ai-governance

5 posts

cloudflare

Catching rogue AI behavior with identity-aware analytics (opens in new tab)

AI usage is difficult to govern without knowing both who made each request and what normal usage looks like for that person or agent. Cloudflare’s new Identity-aware AI Gateway and User Insights address this by attaching verified identities to requests and detecting behavior that significantly deviates from historical patterns. Together, they provide centralized visibility, per-user cost controls, and anomaly detection without requiring additional setup for traffic already routed through AI Gateway. ## AI Gateway as a Central Control Plane - AI Gateway routes requests from applications, developer tools, and agent harnesses—including Claude Code, Codex, and GitHub Copilot—through one platform. - It provides centralized observability, security, governance, and spend management across providers such as OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Workers AI. - This centralization makes it possible to analyze usage consistently across both human users and automated agents. ## Identity-Aware Requests with Cloudflare Access - The Cloudflare Access integration places a custom domain, such as `ai.example.com`, in front of the gateway. - Organizations can: - Authenticate users through SAML-compatible providers such as Okta or Microsoft Entra. - Apply access policies to specific users. - Avoid distributing Cloudflare API keys. - Each authenticated request includes the Access user ID as `cf.user_id`. - Administrators can filter logs, analytics, and spending by the actual requester rather than by a shared API key. - Per-user spend limits can assign each person a separate budget and either block requests or route them to cheaper models after the limit is reached. - Planned improvements will use identity-provider groups to control model access and spending—for example, granting frontier-model access to machine learning teams while limiting support teams. ## User Insights and Behavioral Baselines - User Insights is available to all AI Gateway customers at no extra cost. - It analyzes existing gateway traffic without requiring additional configuration. - The feature builds behavioral profiles for every account, including both people and agents. - It tracks cost inefficiencies such as poor cache-hit rates and oversized context windows, but focuses primarily on whether usage is normal for that particular account. - Human users and automated agents are evaluated according to their own patterns: - Agents may have regular, predictable sessions. - Humans typically have more irregular prompts, timing, and session lengths. ## Session-Based Anomaly Detection - User Insights evaluates sessions rather than individual requests, reducing noise from isolated events. - Each session is compared with the account’s rolling 95th-percentile session cost over the previous 30 days. - A session becomes a strong anomaly candidate when it exceeds twice that personal p95 baseline. - This relative comparison avoids misleading fixed thresholds: - A $500 session may be normal for a consistently heavy user. - A $50 session may be highly unusual for an agent that normally spends $5. - Baselines adjust over time as an account’s usage changes. ## Combining Personal and Organization-Wide Thresholds - User Insights also applies an organization-wide p99 cost ceiling. - In the example analysis: - Most sessions cost less than $10. - The organizational p95 is $20. - The p99 is $200, meaning only 1% of sessions reach that amount. - Alerts are triggered only when a session is both: - More than twice the account’s personal p95. - Above the organization’s p99 ceiling. - This prevents alerts for: - Small-dollar spikes that are statistically unusual but not worth investigating. - Expensive sessions that are routine for a particular user. - A dollar floor also prevents tiny accounts from triggering alerts because of insignificant percentage increases. ## Filtering for Rogue Behavior - The resulting interface presents a feed of accounts that have broken their established usage patterns. - This focuses administrators on potentially meaningful incidents instead of showing every unusual request. - The approach is designed to detect trusted users or agents that suddenly perform more of an already-authorized activity—behavior that traditional controls may not block because no new tool or forbidden action is involved. Cloudflare’s recommendation is to route AI traffic through AI Gateway, authenticate it with Cloudflare Access, and use identity-based budgets alongside behavioral baselines. This combination helps organizations connect spending and activity to specific people or agents while concentrating investigations on statistically significant, high-impact deviations.

figma

Trust You Can Verify: Figma Is Now ISO 42001 Certified | Figma Blog (opens in new tab)

Figma has achieved ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification, making its AI governance independently verifiable rather than based solely on company assurances. An ANAB-accredited certification body, Schellman, audited Figma’s policies, risk management, data practices, and AI development processes. The certification is intended to give customers—especially regulated organizations—stronger evidence for vendor assessments, regulatory reviews, and board reporting. ## Why Independent Verification Matters - Vendors can describe their AI controls through questionnaires, whitepapers, and documentation, but those materials remain self-reported. - ISO 42001 requires an accredited third party to evaluate whether an organization’s AI management system meets an international standard. - Figma says this provides more reliable evidence than simply claiming to practice responsible AI governance. ## Scope of Figma’s Certification - The certification covers the AI Management System governing how Figma designs, develops, and operates AI features. - It applies across: - Figma Design - Figma Make - FigJam - Dev Mode - Figma Sites - Figma Slides - Figma Draw - Figma Buzz - Figma Weave ## What the Audit Evaluated - The audit took place in two stages: - **Stage 1:** Reviewed the design of Figma’s AI Management System, including documentation, policies, and risk methodology. - **Stage 2:** Tested operational effectiveness through staff interviews, process observation, and control evaluations. - Auditors assessed 38 controls across nine areas: - AI impact assessment - Governance and accountability - AI-specific risk management - AI system lifecycle management - Data governance - Third-party AI risk - Monitoring and performance evaluation - Human oversight - Responsible use of AI systems - Figma emphasizes that the certification validates implementation, not merely the existence of written policies. ## Relevance for Customers - The certification gives customers evidence they can reference in: - Vendor risk assessments - Board reporting - Regulatory submissions - AI procurement processes - It is particularly relevant to financial services, healthcare, insurance, and public-sector organizations with strict security, privacy, and regulatory requirements. - Figma connects the certification to the EU AI Act and emerging procurement standards, which increasingly require demonstrable governance rather than vendor promises. ## Ongoing Commitment - Figma plans to continue submitting its AI governance practices to independent verification as its AI capabilities evolve. - Its certificate and broader compliance documentation are available through `compliance.figma.com`. - The certificate can also be verified through Schellman’s directory, and Figma says it will update its documentation when governance changes affect customer risk assessments. ISO 42001 certification represents a baseline for Figma’s ongoing AI governance efforts, giving customers independently audited evidence they can use when evaluating the company’s AI products.

gitlab

One vulnerability view: From scanner coverage to AI governance (opens in new tab)

GitLab 19.1 presents a unified approach to application security and AI governance. It lets organizations enforce third-party SARIF-compatible scanners across every project, centralize findings, and automate remediation. At the same time, new AI governance features record agent activity and require approval for sensitive actions, enabling faster development without sacrificing accountability. ## Enforcing Complete Scanner Coverage - Security scanners are often configured separately for each project, creating coverage gaps and policy drift. - GitLab 19.1 allows administrators to enforce third-party scanners across all projects. - SARIF-compatible scanner results flow into GitLab’s unified vulnerability view. - Findings use the same governance and remediation workflows as GitLab-native results. - GitLab Duo Agent Platform can: - Triage findings with SAST False Positive Detection. - Generate merge requests through Agentic SAST Vulnerability Resolution. - Automatically remediate third-party scanner findings before production. ## Improving Secret Detection - Secret detection now scans every commit on a newly created branch, rather than only the latest commit. - This helps identify credentials introduced in earlier commits. - Secret False Positive Detection, now generally available, provides: - A confidence score for each finding. - An explanation displayed in the vulnerability report. - Developers can focus on genuine exposures instead of test credentials, placeholders, and example tokens. ## Governing AI Agent Actions - AI coding agents can create merge requests, invoke tools, commit code, and modify projects. - GitLab’s AI audit event streaming beta records every agent action and sends it to existing audit log destinations. - Agent tool approval guardrails let administrators configure each tool to: - Run automatically. - Require human approval. - Remain blocked. - Sensitive operations, such as writing files or deleting resources, can therefore require explicit review. - Approval decisions are also recorded, creating an auditable history for incident response and compliance. ## Governed Autonomy GitLab’s overall goal is to combine autonomous development with enforceable controls. Organizations can prove scanner coverage, automate vulnerability remediation, restrict risky agent behavior, and review a complete audit trail of what agents did. The practical recommendation is to centralize scanner governance and configure approval requirements for high-impact AI actions, allowing agents to work quickly while keeping security and accountability under human control.

gitlab

GitHub Copilot's policy for AI training: A governance wake-up call (opens in new tab)

GitHub’s April 2026 policy change will make Copilot Free, Pro, and Pro+ interaction data—including code, prompts, outputs, and context—available for AI training by default unless users opt out. The change highlights governance risks for regulated organizations, especially when protections vary by subscription tier or can be altered through policy updates. The post presents GitLab’s no-training commitment, contractual safeguards, and transparency documentation as a stronger model for enterprise AI governance. ## What the GitHub Policy Change Means - Beginning April 24, 2026, GitHub may use Copilot Free, Pro, and Pro+ data for model training by default. - Covered data includes: - User inputs and outputs - Code snippets - Associated context - Interaction data - Users must actively opt out. - Copilot Business and Enterprise customers remain exempt under existing contracts. - Data may also be shared with GitHub affiliates, including Microsoft, for AI development. - Organizations must review license tiers, settings, contracts, and internal AI governance controls. ## Why This Matters in Regulated Industries - Source code can expose: - Proprietary business logic - Internal system architecture - Sensitive data flows - Financial algorithms and risk models - Financial institutions may face intellectual-property and model-risk concerns involving trading strategies, underwriting rules, fraud detection, and credit models. - Frameworks such as Federal Reserve SR 11-7 and DORA require documented oversight of third-party technology and material changes in vendor practices. - Public-sector environments governed by NIST 800-53 and FISMA may require sensitive code to remain within controlled boundaries. - Healthcare organizations must consider HIPAA obligations when development tools interact with clinical or patient-adjacent systems. - Default opt-in training, individual opt-out requirements, and tier-dependent protections create compliance risks. ## Requirements for Enterprise AI Vendors - **Contractual certainty:** Vendors should clearly and unconditionally define how customer data is handled. - **Auditability:** Organizations need documentation about models, training data, subprocessors, retention, and compliance status. - **Independence from vendor incentives:** Customer code should not become training data for systems that may benefit competitors. - **Operational flexibility:** Regulated customers may require self-hosting, controlled processing boundaries, or clear procedures for vendor changes. ## GitLab’s AI Governance Position - GitLab states that it does not train AI models on customer code at any pricing tier. - Its AI vendors are contractually prohibited from using GitLab customer inputs or outputs for their own purposes. - The GitLab AI Transparency Center documents: - Models powering its features - Data handling practices - Subprocessors - Retention periods - Feature compliance status - GitLab emphasizes cloud and model neutrality, supports self-hosted deployments, and addresses vendor changes through its AI Continuity Plan. - The post argues that these policies reduce vendor-concentration, compliance, and intellectual-property risks. ## Closing the Governance Gap Organizations should ask every AI vendor: - Is customer data used for model training? - Who are the model subprocessors? - What happens if data practices change? - Can AI processing remain inside the organization’s infrastructure? - What indemnification applies to AI-generated output? The post’s recommendation is to favor vendors that provide durable, contractual, and auditable answers rather than relying on defaults, temporary opt-outs, or policies that can change with short notice.

grammarly

The Trust Practice: What Building Credibility Requires (opens in new tab)

Trust in education is not universal; it depends on stakeholders’ responsibilities and the risks they carry. Research across K–12 and higher education shows that AI systems earn trust when they provide clarity about safety, accountability, autonomy, and professional judgment. Effective AI governance must therefore be context-aware rather than based solely on general principles such as transparency or user control. ## K–12: Trust as Stewardship - Educators and administrators prioritize student safety, parental expectations, and institutional duty of care. - Their central question is whether a system will protect students and the institution when problems arise. - Trust grows through clear guardrails, oversight, data protections, and shared responsibility. - Ambiguity around accountability or student information can quickly undermine confidence. ## Higher Education: Trust as Autonomy and Credibility - Faculty and administrators focus on academic integrity, authorship, intellectual ownership, and professional expertise. - They ask whether AI supports or undermines their role as scholars and educators. - Trust is connected to autonomy and the legitimacy of learning itself. - A tool that feels safe in K–12 may feel threatening in higher education because the stakes and responsibilities differ. ## Why Context Matters for AI Adoption - Transparency, explainability, and user control are necessary but do not automatically create trust. - Systems must align with the actual responsibilities educators manage. - Poor alignment can lead to hesitation, stricter governance, and stalled adoption. - The same AI behavior may build trust in one setting while eroding it in another. ## What Educators Need - Educators consistently ask for clarity rather than generic reassurance: - What is the system doing? - Who is accountable when it fails? - How will it affect students, professional judgment, and authorship? - Do educators retain decision-making authority? - Institutional governance, communication, and even silence signal what an institution values and whom it trusts. - Leaders need partners who can acknowledge uncertainty and complexity instead of oversimplifying them. ## Building Trust Over Time - Trust develops through consistent behavior, honest risk management, and meaningful responses when things go wrong. - AI platforms serving multiple education sectors should be context-aware, role-sensitive, and explicit about responsibility. - Design, governance, and messaging that work in one environment may create friction in another. - Treating trust as a universal feature risks overlooking the people accountable for using the technology. AI in education should be designed around the distinct responsibilities of educators and institutions. Trust is not something that can be built once and shipped; it must be earned through clear accountability, contextual design, and sustained partnership.