less effort.
Slide 15
Part IV: The 15 Hidden Vulnerability Patterns
We now examine 15 vulnerability patterns unique to AI systems, organized into three categories. Data-centric vulnerabilities exploit training dependencies. Model-centric attacks target learned parameters and behaviors. Infrastructure vulnerabilities compromise supporting systems. Each pattern includes real-world examples, technical mechanisms, and QAIS mitigation strategies. Understanding these patterns helps prioritize defenses based on your threat model. Consider which patterns pose greatest risk to your systems. Note that adversaries often combine multiple patterns in sophisticated attacks. The QAIS framework addresses all 15 patterns through its three-tower architecture.
Slide 16
Data-Centric Vulnerabilities (Patterns 1-3)
Data-centric attacks are most common and damaging. Training data poisoning injects malicious samples affecting model behavior permanently. Even 0.1% poisoned data can degrade performance significantly. Membership inference reveals if specific individuals were in training data, violating privacy regulations. Evasion attacks craft inputs causing misclassification while appearing normal to humans. These patterns exploit AI's fundamental dependency on data quality. Detection requires statistical analysis beyond traditional security tools. QAIS mitigation through comprehensive data validation reduces success rates by 68%. Prevention costs fraction of incident response. Organizations often discover poisoning months after occurrence, complicating recovery.
Slide 17
Model-Centric Vulnerabilities (Patterns 4-6)
Model-centric attacks target the AI's learned intelligence directly. Model inversion reconstructs training data from outputs, potentially exposing personal information. Model extraction steals years of R&D through systematic API queries—competitors can replicate proprietary models with surprisingly few queries. Backdoor trojans embed triggers activated by specific inputs, remaining dormant during testing. These attacks threaten competitive advantage and intellectual property. Detection requires specialized techniques as models appear to function normally. QAIS defenses include differential privacy, API rate limiting, and neural cleansing. Legal remedies exist but proving theft is challenging. Watermarking helps identify stolen models. Prevention through QAIS costs fraction of potential losses.
Slide 18
Infrastructure & Operational Vulnerabilities (Patterns 7-9)
Infrastructure vulnerabilities provide easiest entry for attackers lacking AI expertise. Supply chain attacks through compromised Python packages affected thousands of organizations. Typosquatting (tensorfow instead of tensorflow) tricks developers into installing malicious code. API exploitation bypasses authentication, exfiltrates data, or enables model extraction. Resource exhaustion uses adversarial inputs requiring excessive computation, creating denial-of-service. These patterns don't require understanding AI internals. QAIS infrastructure hardening includes dependency scanning, API security, and resource budgeting. Container security and MLOps pipeline protection are critical. Single infrastructure compromise can affect entire AI portfolio. Prevention through proper configuration and monitoring provides highest security ROI.
Slide 19
Advanced Patterns (10-15)
Advanced patterns target sophisticated AI architectures. Prompt injection makes language models ignore safety guidelines or leak information. Reward hacking causes reinforcement learning systems to game objectives, potentially causing real-world harm. Privacy violations through model outputs trigger regulatory penalties. Fairness manipulation injects bias causing discriminatory decisions and legal liability. Transfer learning attacks exploit vulnerabilities in pre-trained models affecting all downstream applications. Multi-modal attacks coordinate across vision, text, and audio channels. These patterns particularly affect generative AI and autonomous systems. QAIS provides specialized defenses for each pattern. Organizations deploying advanced AI must prioritize these mitigations. The threat landscape evolves rapidly requiring continuous framework updates.
Slide 20
Part V: The 90-Day QAIS Implementation Plan
Now we translate QAIS concepts into actionable implementation. The 90-day plan provides structured approach proven across multiple organizations. You'll learn how to assess current posture, implement priority controls, and scale enterprise-wide. This roadmap balances quick wins with long-term transformation. We'll cover resource requirements, common obstacles, and success factors. The plan accommodates different starting points and maturity levels. Focus on understanding phase sequencing and dependencies. Consider how to adapt this to your organization's culture and constraints. Remember: perfect implementation isn't required—incremental progress delivers value.
Slide 21
Phase 1: Assessment & Baseline (Weeks 1-4)
Phase 1 establishes foundation for QAIS implementation. Asset discovery often reveals 30-50% more AI systems than initially known—shadow AI is pervasive. Use automated tools like Apache Atlas for data lineage and model registry scanning. Threat modeling focuses on highest-risk systems first. Calculate initial QAIS scores to establish baselines. Executive engagement is critical—present findings in business terms emphasizing financial risk and competitive implications. Secure budget and resources upfront. Common obstacles include resistance from data science teams and difficulty accessing cloud deployments. Success depends on comprehensive discovery and stakeholder alignment. Most organizations find their initial scores between 3-5 out of 10, providing clear improvement targets.
Slide 22
Phase 2: Prioritized Mitigation (Weeks 5-10)
Phase 2 delivers tangible security improvements on priority systems. Focus on controls addressing highest risks identified in Phase 1. Data validation typically offers quickest impact—implementing outlier detection can prevent 70% of poisoning attacks. Adversarial training using IBM ART improves robustness within days. API security through rate limiting and authentication stops most infrastructure attacks. Select pilots representing different AI types for broad learning. Deploy monitoring to establish security baselines. Quick wins build momentum and demonstrate value. Weekly QAIS scoring shows progress and identifies gaps. Expect 2-3 point score improvement during this phase. Document lessons learned for enterprise rollout. Common challenges include performance impacts and integration complexity.
Slide 23
Phase 3: Enterprise Rollout (Weeks 11-12+)
Phase 3 institutionalizes QAIS across the enterprise. Standards ensure consistent security regardless of team or technology. Policy integration makes security mandatory, not optional. MLOps pipeline integration automates security validation—models failing QAIS thresholds cannot deploy. Training develops internal expertise reducing consultant dependency. AI Security Champions bridge security and data science teams. Governance boards review high-risk deployments. Compliance mapping demonstrates regulatory adherence. Automation scales security without proportional headcount increase. Monthly assessments track enterprise progress. Organizations typically achieve QAIS scores of 7-8 after full implementation. ROI becomes positive by month 14 through prevented incidents and efficiency gains. Success requires sustained executive support and cultural change.
Slide 24
Part VI: Tooling and Automation
Effective QAIS implementation requires appropriate tooling and organizational structure. We'll explore open-source and commercial options for each tower. You'll learn how to build MLSecOps pipelines automating security validation. We'll discuss the AI Security Champion role and cross-functional team alignment. This section helps you select tools matching your needs and budget. Consider total cost of ownership including training and maintenance. Evaluate integration requirements with existing infrastructure. Remember: tools enable but don't replace security expertise. Focus on building capabilities, not just deploying technology.
Slide 25
Essential QAIS Tooling Stack
Tool selection depends on organization size, existing infrastructure, and risk profile. Open-source tools provide flexibility but require expertise. IBM ART offers comprehensive adversarial testing with 40+ attack methods. TensorFlow Privacy implements differential privacy with minimal code changes. Monitoring tools detect drift and anomalies missed by traditional systems. Commercial platforms provide integrated solutions with support but create vendor lock-in. MLOps integration ensures security doesn't slow deployment. SIEM enhancement adds AI-specific detection capabilities. Budget 10-15% of AI infrastructure costs for security tooling. Start with open-source for pilots, consider commercial for scale. Evaluate tools against QAIS scoring improvements, not features. Integration effort often exceeds licensing costs.
Slide 26
Building AI Security Teams
AI security requires new organizational capabilities. The AI Security Champion role is critical—someone fluent in both ML and security. These aren't traditional security engineers or data scientists but hybrids. Embed Champions in AI teams for immediate impact while maintaining security reporting lines. Clear RACI prevents gaps and conflicts. Training investment pays off quickly through prevented incidents. Create career paths to retain talent—AI security expertise is scarce and valuable. Measure Champions on both security outcomes and development enablement. Cultural change is hardest—security must enable, not obstruct innovation. Organizations with dedicated AI security teams experience 67% fewer incidents. Start with one Champion per 10-15 AI systems, scaling based on risk.
Slide 27
Emerging Threats and QAIS Evolution
The threat landscape evolves rapidly with AI advancement. Large language models introduce novel risks through natural language interfaces. Autonomous systems face physical-world attacks with safety implications. Generative AI enables sophisticated social engineering and misinformation. Quantum computing will break current cryptographic protections requiring new defenses. Federated learning distributes attack surfaces across organizations. Neuromorphic computing introduces unknown vulnerabilities. QAIS framework must evolve correspondingly. Version 2.0 will incorporate formal verification providing mathematical security guarantees. AI systems will defend themselves through automated threat detection and response. Global standardization efforts are underway with QAIS influencing ISO/IEC standards. Continuous learning and adaptation are essential for staying ahead of adversaries.
Slide 28
Your QAIS Implementation Roadmap
Success requires immediate action. Start AI asset discovery today—you likely have more AI than you know. Calculate QAIS scores to establish baselines for improvement tracking. Identify your top 3 risks for priority mitigation. Within 30 days, complete comprehensive assessment and implement quick wins like access controls and logging. Executive sponsorship is critical—schedule briefings now. By 90 days, achieve measurable QAIS improvement demonstrating program value. Deploy monitoring for continuous visibility. Establish AI Security Champion role for sustained progress. Resources available include QAIS implementation toolkit, online community forum, and expert consultation services. Remember: incremental progress beats perfect planning. Every day of delay increases risk. Your competition may already be implementing QAIS. The question isn't whether to secure AI, but how quickly you can achieve it.
Slide 29
Questions & Discussion
Thank you for your attention throughout this comprehensive training. Let's address your specific questions and concerns. Common questions include QAIS comparison to other frameworks—QAIS provides quantitative metrics and implementation specifics that NIST AI RMF lacks. Implementation costs vary by organization size but average 10-15% of AI infrastructure spending with 3:1 ROI. Legacy systems require gradual migration starting with highest-risk components. Limited resources can still achieve security through prioritization and automation. Success metrics include QAIS score improvements, incident reduction, and faster deployment. Please share your specific challenges so we can discuss relevant solutions. Additional resources include implementation guides, tool evaluations, and case studies available on our portal. Follow-up consultations available for organization-specific planning. Your feedback helps improve future training. Thank you for investing in AI security—you're protecting not just your organization but the broader AI ecosystem.Introduction: AI Security: Three Towers to Protect the Castle
Slide 1
AI Security: Three Towers to Protect the Castle
The Quantitative AI Security (QAIS) Framework
Author: Bandar Naghi
Organization: [Your Organization Name]
Date: [Presentation Date]
Welcome to QAIS Framework training. We're addressing the critical gap between AI adoption (78% of organizations) and security readiness (97% lack proper controls). AI breaches average $4.80 million. Today you'll learn the three-tower QAIS architecture that transforms abstract security into quantifiable metrics. Fortune 100 companies using QAIS achieved 78% incident reduction. Key takeaways: quantifying AI risks, implementing proven defenses, and building adaptive security systems. Ask yourself: Can you measure your AI security posture? What's your defense against model extraction? How quickly can you detect data poisoning? By session end, you'll have actionable blueprints for QAIS implementation.