AI and the Age of Systemic Fragility: Fortifying Our Critical Infrastructure

Introduction: The Brittleness of an AI-Powered World

The 21st century is witnessing a technological transformation of unprecedented scale and speed: the integration of artificial intelligence into the foundational systems of modern society. From the energy grids that power our cities and the financial markets that drive our economies to the transportation networks that move our goods and the water systems that sustain our lives, AI is rapidly becoming the new operating system for critical national infrastructure (CNI). The promise is one of unparalleled efficiency, predictive power, and automated optimization. Yet, this deep integration introduces a novel and dangerous form of systemic fragility. By concentrating operational logic into complex, often opaque algorithms, we are creating a world that is not just interconnected, but brittle.

This emerging reality is defined by a rapidly escalating arms race between two powerful, opposing forces. On one side is “offensive AI,” the suite of intelligent tools wielded by nation-states, cybercriminal syndicates, and other malicious actors to execute attacks of previously unimaginable sophistication and scale. On the other is “defensive AI,” the advanced systems deployed by security professionals to protect our digital and physical domains.¹ This is not a theoretical conflict; it is an active battlefront in a cybercrime industry whose economic damages are projected to reach a staggering $10.5 trillion annually by 2025.¹ The proliferation of AI will act as a powerful accelerant to this figure, supercharging the capabilities of adversaries and fundamentally altering the nature of risk.

The central thesis of this analysis is that our current security postures, designed for an era of static perimeters and predictable threats, are dangerously inadequate for this new age of AI-driven fragility. A fundamental strategic realignment is required. This report will first dissect the anatomy of this new fragility, examining how AI systems themselves have become a vast new attack surface and how AI is being weaponized to create a more potent arsenal for our adversaries. It will then propose a new security imperative, a forward-looking posture built upon three mutually reinforcing pillars designed to engender resilience in an inherently uncertain world:

1. Secure-by-Design: A commitment to embedding security, transparency, and trustworthiness into the very fabric of AI systems throughout their entire lifecycle.
2. Zero Trust Architecture: The relentless application of a “never trust, always verify” philosophy to every component, interaction, and data flow within our AI-powered infrastructure.
3. Proactive and Collective Resilience: A shift from a reactive, defensive crouch to an active, collaborative strategy of continuous threat hunting, adversarial testing, and ecosystem-wide intelligence sharing, epitomized by the proposed creation of a dedicated AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC).

The challenge is formidable, but the objective is clear: to fortify our fragile world against the novel threats of the AI era, ensuring that this powerful technology becomes a source of enduring strength, not systemic vulnerability.

---

Part I: The Anatomy of AI-Driven Fragility

To construct a resilient defense, it is first necessary to understand the unique contours of the threat landscape. The fragility introduced by AI is not merely an extension of traditional cybersecurity risks; it represents a paradigm shift. Adversaries are no longer limited to attacking networks and servers; they are now capable of attacking the cognitive core of our automated systems—the very processes of perception, learning, and decision-making. This section deconstructs the mechanisms of this new vulnerability, moving from attacks on AI models to attacks using AI as a weapon, and culminating in an analysis of the cascading risks that threaten the entire AI supply chain and the critical infrastructure it supports.

Section 1: The New Attack Surface – Compromising the Cognitive Core

The most profound danger posed by AI is the vulnerability of the models themselves. When an AI system’s ability to perceive, interpret, and act upon data is compromised, it is transformed from a critical asset into a potent liability. These attacks target the integrity of the model, turning its own logic against the system it is designed to protect.

Adversarial Evasion: Deceiving the Digital Eye

At the heart of many AI systems, particularly those interacting with the physical world, are machine learning models designed for classification and recognition. Adversarial evasion attacks exploit a fundamental weakness in these models: their susceptibility to “adversarial examples.” These are inputs that have been modified with small, mathematically precise perturbations—changes often completely imperceptible to a human observer—that are specifically engineered to cause the AI model to make a false prediction.²

This is not a theoretical vulnerability; it has been demonstrated in scenarios with chilling real-world implications. Researchers have shown that by placing specially crafted stickers or using specific patterns of paint on a stop sign, an autonomous vehicle’s computer vision system can be tricked into misclassifying it as a speed limit sign or another, harmless object.² In another striking example, a 3D-printed object that is clearly a turtle to any human observer was meticulously designed to be consistently classified as a rifle by a state-of-the-art image recognition system, even when viewed from different angles and distances.³

These are not random glitches or simple errors. Adversarial examples are the product of a deliberate, offensive process. Attackers, often with knowledge of the target model’s architecture, can meticulously optimize these tiny changes to maximize the model’s confusion and force a specific, desired misclassification.² This represents a critical failure mode for any critical infrastructure that relies on AI for sensory input and environmental awareness, from automated surveillance systems to robotic controllers in industrial settings.

The implications of this vulnerability extend beyond mere technical failure. The ability to undetectably manipulate an AI’s perception of reality creates a profound “crisis of epistemic trust.” An operator responsible for a critical system, such as a power grid’s automated monitoring platform, can no longer be certain that the AI’s interpretation of sensor data is accurate. Is the “all clear” signal from the system genuine, or is it the result of a sophisticated adversarial attack designed to mask the indicators of an impending catastrophic failure? This uncertainty forces a reversion to slower, less efficient, and more error-prone manual oversight, fundamentally negating the core value proposition of AI integration. The ultimate impact is not just the risk of system failure, but the strategic degradation of trust in automated decision-support, which can lead to operational paralysis or disastrous misjudgment in a crisis.

Data and Model Poisoning: Corrupting AI at the Source

If adversarial evasion attacks deceive a model at the point of inference, poisoning attacks corrupt it at its very source: the training process. These insidious techniques undermine the model’s integrity before it is ever deployed, embedding hidden vulnerabilities or systemic flaws into its core logic.

Data poisoning involves the malicious manipulation of the data used to train a machine learning model. By injecting carefully crafted, mislabeled, or deceptive data points into the training set, an attacker can degrade the model’s overall performance or, more surgically, create specific backdoors that can be exploited later.⁴ The potential consequences are severe across numerous sectors. For instance, a spam filter’s training data could be poisoned with large volumes of malicious emails deliberately mislabeled as “not spam,” teaching the model to ignore future, similar threats.⁴ In a healthcare context, an AI diagnostic tool could be sabotaged by poisoning its training dataset of medical images with scans where cancerous tumors are mislabeled as benign, leading the resulting model to produce life-threateningly incorrect diagnoses.⁴

Model poisoning represents a more direct supply chain attack. Instead of corrupting the raw data, the attacker compromises a pre-trained model or its components, which are often used as a foundation for building new systems in a process called transfer learning.⁷ In this scenario, the attacker can embed a hidden “backdoor” into the model. The poisoned model will appear to function normally on most inputs, but when it encounters a specific, predetermined trigger—such as a particular image, phrase, or data pattern—it will produce an output desired by the attacker.² A security camera system, for example, could be programmed to ignore any individual wearing a specific, seemingly innocuous symbol, effectively creating an invisibility cloak for intruders.⁵

These poisoning attacks highlight a critical dependency: the integrity of any AI system is fundamentally tethered to the integrity of its data and developmental pipeline. Industries such as finance, healthcare, and autonomous systems, where the consequences of model misbehavior are highest, are prime targets for this form of sabotage.⁵

Model Extraction and Inference: The Theft of Intellectual Property and Privacy

Beyond corrupting AI models, adversaries also seek to steal them. A model extraction attack, also known as model stealing, involves an attacker repeatedly sending queries to a target AI system (often exposed via an API) and analyzing the outputs. By observing how the model responds to a wide range of inputs, the attacker can effectively reverse-engineer a functional copy of the proprietary model.² This constitutes a direct theft of valuable intellectual property. More dangerously, once the attacker possesses a replica of the model, they can analyze it offline at their leisure to discover new vulnerabilities, develop more effective adversarial examples, or probe for weaknesses that would be difficult to find through live testing.

A related threat is the inference attack, which targets the privacy of the data used to train the model. By carefully crafting queries and analyzing the model’s outputs, an attacker can infer sensitive information about the individual data points in the original training set.² For a model trained on private medical or financial records, this could lead to a catastrophic breach of confidentiality, even if the raw data itself was never directly exposed. These attacks demonstrate that even the outputs of an AI model can become a vector for data exfiltration, posing a severe risk to both corporate assets and individual privacy.

Section 2: The New Arsenal – AI as a Weapon of Scale and Sophistication

While attacks on AI systems represent a new defensive challenge, the use of AI by adversaries constitutes a new offensive reality. Malicious actors are leveraging AI as a powerful force multiplier, automating and enhancing their capabilities to launch attacks that are faster, more personalized, more adaptive, and more difficult to detect than ever before.

Hyper-Realistic Social Engineering

Social engineering, particularly phishing, remains one of the most effective vectors for initial compromise. AI elevates this threat from a high-volume, low-quality nuisance to a highly targeted and dangerously effective weapon. AI algorithms can analyze a target’s online behavior, social media presence, and communication style to craft hyper-realistic and personalized phishing emails. These messages can perfectly mimic the tone and context of legitimate communications, dynamically adjusting their content based on the recipient’s actions to maximize the probability of success.¹

This capability is dramatically amplified by generative AI’s power to create synthetic media. AI-powered voice cloning (vishing) allows attackers to convincingly impersonate trusted individuals, such as a CEO or a financial controller, over the phone. In one documented case, criminals used AI-generated deepfake audio to impersonate a chief executive, successfully tricking an employee into authorizing a fraudulent transfer of $243,000.⁸ The threat has since escalated dramatically. In a more recent and sophisticated attack, a finance worker at a multinational firm in Hong Kong was duped into paying out over $25 million after attending a video conference with what he believed were his senior colleagues, but were in fact AI-generated deepfakes.¹ These technologies erode the foundational elements of trust upon which business and security processes are built, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic and malicious communication.

Adaptive and Autonomous Malware

Traditional malware defense has long relied on signature-based detection, where security software looks for known patterns or “fingerprints” of malicious code. AI-powered offensive tools render this approach obsolete. Adversaries are now developing adaptive malware that utilizes reinforcement learning—a type of machine learning where an agent learns through trial and error—to continuously evolve its tactics.¹ This malware can “learn” from failed intrusion attempts, automatically modifying its code and behavior to find new ways to evade detection. Each time a defensive system blocks it, the malware becomes smarter and more resilient for its next attempt.

Furthermore, offensive AI can be used to actively monitor an organization’s defensive systems in real time. This allows an attacker to observe when new security measures are implemented and to alter their attack strategy mid-flight to bypass these new defenses.¹ This creates a dynamic, autonomous adversary that operates at machine speed, presenting a challenge that human-led security teams, operating on human timescales, will struggle to counter effectively.

Automated Reconnaissance and Vulnerability Discovery

Before launching an attack, adversaries must conduct reconnaissance to identify weaknesses in their target’s defenses. AI dramatically accelerates and scales this process. Machine learning algorithms can be programmed to sift through massive public and semi-public datasets—including network traffic patterns, vendor security policies, software repositories, and employee social media posts—to rapidly and accurately identify the weakest links in a complex digital ecosystem or supply chain.²

This automated reconnaissance allows attackers to identify system misconfigurations, unpatched software, or vulnerable third-party suppliers far more efficiently than through manual methods.⁹ This capability enables adversaries to automate and scale their operations, probing and targeting multiple organizations simultaneously with a level of speed and precision that was previously impossible.⁹

The weaponization of AI leads to a sobering strategic shift. It is not merely that powerful state-sponsored actors are becoming more formidable. Rather, AI is leading to a “democratization of advanced threats.” The technical barriers to entry for conducting sophisticated cyber operations are being significantly lowered.⁶ Readily available large language models (LLMs) can be used by less-skilled actors to analyze and replicate the techniques detailed in public cybersecurity threat intelligence reports. This process, sometimes referred to as “vibe coding,” allows an attacker to generate functional malware based on a researcher’s technical description, a task that once required deep expertise and significant effort.¹¹ Consequently, the threat landscape is changing from one dominated by a handful of highly resourced advanced persistent threat (APT) groups to a far more chaotic and unpredictable environment. Critical infrastructure must now prepare for advanced, AI-driven attacks originating from a much broader and more diverse array of malicious actors.

Section 3: The Cascading Risk – AI Supply Chain and Critical Infrastructure Vulnerabilities

The threats posed by attacks on and with AI do not exist in isolation. They converge within the complex, interconnected ecosystem of modern technology, creating the potential for cascading failures that can ripple across entire sectors of the economy. The AI supply chain itself has become a critical vulnerability, and as AI is woven more deeply into our essential services, this vulnerability translates directly into a systemic risk for all critical infrastructure.

The AI Supply Chain as a Single Point of Failure

The development of modern AI systems is a highly collaborative and layered process. Few organizations build their AI models entirely from scratch. Instead, they rely on a global supply chain of open-source frameworks, pre-trained models, third-party datasets, and cloud-based development platforms. While this ecosystem accelerates innovation, it also creates a vast and often opaque attack surface.¹⁰

A stark illustration of this risk is the “Model Namespace Reuse” attack. This technique targets popular AI model repositories like Hugging Face, which serve as a central hub for developers to share and download pre-trained models.¹² The attack unfolds when a legitimate developer deletes their account or transfers ownership of a model, leaving the old namespace (the unique name identifier for the model) available. An attacker can then register an account under this now-abandoned name and upload a malicious version of the model. Any downstream project or application that was configured to automatically pull the model by its name will now unwittingly download and execute the attacker’s malicious code. This exact vulnerability was successfully demonstrated against major cloud AI platforms from both Google and Microsoft, allowing researchers to achieve arbitrary code execution within the secure environments of these services.¹²

This attack vector reveals a dangerous and widespread assumption within the AI ecosystem: that models can be trusted based on their names alone. This is a critically flawed premise. The incident serves as a clear warning that the entire AI supply chain must be treated as a potentially hostile environment, requiring a fundamental re-evaluation of how models are verified, fetched, and integrated into production systems.¹²

Critical Infrastructure Under Siege

The direct consequence of these vulnerabilities is the heightened risk to critical infrastructure. The very act of incorporating AI into an existing system—whether it be an electrical grid, a water treatment plant, or a financial network—inherently increases its cyber-attack surface, creating new and untested channels for compromise.⁶ The novelty and complexity of these AI systems, often combined with a lack of deep operational experience among the teams managing them, further compound the risk.

This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a recognized and urgent national security issue. A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) delivered a sobering assessment of the federal government’s preparedness. The report found that the initial risk assessments conducted by lead federal agencies for the integration of AI into their respective critical infrastructure sectors were dangerously incomplete. Most assessments failed to fully identify potential risks, evaluate the likelihood of an attack occurring, or measure the potential harm that a successful attack could cause.¹³ This indicates a systemic gap between the rapid pace of AI adoption and the lagging maturity of the corresponding risk management frameworks and security practices.

The private sector shares this assessment of the gravity of the threat. The World Economic Forum reports that over 65% of business leaders believe AI will have the most significant impact on cybersecurity in the coming years, far surpassing concerns about cloud computing (11%) or quantum technologies (4%).¹⁰ This broad consensus among global leaders underscores the urgent need for a new defensive paradigm.

The interconnected nature of the AI supply chain creates a new and dangerous form of “compounding and correlated risk.” A single compromise at an upstream point in the supply chain—such as a malicious model uploaded to a public repository ¹²—can lead to simultaneous failures across multiple, seemingly independent critical infrastructure sectors. For example, an energy company might use a model from that repository for grid load balancing, a financial firm might use it for algorithmic trading, and a logistics company might use it for fleet management. If a backdoor in that single model is activated, it could trigger a correlated, systemic crisis: the power grid destabilizes, the trading algorithm makes catastrophic decisions, and the logistics network is thrown into chaos. This scenario undermines traditional risk models that rely on the diversification of risk across different sectors. It demonstrates that it is no longer sufficient to secure each sector in isolation; we must secure the common technological substrate—the AI supply chain itself.

To make these abstract threats concrete, the following table provides a taxonomy of potential AI-driven failure scenarios across key critical infrastructure sectors.

Threat Vector	Attack Mechanism	Targeted Critical Infrastructure Sector	Potential Impact / Failure Scenario
Adversarial Evasion	Manipulating sensor inputs (e.g., images, radio signals) with subtle perturbations to cause misclassification. 2	Transportation, Defense, Energy	Autonomous vehicles misinterpreting road signs, leading to collisions. Military drones misidentifying targets. Safety monitors at power plants failing to detect critical anomalies.
Data Poisoning	Injecting corrupted or mislabeled data into a model’s training set to create backdoors or degrade performance. 4	Healthcare, Finance, Public Services	Medical AI consistently misdiagnosing diseases. Credit scoring models unfairly denying loans to specific demographics. Spam filters learning to allow malicious emails through.
Deepfake Vishing	Using AI-generated voice and video to impersonate trusted individuals and authorize fraudulent actions. 1	Finance, Corporate, Government	Unauthorized multi-million dollar fund transfers. Dissemination of false orders to employees or military personnel. Executive impersonation to manipulate stock prices.
Adaptive Malware	Malware that uses reinforcement learning to automatically alter its behavior to evade detection by security systems. 1	All Sectors	A persistent, evolving threat that bypasses traditional signature-based antivirus and endpoint detection, enabling long-term data exfiltration or system sabotage.
Model Namespace Reuse	An attacker uploads a malicious model to a public repository using the name of a legitimate but deleted model. 12	All Sectors (AI Supply Chain)	Widespread compromise of organizations that automatically pull the model into their development pipelines, leading to arbitrary code execution and system takeover.
Automated Reconnaissance	Using AI to rapidly scan vast datasets and identify the most vulnerable points in a network or supply chain. 9	All Sectors	Attackers can identify and exploit weaknesses at a speed and scale that overwhelms human-led defensive teams, enabling highly efficient, multi-pronged attacks.

---

Part II: The Security Imperative: A Tripartite Defense for a New Era

The anatomy of AI-driven fragility reveals a threat landscape that is dynamic, intelligent, and systemic. A defense posture rooted in static, perimeter-based thinking is destined to fail. Responding to this challenge requires a new strategic framework—a tripartite defense designed to build resilience at every layer of the AI ecosystem. This approach integrates three core pillars: embedding security into the foundation of AI systems through Secure-by-Design principles; containing and limiting the impact of breaches through a Zero Trust Architecture; and outmaneuvering adversaries through Proactive and Collective Resilience. This multi-layered strategy moves beyond a purely defensive stance to create an adaptive security posture capable of protecting critical infrastructure in the age of AI.

The following table provides a high-level overview of this integrated defensive framework, outlining the core principles, key methodologies, and strategic objectives of each pillar.

Pillar	Core Principle	Key Methodologies	Strategic Objective
Secure-by-Design	Build trust in, don’t bolt it on.	NIST AI RMF, MITRE ATLAS, Formal Verification, Explainable AI (XAI), Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs).	Ensure AI systems are robust, reliable, and transparent from inception, minimizing vulnerabilities throughout the lifecycle.
Zero Trust Architecture	Never trust, always verify.	Micro-segmentation, Continuous Authentication, Least Privilege Access, AI-driven Behavioral Analytics (UEBA).	Prevent lateral movement and contain breaches in an autonomous environment by treating every interaction as potentially hostile.
Proactive & Collective Resilience	Assume breach and hunt for threats.	AI Red Teaming, AI-Powered Threat Hunting, Incident Response Planning, AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC).	Achieve ecosystem-wide adaptive immunity to novel threats through continuous adversarial testing and collaborative intelligence sharing.

Section 4: Pillar I – Secure-by-Design: Engineering Trust into AI

The first and most fundamental pillar of a resilient AI security posture is the principle of Secure-by-Design. Security cannot be treated as an add-on or a compliance checkbox applied after an AI system has been developed. It must be a foundational consideration woven into every phase of the AI lifecycle, from initial conception and data sourcing through model training, deployment, and eventual decommissioning. This approach is about proactively engineering trustworthiness, robustness, and transparency into the very architecture of AI systems.

Foundational Governance: The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (RMF) and MITRE ATLAS

A successful Secure-by-Design strategy begins with a robust governance framework. Two resources have emerged as global standards for this purpose.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF), developed by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides a voluntary but indispensable guide for organizations to manage AI risks in a structured and comprehensive manner.¹⁴ The AI RMF is not a rigid set of rules but a flexible playbook that can be adapted to any organization’s specific needs. It is built around four core functions—

Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage—that guide teams through the process of establishing accountability, identifying and assessing risks across all AI systems, evaluating those risks with quantitative and qualitative metrics, and implementing strategies to mitigate them.¹⁵ By adopting the AI RMF, organizations can build a common language and a systematic process for ensuring their AI systems are secure, ethical, and transparent.¹⁴

Complementing this governance framework is the MITRE ATLAS (Adversarial Threat Landscape for Artificial-Intelligence Systems). Modeled after the highly successful MITRE ATT&CK framework for traditional cybersecurity, ATLAS serves as a publicly accessible, community-driven knowledge base of real-world adversary tactics and techniques used to attack AI systems.¹⁶ It is the “Rosetta Stone” for AI security operations, cataloging known attack patterns such as data poisoning, model evasion, and model theft, and linking them to real-world case studies.¹⁶ Organizations can use ATLAS to conduct sophisticated threat modeling, design targeted AI-specific red teaming exercises, and build and validate specific mitigations against the most relevant adversarial techniques.¹⁶

The Technical Bedrock of Trust

While governance provides the strategic direction, a Secure-by-Design approach must be implemented through a suite of advanced technical controls designed to address the unique vulnerabilities of AI.

Formal Verification: For AI systems deployed in the most safety-critical applications—such as autonomous vehicles, medical life-support systems, or industrial control systems—standard testing is insufficient. Formal verification offers a path to a much higher level of assurance. These are mathematically-based techniques used to prove that a system’s behavior will remain within certain pre-defined, safe boundaries.¹⁸ Instead of just running a finite number of tests, formal methods can verify properties for an infinite number of possible inputs, providing an unparalleled degree of confidence that a system is resilient to certain classes of threats, including specific types of adversarial attacks.²⁰ This is about building systems that are not just empirically tested, but provably secure.

Explainable AI (XAI): One of the greatest challenges in securing complex AI models is their “black box” nature—it is often difficult, if not impossible, to understand the precise reasoning behind their outputs. Explainable AI (XAI) refers to a set of techniques and methods designed to make these decision-making processes transparent, interpretable, and traceable.²² Techniques such as LIME (Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanations) and DeepLIFT can help analysts understand which features in the input data most influenced a model’s decision.²² This is not merely an ethical requirement for fairness and bias detection; it is a critical security capability. XAI is essential for effective auditing, post-incident forensics, and identifying anomalous or malicious behavior that may have been introduced by a sophisticated data poisoning attack.²³

Privacy-Enhancing Technologies (PETs): AI models are fueled by data, and securing that data is paramount. A Secure-by-Design approach must incorporate advanced PETs to protect data at all stages of its lifecycle: at rest, in transit, and, crucially, in use.

• Homomorphic Encryption (HE): This groundbreaking form of encryption allows for mathematical computations to be performed directly on encrypted data without ever needing to decrypt it.²⁴ For AI, this means a model can be trained or can perform inference on sensitive data while that data remains fully encrypted, providing the ultimate protection in zero-trust environments where data privacy is non-negotiable.²⁴
• Differential Privacy (DP): This is a rigorous mathematical framework that enables the analysis of and release of aggregate statistics from a dataset while providing a formal, provable guarantee that very little can be learned about any single individual within that dataset.²⁶ This is achieved by injecting carefully calibrated mathematical noise into the results. DP is a powerful defense against the inference attacks described earlier, ensuring that the privacy of individuals is protected even as their data contributes to a collective insight.²⁷
• Federated Learning (FL): This is a decentralized machine learning paradigm where, instead of bringing all training data to a central model, the model is brought to the data. A global model is trained by aggregating updates from multiple decentralized devices (e.g., hospitals, banks, or mobile phones), each of which keeps its raw data local.²⁸ This approach significantly enhances data privacy and is particularly valuable for enabling collaborative threat detection. Multiple organizations can work together to train a more robust malware detection model, for example, without ever having to share their sensitive, proprietary security data.²⁹

The implementation of a Secure-by-Design program reveals a critical convergence of disciplines that were once considered separate. In the context of AI, the lines between cybersecurity (protecting systems from malicious actors), safety (preventing systems from causing accidental harm), and ethics (ensuring systems are fair and accountable) become inextricably blurred. A data poisoning attack, which is a security vulnerability ⁵, can be used to inject discriminatory bias into a hiring algorithm, which is an ethical failure.¹⁵ An adversarial attack on an autonomous vehicle’s sensor system, a security breach ², can directly cause a fatal crash, a safety catastrophe. An opaque “black box” model that makes a biased lending decision, an ethical problem ²³, is also a model that cannot be properly audited for malicious influence after a security incident, a forensics and security challenge. Therefore, tools like XAI are not just for promoting fairness; they are essential for security forensics. Formal verification is not just for ensuring safety; it is for providing security assurance against adversarial attacks. This convergence means that organizations can no longer afford to silo these functions. The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), Chief Risk Officer (CRO), and Chief Ethics Officer must work in concert, using unified governance frameworks like the NIST AI RMF, to manage these deeply intertwined risks.

Section 5: Pillar II – Zero Trust Architecture: Assuming Breach in an Autonomous World

The second pillar of the tripartite defense addresses the reality that even with the best design principles, vulnerabilities will exist and breaches will occur. A Zero Trust Architecture (ZTA) is a security model designed for this reality. It fundamentally discards the outdated concept of a trusted internal network and an untrusted external world. Instead, Zero Trust operates on a simple but powerful principle: “never trust, always verify.” It assumes that any user, device, or application, whether inside or outside the traditional network perimeter, could be compromised and therefore must be authenticated and authorized before being granted access to any resource.³⁰

Redefining the Perimeter for AI

For AI systems, which are often composed of distributed components, data pipelines, and APIs, the concept of a single, defensible perimeter is meaningless. A Zero Trust approach is therefore uniquely suited to securing these complex environments. It requires treating every element of the AI lifecycle as its own “micro-perimeter,” subject to strict, independent verification.³² This includes:

• The Data Pipeline: Every data source must be authenticated, and data integrity must be continuously verified.
• The Training Environment: Access to model training infrastructure must be strictly controlled and monitored.
• The Model Artifacts: The stored models themselves must be treated as critical assets, protected by strong encryption and access controls.
• The Inference API: Every single request to the model for a prediction must be authenticated and authorized.
• Autonomous Agents: AI agents must have their own distinct identities and be subject to granular permissions that enforce the principle of least privilege, granting them access only to the specific resources required for their designated tasks.³³

Implementing this requires a combination of granular Identity and Access Management (IAM), strong end-to-end encryption for all data in transit, and the rigorous application of least privilege policies across the entire AI stack.³³ AI itself can play a role in this process; by learning an organization’s normal network traffic patterns over time, it can help recommend and enforce the precise security policies needed to implement a Zero Trust approach effectively.³⁴

The AI-ZTA Symbiotic Defense

There is a powerful symbiotic relationship between AI and Zero Trust. While ZTA provides the architectural framework to secure AI systems, AI provides the intelligent engine needed to make ZTA truly dynamic and adaptive. This creates a virtuous cycle, a feedback loop where each component strengthens the other.

A ZTA framework protects AI systems by ensuring that even if a model is compromised—for example, through a data poisoning attack that creates a hidden backdoor—its ability to cause harm is severely limited. The compromised model would be prevented from accessing unauthorized data, connecting to unapproved network locations, or interacting with other systems beyond its narrowly defined permissions.

Conversely, AI supercharges the capabilities of a Zero Trust architecture. Traditional ZTA relies on relatively static policies. AI-driven systems, particularly those using User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA), can analyze vast streams of real-time data to establish a dynamic baseline of normal behavior for every user, device, and AI agent on the network.¹ When any entity deviates from this established baseline—for instance, an AI agent suddenly attempts to access a new database or an employee’s account starts making unusual API calls—the AI-powered security system can detect this anomaly instantly. This can trigger an automated response, such as requiring re-authentication, revoking access credentials, or isolating the potentially compromised entity from the rest of the network.³⁰ This creates an adaptive, self-healing security posture that can respond to threats at machine speed.

The inherent opacity of many advanced AI models—the “black box” problem—presents a significant security risk, as malicious or biased behavior can be difficult to detect by simply inspecting the model’s code.³³ Zero Trust offers a powerful and pragmatic external control mechanism to mitigate this risk without requiring perfect model transparency. Even if security teams cannot fully understand

why a complex model made a particular decision, a ZTA framework allows them to strictly control what the model is permitted to do. By enforcing least-privilege access to data, APIs, and network resources, ZTA acts as a robust set of guardrails. If a compromised model attempts to execute a malicious action, such as exfiltrating data to an attacker-controlled server, that action would violate its strictly defined access policy and be blocked by the Zero Trust enforcement point. This would happen regardless of the model’s internal, opaque reasoning that led to the attempt. This approach effectively “cages” the black box, shifting the security focus from achieving perfect internal transparency, which may be technologically infeasible, to achieving robust external behavioral control, thereby limiting the potential damage a compromised AI system can inflict.

Section 6: Pillar III – Proactive and Collective Resilience

The final pillar of the tripartite defense recognizes that a purely passive, defensive posture is a losing strategy against intelligent and adaptive adversaries. Resilience in the AI era demands a proactive, continuous, and collaborative approach to security. This means actively hunting for threats that have already bypassed preventative controls, rigorously testing systems from an adversarial perspective, and building a collective immune system through the rapid sharing of threat intelligence across the entire ecosystem.

From Defense to Offense: AI Red Teaming and Proactive Threat Hunting

A proactive security posture is built on two key disciplines: AI red teaming and AI-powered threat hunting.

AI Red Teaming is a structured, adversarial testing process designed to identify and remediate vulnerabilities in AI systems before malicious actors can exploit them.³⁵ This goes far beyond standard bug hunting or penetration testing. An AI red team’s goal is to simulate the mindset and techniques of a real-world adversary who is actively trying to cause the AI system to misbehave.³⁷ The process typically involves several stages:

1. Scoping: Defining the target system (e.g., a large language model, a computer vision API) and the types of harm to be tested for (e.g., prompt injection, model evasion, generation of harmful content).³⁶
2. Scenario Design: Crafting specific adversarial prompts, attack chains, or misuse cases designed to probe for weaknesses and expose the model’s blind spots.³⁶
3. Execution: Probing the system within a safe, isolated testing environment. This can involve manual techniques, which rely on the creativity of human experts, as well as automated tools that can generate a large volume of adversarial inputs to test for vulnerabilities at scale.³⁶
4. Analysis and Mitigation: Analyzing the results to understand the severity and reproducibility of any identified failures, and then sharing these findings with development teams to inform the implementation of mitigations, such as improved input filtering, model fine-tuning, or updated safety policies.³⁶

AI-Powered Threat Hunting is the complementary practice of proactively searching for threats that have already managed to bypass initial defenses and are lurking undetected within a network.³⁹ While red teaming is about finding vulnerabilities before deployment, threat hunting is about finding active compromises. AI serves as a massive force multiplier for human threat hunters. AI-driven security systems can analyze immense volumes of data from endpoints, network logs, and cloud services in real time, using machine learning to detect the subtle anomalies, unusual patterns, and faint indicators of compromise that might signal a stealthy intrusion.³⁴ Furthermore, generative AI can be used to create highly realistic simulations of cyberattacks, allowing organizations to test and refine their incident response plans and train their security teams against a wide range of potential threat scenarios.³⁴

The AI-ISAC: A Global Immune System for AI Threats

The capstone of a proactive and resilient strategy is collaboration. No single organization, no matter how well-resourced, can defend itself against the full spectrum of AI-driven threats alone. A collective defense is required. To this end, the creation of a dedicated, public-private AI Information Sharing and Analysis Center (AI-ISAC) is a strategic imperative.

Modeled on the proven success of sector-specific entities like the Financial Services ISAC (FS-ISAC) and the Health ISAC (H-ISAC) ⁴¹, the mission of the AI-ISAC would be to serve as the central nervous system for the global AI security community. Its core function would be to collect, analyze, and disseminate timely, relevant, and actionable threat intelligence specifically related to attacks on and with AI.⁴³

Operationally, the AI-ISAC would provide its members with a range of critical services:

• Real-Time Alerts: Distributing early warnings about novel adversarial techniques, new jailbreaking methods, signatures of poisoned datasets, and indicators of compromise associated with malicious AI models.
• Bidirectional Intelligence Sharing: Creating a trusted, secure platform where members can both receive and contribute threat intelligence. This collaborative, bidirectional model allows threats identified by one organization to be used to protect the entire ecosystem.⁴¹
• Best Practices and Mitigation Strategies: Curating and sharing expert guidance on the most effective defenses against emerging AI threats.
• Sector-Wide Exercises: Organizing and conducting tabletop exercises, simulations, and cyber range events to help members practice and improve their incident response capabilities in a collaborative environment.⁴²

The governance of the AI-ISAC should be a hybrid public-private model. This structure would leverage the agility, technical expertise, and real-world operational knowledge of the private sector companies that are building and deploying AI at scale, while also incorporating the unique intelligence sources, coordinating authority, and national security perspective of government agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).⁴⁴ This partnership is essential for building the trust required for effective information sharing.

The emergence of AI-specific threats creates an “intelligence inversion” that makes a collaborative body like the AI-ISAC essential. In traditional national security, government agencies are often the primary holders of critical threat intelligence, which they then disseminate to the private sector.⁴¹ However, in the AI domain, the most critical, high-velocity intelligence on novel vulnerabilities will almost certainly originate within the private sector. A new jailbreak technique for a frontier model or a sophisticated new method for data poisoning is most likely to be discovered first by the AI labs and large-scale technology companies that are the primary targets of these attacks.³⁸ This vital, time-sensitive intelligence resides within private, often fiercely competitive, organizations. An AI-ISAC provides the trusted, neutral third-party platform that is necessary for these companies to share this critical threat information with each other and with the government, without compromising their competitive advantages or intellectual property. For AI security, the private sector effectively becomes the primary sensor grid for the nation, and the AI-ISAC becomes the central processing unit for analyzing that data and coordinating a collective defense. National security strategies must adapt to and actively support this new, inverted intelligence paradigm.

---

Conclusion: From Fragility to Fortification

The deep and rapid integration of artificial intelligence into our critical national infrastructure marks a pivotal moment in the history of technology and security. While the potential benefits in efficiency and capability are immense, the unmanaged adoption of AI creates a world of unprecedented systemic fragility. The very cognitive core of our automated systems has become a new battleground, and adversaries are weaponizing AI to launch attacks of devastating scale and sophistication. This new reality renders our legacy security postures dangerously obsolete.

However, this fragility is not an inevitable outcome. A future where AI is a source of strength and resilience is achievable, but it requires a deliberate and disciplined strategic shift. This report has argued for a new security imperative, a tripartite defense designed to fortify our AI-powered world. This is a posture built not on brittle walls, but on resilient, adaptive principles:

• First, we must commit to Secure-by-Design, engineering trust, transparency, and robustness into AI systems from their very inception using comprehensive governance frameworks like the NIST AI RMF and a technical bedrock of formal verification, explainable AI, and privacy-enhancing technologies.
• Second, we must embrace a Zero Trust Architecture, extending the “never trust, always verify” principle to every component of the AI lifecycle, thereby containing breaches and limiting the blast radius of any successful compromise.
• Third, we must cultivate a culture of Proactive and Collective Resilience, moving beyond passive defense to actively hunt for threats, test our systems through continuous AI red teaming, and build a global immune system for AI threats through a collaborative, public-private AI-ISAC.

The call to action is clear. For policymakers, it is to foster an environment that encourages the adoption of these principles, supports the creation of collaborative defense mechanisms like the AI-ISAC, and works toward international alignment on secure AI development standards, learning from the evolving regulatory landscapes in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom.⁷ For corporate leaders and security professionals, it is to recognize that securing AI is not a compliance cost but a core business and national security imperative.

Ultimately, the security imperative is not about stifling innovation; it is about enabling it. By building a secure and trustworthy foundation for artificial intelligence, we can confidently harness its transformative power to solve our most pressing challenges. The choice before us is stark: a brittle, fragile world under constant siege, or a fortified, resilient world where AI serves as a pillar of progress and security. The latter is within our grasp, but only if we act with foresight, discipline, and collective resolve.

Works cited

1. Understanding Offensive AI vs. Defensive AI in Cybersecurity – Abnormal AI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://abnormal.ai/blog/offensive-ai-defensive-ai
2. Adversarial AI Fooling the Algorithm in the Age of Autonomy, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.fujitsu.com/uk/imagesgig5/7729-001-Adversarial-Whitepaper-v1.0.pdf
3. 30 Adversarial Examples – Interpretable Machine Learning, accessed September 4, 2025, https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book/adversarial.html
4. What are some real-world examples of data poisoning attacks? – Massed Compute, accessed September 4, 2025, https://massedcompute.com/faq-answers/?question=What%20are%20some%20real-world%20examples%20of%20data%20poisoning%20attacks?
5. Data Poisoning: Current Trends and Recommended Defense Strategies – Wiz, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.wiz.io/academy/data-poisoning
6. Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure Factsheet, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cisc.gov.au/resources-subsite/Documents/artificial-intelligence-factsheet.pdf
7. Article 15: Accuracy, Robustness and Cybersecurity | EU Artificial Intelligence Act, accessed September 4, 2025, https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/15/
8. AI in Cybersecurity: Offensive and Defensive Role – Complete Cyber, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.completecyber.co.uk/post/ai-in-cybersecurity-offensive-and-defensive
9. The Rise of AI-Driven Supply Chain Attacks and How to Defend Against Next-Generation Hackers – Risk Ledger, accessed September 4, 2025, https://riskledger.com/resources/rise-of-ai-supply-chain-attacks
10. AI Supply Chain Risks: The Hidden Vulnerabilities in Your Third-Party Network, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.traxtech.com/ai-in-supply-chain/ai-supply-chain-risks-the-hidden-vulnerabilities-in-your-third-party-network
11. Hackers are using AI to dissect threat intelligence reports and ‘vibe code’ malware – ITPro, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.itpro.com/security/hackers-are-using-ai-to-dissect-threat-intelligence-reports-and-vibe-code-malware
12. AI Supply Chain Attack Method Demonstrated Against Google, Microsoft Products, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.securityweek.com/ai-supply-chain-attack-method-demonstrated-against-google-microsoft-products/
13. Artificial Intelligence: DHS Needs to Improve Risk Assessment Guidance for Critical Infrastructure Sectors – GAO, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107435
14. NIST AI Risk Management Framework: A simple guide to smarter AI governance – Diligent, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/nist-ai-risk-management-framework
15. NIST AI Risk Management Framework: A tl;dr – Wiz, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.wiz.io/academy/nist-ai-risk-management-framework
16. Securing Large Language Models: A MITRE ATLAS Playbook – Medium, accessed September 4, 2025, https://medium.com/@adnanmasood/securing-large-language-models-a-mitre-atlas-playbook-5ed37e55111e
17. MITRE ATLAS™, accessed September 4, 2025, https://atlas.mitre.org/
18. Formal verification of AI software – NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS), accessed September 4, 2025, https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19890015440
19. AI for Formal Methods – Galois, Inc., accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.galois.com/ai-for-formal-methods
20. Formal Verification of Deep Neural Networks for Object Detection – arXiv, accessed September 4, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2407.01295
21. Abstraction-Based Proof Production in Formal Verification of Neural Networks – arXiv, accessed September 4, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.09455
22. What is Explainable AI (XAI)? – IBM, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/explainable-ai
23. Exploring the Landscape of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): A Systematic Review of Techniques and Applications – MDPI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2504-2289/8/11/149
24. Enable fully homomorphic encryption with Amazon SageMaker endpoints for secure, real-time inferencing | Artificial Intelligence, accessed September 4, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/enable-fully-homomorphic-encryption-with-amazon-sagemaker-endpoints-for-secure-real-time-inferencing/
25. Recent advances of privacy-preserving machine learning based on (Fully) Homomorphic Encryption | Security and Safety (S&S), accessed September 4, 2025, https://sands.edpsciences.org/articles/sands/full_html/2025/01/sands20240021/sands20240021.html
26. Differential Privacy, accessed September 4, 2025, https://privacytools.seas.harvard.edu/differential-privacy
27. Differential privacy – Wikipedia, accessed September 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_privacy
28. Federated Learning for Cybersecurity: A Privacy-Preserving Approach – MDPI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/12/6878
29. Federated Learning for Cybersecurity: Collaborative Intelligence for Threat Detection, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.tripwire.com/state-of-security/federated-learning-cybersecurity-collaborative-intelligence-threat-detection
30. How is AI Strengthening Zero Trust? | CSA – Cloud Security Alliance, accessed September 4, 2025, https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2025/02/27/how-is-ai-strengthening-zero-trust
31. levelblue.com, accessed September 4, 2025, https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/understanding-ai-risks-and-how-to-secure-using-zero-trust#:~:text=Zero%20Trust%20offers%20an%20effective,could%20be%20a%20potential%20threat.
32. NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) – Palo Alto Networks, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/nist-ai-risk-management-framework
33. Understanding AI risks and how to secure using Zero Trust – LevelBlue, accessed September 4, 2025, https://levelblue.com/blogs/security-essentials/understanding-ai-risks-and-how-to-secure-using-zero-trust
34. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cybersecurity: The Future of Threat Defense – Fortinet, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/artificial-intelligence-in-cybersecurity
35. What is AI Red Teaming? The Complete Guide – Mindgard, accessed September 4, 2025, https://mindgard.ai/blog/what-is-ai-red-teaming
36. What Is AI Red Teaming? Why You Need It and How to Implement – Palo Alto Networks, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/cyberpedia/what-is-ai-red-teaming
37. AI Red Teaming Agent – Azure AI Foundry – Microsoft Learn, accessed September 4, 2025, https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/ai-foundry/concepts/ai-red-teaming-agent
38. Advancing red teaming with people and AI | OpenAI, accessed September 4, 2025, https://openai.com/index/advancing-red-teaming-with-people-and-ai/
39. What is Cyber Threat Hunting? [Proactive Guide] | CrowdStrike, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.crowdstrike.com/en-us/cybersecurity-101/threat-intelligence/threat-hunting/
40. AI in Malware Analysis :, accessed September 4, 2025, https://lorventech.com/ai-in-malware-analysis/
41. What is an Information Sharing and Analysis Center (ISAC)? – Anomali, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.anomali.com/glossary/information-sharing-and-analysis-center-isac
42. Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC), accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.fsisac.com/
43. About ISACs – National Council of ISACs, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.nationalisacs.org/about-isacs
44. National Council of ISACs, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.nationalisacs.org/
45. The National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP) – CISA, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/national-cyber-incident-response-plan-ncirp
46. Roadmap for AI – CISA, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/roadmap-ai
47. The Case for Private AI Governance | The Regulatory Review, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.theregreview.org/2025/08/26/frazier-the-case-for-private-ai-governance/
48. Google DeepMind accused of breaking AI safety pledge in UK; Gets open letter from 60-plus lawmakers, says “troubling breach of trust”, accessed September 4, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/google-deepmind-accused-of-breaking-ai-safety-pledge-in-uk-gets-open-letter-from-60-plus-lawmakers-says-troubling-breach-of-trust/articleshow/123638812.cms
49. What America’s AI plan means for cyber and risk leaders – PwC, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/consulting/cybersecurity-risk-regulatory/library/tech-regulatory-policy-developments/ai-action-plan.html
50. AI Safety Institute – GOV.UK, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ai-safety-institute
51. (PDF) Comparative Analysis of National Cyber Security Strategies using Topic Modelling, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357457984_Comparative_Analysis_of_National_Cyber_Security_Strategies_using_Topic_Modelling
52. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT | SCIENCE International Journal, accessed September 4, 2025, https://www.scienceij.com/index.php/sij/article/view/72