Blogs & On Demand Webinars

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming industries, driving innovation, and creating new opportunities. However, it also presents unique challenges related to ethics, security, accountability, and compliance with emerging regulations like the EU AI Act. In this landscape, ISO 42001 has emerged as the cornerstone for responsible AI governance, aiming to provide organisations with a structured framework to mitigate risks, foster trust, and ensure ethical practices are being implemented.

In our previous blog, we delved into the EU AI act and discussed how its main goal is to regulate applications using AI by managing and mitigating risks, while fostering innovation.

Building upon that foundation, we now shift the attention to ISO 42001, a pivotal standard designed to guide organisations in meeting AI governance requirements like the EU AI act. In this blog, we explore the key components of ISO 42001, its role in managing AI risks, its alignment with complementary tools – such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) – and how Cyberfort is able to help organisations implement this vital standard effectively.

What is ISO 42001?

ISO 42001 is the first international standard specifically designed to address the governance and risk management needs of AI systems. It offers organisations a comprehensive framework to operationalise ethical, transparent, and secure AI practices, while complying with regulatory requirements. Providing guidelines for the entire AI lifecycle—from design and development to deployment and decommissioning—ISO 42001 helps organisations align their AI initiatives with stakeholder expectations and regulatory demands.

Key Components of ISO 42001

Operational Planning

· Establish an AI policy and clearly define the AI system’s objectives.

· Maintain a record to demonstrate the planning, execution, monitoring, and improvement of AI system processes throughout the entire AI lifecycle.

· Anticipate and plan for unintended changes or outcomes to preserve the integrity of the AI system.

Risk Management

· Proactively identify, assess, and mitigate risks across the AI lifecycle.

· Address potential biases, data security vulnerabilities, and ethical concerns.

· Enable organisations to prepare for and respond to emerging risks effectively.

Human Oversight

· Establish mechanisms to ensure critical AI decisions remain under human control.

· Foster accountability and prevent automated errors from escalating.

· Build trust by enabling human intervention when necessary.

Data Governance

· Maintain data accuracy, representativeness, and integrity to ensure fair outcomes.

· Develop protocols for ethical data acquisition, usage, and storage.

· Mitigate risks associated with biased or low-quality data.

Continuous Improvement

· Incorporate iterative evaluations to refine AI systems and governance practices.

· Use feedback loops and audits to adapt to regulatory updates and technological advancements.

· Foster resilience by embedding adaptive capabilities into AI systems.

The Role of ISO 42001 in AI Governance

ISO 42001 is more than a compliance tool; it is a strategic enabler for responsible AI development, providing a structured approach to risk management, accountability, and transparency. As AI systems become increasingly embedded in critical business processes, organisations need a scalable and adaptable governance framework that aligns with both regulatory mandates and ethical considerations. By implementing ISO 42001, organisations can:

Enhance Transparency and Trust
Provide stakeholders with clear visibility into AI processes and decision-making mechanisms, ensuring explainability and reducing concerns over opaque AI models.

Mitigate Ethical and Operational Risks
Proactively address challenges such as bias, security vulnerabilities, and unintended consequences through structured risk assessment methodologies.

Streamline Regulatory Compliance
Align organisational practices with stringent regulations like the EU AI Act, UK AI Code of Practice, and other emerging standards that mandate robust governance for high-risk AI systems.

Enable Scalable Governance
Adapt the framework to suit organisations of any size, from startups to multinational corporations, ensuring governance structures evolve alongside AI capabilities.

Demonstrate Compliance and Strengthen Reputation
Achieve ISO 42001 certification by successfully passing external audit assessments conducted by accredited certification bodies, positioning the organisation as a leader in responsible AI adoption.

Drive Continuous Improvement
Establish iterative monitoring and evaluation processes to refine AI governance, ensuring alignment with evolving risks, regulatory changes, and ethical standards.

NIST AI RMF: A Complementary Tool

While ISO 42001 provides a structured, standardised approach to AI governance, the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) complements it by offering a flexible, iterative framework for managing AI-related risks. The NIST AI RMF is particularly effective in dynamic environments where AI risks evolve rapidly, requiring continuous assessment and adaptation. When used together, these frameworks enable organisations to build resilient, responsible AI systems that align with global compliance requirements.

By integrating ISO 42001 and the NIST AI RMF, organisations can:

Govern AI Systems Holistically
Combine ISO 42001’s structured governance principles with NIST AI RMF’s adaptive risk identification and mitigation strategies, ensuring a well-rounded AI risk management approach.

Enhance Risk Adaptability
Leverage NIST’s “Map, Measure, Manage” functions to proactively detect and mitigate AI risks, ensuring AI systems remain secure, ethical, and aligned with both regulatory and operational needs.

Achieve Comprehensive Compliance
Align both frameworks to meet global standards, such as the EU AI Act, UK AI Code of Practice, and OECD AI Principles, ensuring AI governance remains robust and future-proof.

Improve AI Resilience and Security
Apply NIST AI RMF’s iterative risk evaluation process to reinforce ISO 42001’s security mandates, strengthening defences against adversarial threats, data breaches, and unintended AI failures.

Support Ethical and Explainable AI
Utilise NIST’s transparency and explainability guidelines alongside ISO 42001’s governance principles to ensure AI systems are interpretable, fair, and accountable.

The combination of ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF provides organisations with both structure and agility, enabling them to proactively manage AI risks while fostering innovation and compliance.

ISO 42001 and the UK AI Code of Practice

While the EU AI Act is a legally binding regulatory framework, the UK AI Code of Practice serves as a voluntary set of principles designed to help organisations adopt AI responsibly. Although the UK has opted for a more flexible, industry-led approach to AI governance, the UK AI Code of Practice aligns closely with global AI standards and emerging regulatory trends, making it a valuable guide for businesses seeking to future-proof their AI strategies.

The UK AI Code of Practice shares many objectives with ISO 42001, particularly in areas such as:

Transparency
Ensuring AI decision-making processes are explainable, auditable, and fair. Both frameworks promote algorithmic accountability, requiring organisations to document AI development processes and provide stakeholders with clarity on how AI-driven decisions are made.

Accountability
Assigning clear responsibility for AI system outcomes. ISO 42001 formalises governance structures, while the AI Code of Practice encourages businesses to designate AI ethics officers, compliance leads, or governance committees to oversee AI deployment.

Risk Management
Encouraging organisations to assess and mitigate AI-related risks proactively. The AI Code of Practice recommends continuous risk assessments, aligning with ISO 42001’s structured risk management framework to ensure AI remains ethical, unbiased, and secure.

The Business Case for UK Organisations

For UK businesses, aligning with ISO 42001 and the UK AI Code of Practice provides a competitive advantage, demonstrating a commitment to responsible AI use, ethical decision-making, and regulatory preparedness. Key benefits include:

Regulatory Readiness
Although voluntary today, AI governance standards may become mandatory in the future. Proactively adopting ISO 42001 and the AI Code of Practice prepares businesses for potential future UK regulations.

Global Market Access
UK companies developing, selling, or deploying AI in EU markets must comply with the EU AI Act. Aligning with ISO 42001 ensures seamless regulatory alignment across multiple jurisdictions.

Enhanced Trust and Brand Reputation
Organisations that demonstrate strong AI governance are more likely to gain stakeholder confidence, reduce compliance risks, and strengthen their brand’s credibility in AI-driven industries.

As AI governance continues to evolve, businesses that align with established best practices will be well-positioned to lead in ethical AI adoption while maintaining compliance with both UK and international standards.

Cyberfort: Your Trusted Partner in AI Governance

While it can be challenging to mitigate AI relevant risks entirely, ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF can both be utilised to demonstrate their commitment to privacy, security accountability, reliability, and compliance across their organisation, reducing AI risks and building trust with stakeholders. However, how well an organisation builds this trust is dependent on its understanding and ability to effectively use these tools for compliance. This is where Cybefort comes in.

Cyberfort specialises in implementing ISO frameworks and helping organisations navigate complex regulatory landscapes. It has multiple certifications across the ISO library, demonstrating its ability to understand and navigate around information security, including AI systems.

With a proven track record in secure-by-design practices and AI governance, Cyberfort is uniquely positioned to:

Deliver Tailored Solutions
Design and implement ISO 42001-based governance structures that align with your organisational goals.

Integrate Complementary Tools
Seamlessly combine ISO 42001 with NIST AI RMF to create a robust governance ecosystem.

Ensure Compliance Excellence
Guide organisations in meeting the EU AI Act’s requirements while fostering innovation and operational efficiency.

Future-Proof AI Systems
Embed adaptive governance practices that evolve with regulatory and technological advancements.

Final Thoughts

In today’s rapidly evolving AI landscape, proactive adoption of AI governance frameworks is no longer optional—it is a strategic necessity. Organisations that align with the EU AI Act, implement ISO 42001, and integrate NIST AI RMF are better positioned to lead in responsible AI adoption, setting themselves apart in an increasingly regulated and competitive market.

ISO 42001 serves as the foundation of responsible AI governance, providing organisations with the tools to navigate AI risk management, ethical considerations, and regulatory compliance. By embedding transparent, accountable, and risk-aware AI practices, businesses can mitigate potential liabilities, foster innovation with confidence, and gain a sustainable competitive advantage.

Partner with Cyberfort today to establish a robust, scalable AI governance strategy that drives both innovation and compliance. Secure your place as a leader in ethical, transparent, and responsible AI adoption.

For more information about the services we offer at Cyberfort to help you secure AI contact us at [email protected].

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly reshaping industries, from healthcare and finance to customer service and cyber security. However, along with its benefits come significant risks, including bias in decision-making, privacy violations, and the potential for unchecked surveillance. As AI systems become more integrated into daily life, governments worldwide are grappling with how to regulate their use responsibly.

The EU AI Act is the world’s first comprehensive legislative framework designed to regulate AI applications based on their potential impact on people and society. Unlike sector-specific regulations, this act introduces a risk-based approach, ensuring that AI systems that pose greater risks face stricter requirements, while low-risk AI applications remain largely unregulated.

With enforcement expected to begin in 2026, businesses and AI developers need to prepare now. Whether you’re an AI provider, a company integrating AI solutions, or an organisation concerned about compliance, understanding the key provisions of the EU AI Act is essential. In this blog, we break down the regulation, its risk classifications, compliance obligations, and the steps businesses must take to stay ahead.

What is the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act is a legislative proposal introduced by the European Commission in April 2021 as part of the EU’s broader strategy for regulating emerging technologies. It seeks to balance innovation with the need to protect fundamental rights, safety, and transparency in AI applications.

Why is this regulation necessary?

AI systems are increasingly making decisions that affect people’s lives including determining credit worthiness, screening job applicants, and even diagnosing diseases. However, numerous incidents of biased AI models, algorithmic discrimination, and opaque decision-making have raised ethical concerns. High-profile cases, such as Amazon’s AI hiring tool discriminating against women or AI-powered facial recognition leading to wrongful arrests, highlight the urgent need for oversight.

The EU AI Act aims to:

Establish clear rules for AI developers, providers, and users.
Prevent harmful AI practices, such as social scoring or manipulative algorithms.
Foster trust in AI technologies by ensuring transparency and accountability.
Promote innovation by providing legal certainty for AI companies.

Why UK Businesses Should Care

The Act will apply not only to companies within the EU but also to any organisation deploying AI systems that impact EU citizens, similar to how GDPR has global reach.

Although the UK is no longer part of the EU, the EU AI Act holds significant relevance for UK-based organisations due to several factors:

UK Organisations Operating in the EU
Companies developing, selling, or using AI within the EU must comply with the Act to access its markets.

Equivalency Expectations
Following the example of GDPR and the UK Data Protection Act 2018, the UK may introduce a similar AI governance framework to align with international standards and maintain market competitiveness.

Global Leadership and Cooperation
The UK’s recent signing of the world’s first international AI treaty demonstrates its commitment to ethical AI development, human rights, and the rule of law in AI governance. By adhering to frameworks like the EU AI Act and international treaties, UK businesses can lead the charge in developing AI systems that are trusted globally.

Global Standards Alignment
Compliance with the EU AI Act and adherence to international AI treaties position UK companies as leaders in ethical AI practices, enhancing their reputation and global competitiveness.

Fact
A 2024 survey by McKinsey found that 72% of global businesses are actively deploying AI, with applications spanning from customer service automation to fraud detection. The EU AI Act, which entered into force in August 2024, aims to regulate these applications to mitigate risks while fostering innovation.

The Risk-Based Classification of AI Systems

One of the defining features of the EU AI Act is its risk-based classification model, which categorises AI systems based on their potential to harm individuals, businesses, and society. This ensures that the most intrusive and potentially dangerous AI applications face the strictest scrutiny, while less risky applications remain largely unaffected.

Unacceptable Risk – Prohibited AI

Some AI systems pose such severe risks to human rights, democracy, and personal freedoms that they are outright prohibited under the Act. These include:

• Social scoring systems that evaluate people based on behaviour (e.g., China’s credit scoring).
• Subliminal AI techniques that manipulate human behaviour in harmful ways.
• Real-time biometric surveillance in public spaces (except for narrowly defined law enforcement exceptions).
• Predictive policing AI, which uses profiling and behavioural data to pre-emptively classify individuals as likely criminals.

High-Risk AI – Strictly Regulated

AI applications that have a high impact on people’s rights or safety but are still legally permissible fall into this category. These systems must comply with strict regulatory requirements before they can be deployed.

Examples include:

• AI in hiring processes (e.g., resume-screening AI, automated interview analysis).
• AI in critical infrastructure (e.g., energy grids, air traffic control).
• Healthcare AI (e.g., AI-based diagnostics, robotic surgery).
• AI in financial services (e.g., automated credit scoring, fraud detection).

Businesses deploying high-risk AI must ensure:

• Human oversight is built into decision-making.
• AI models are trained on unbiased datasets to prevent discrimination.
• Robust cybersecurity protections are in place to prevent adversarial attacks.

Fact
Research by the World Economic Forum suggests that 65% of financial institutions use AI-driven fraud detection tools, many of which will now fall under “high-risk” regulations.

Limited Risk – Transparency Obligations

Some AI systems do not pose high risks but still require clear disclosure to users. These include:

• AI chatbots (users must be informed they are interacting with AI).
• Deepfake generators (AI-generated content must be labelled).

Minimal or No Risk – No Regulation

Most AI applications, such as spam filters, AI-powered recommendation engines, and video game AI, fall into this category and face no additional regulation.

Fact
The European Commission estimates that 90% of AI applications in use today will remain unregulated under the Act.

Key Compliance Requirements for Businesses

For companies operating in the AI space, compliance with the EU AI Act is non-negotiable. The most critical obligations include:

Risk Management & Governance: Organisations must assess and mitigate AI risks before deployment.
Data Governance & Bias Prevention: AI models must be trained on high-quality, unbiased datasets to prevent discrimination (e.g., biased hiring algorithms).
Transparency & Explainability: Users must understand how AI decisions are made, especially in high-risk applications.
Human Oversight: AI systems must allow human intervention to correct errors or override automated decisions when necessary.
Cybersecurity & Robustness: AI models must be resilient against adversarial attacks, such as data poisoning or model manipulation.

Fact
A 2024 IBM report indicates that while there has been progress, a significant number of companies deploying AI still lack robust explainability and transparency frameworks which will become critical under the EU AI Act.

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Similar to GDPR, the EU AI Act includes severe penalties for violations:

Fines based on company turnover:

Up to €35 million or 7% of global turnover for non-compliance with banned AI practices.
Up to €15 million or 3% of turnover for failing to meet high-risk AI obligations.
Up to €7.5 million or 1.5% of turnover for providing incorrect documentation.

Fact
Under GDPR, Amazon was fined €746 million for data protection violations—AI compliance failures could result in similar hefty penalties.

How to Prepare for the EU AI Act

For businesses leveraging AI, preparation is essential.

At Cyberfort we recommend all organisations undertake the following steps to ensure compliance:

Conduct an AI risk assessment: Identify AI models that fall under high-risk categories.

Implement AI governance frameworks: Establish policies for ethical AI use.

Ensure transparency and documentation: Maintain records of data sources, decisions, and human oversight processes.

Review vendor AI compliance: If using third-party AI tools, verify compliance obligations.

Engage legal & compliance experts: Stay updated on regulatory changes and enforcement timelines.

Fact
Gartner predicts that by 2026, at least 30% of large organisations will have dedicated AI governance teams to comply with new regulations.

Final Thoughts: Embracing Responsible AI

The EU AI Act marks a defining moment in AI regulation, setting a precedent for ethical AI governance worldwide. While compliance may be demanding, it also offers businesses the chance to build trust and transparency, essential for long-term success in an AI-driven world.

Organisations that proactively align with the EU AI Act will not only avoid penalties but also enhance their reputation, reduce AI risks, and gain a competitive edge in the global market.

For more information about the services we offer at Cyberfort to help you secure AI contact us at [email protected]

Supply Chain cyber security attacks have been in the news throughout the last 12 months. Latest research suggests 47% of organisations suffered a disruptive outage over the last year from a breach related to a vendor. In this blog post Cyberfort cyber security professionals discuss where organisations need to focus in 2025 to improve their supply chain cyber security strategies and how they can make themselves more resilient to attack.

What are the main types of supply chain cyber security attacks?

From our experience at Cyberfort there are two main different types of supply chain cyber-attack. Both should be considered high risk, although for different reasons. While both meet the definition of supply chain attack (compromising or damaging an organisation by targeting less secure elements in the supply chain) each type of attack typically has different targets and threat actor capabilities and need to be considered when discussing supply chain cyber security.

Software supply chain attack
Where a piece of technology purchased by the organisation is compromised, this is typically not a targeted attack at an individual end user (though in extreme cases it could be) but rather an opportunity to operate a one-to-many breach. This could include activities such as embedding an exploit into the vendors software, this can be used either by the creators of the breach, or by other malicious actors that have purchased the use of the exploit to gain access into organisations that utilise this technology or compromising a third-party data store to gain access to multiple company’s data stored there.

Direct supply chain attack
In the event that a malicious actor wants to gain access to an organisation that is known to have mature processes and cyber security tooling, they may instead seek to compromise a supplier (for example a marketing agency producing the annual report, a cleaning company providing facilities, or a manufacturer making a small part of an overall solution). These attacks are typically more targeted and have specific goals in mind, for example compromising a defence prime through a small manufacturer providing a specialist item – the prime will have stringent controls, monitoring and policies, the sub may well be less mature, or at least there may be some human or system trust as this is a normal way for data and interactions to flow.

Just how big an issue is the threat of cyber-attacks stemming from the supply chain, as a result of an attack on a supplier? Do businesses put enough emphasis on this?

Industry reports suggest software supply chain attacks cost around $46Bn in 2023 and are predicted to increase by 200% in the next decade.

The one-to-many payback approach, and the delay between breach and activity make this an attractive area for malicious actors. Even when made aware of the risk, many businesses have only considered the risk for new procurements and haven’t adopted the same rigour with existing solutions.

Direct supply chain attacks are harder to quantify in a value number, but anecdotally from our incident response activities at Cyberfort around 40% of incidents we’ve dealt with recently have had some element of supply chain compromise. Even if this was simply spear phishing from a company email that worked together with the victim, and hence both technical (e.g. domains were trusted and emails whitelisted) and human (e.g. “I know joe, so of course I’ll click on this link) controls were bypassed.

On a more sophisticated level, we have seen facilities contractors asked to admit individuals, plug in chargers with usb malware in them, and other seemingly harmless activities that underpinned a breach.

What are the main risks here for organisations? How might a cyber-attack on a supplier cause issues for customers?

The risks here are many and varied, any kind of software can have vulnerable exploitability, any service provider can have weaknesses that are exploited, and any subcontractor can be compromised.

The risks range from ransomware and extortion, through data exfiltration and compromise of networks to sensitive data leaks and denial of service – meaning business disruption, reputational damage and regulatory fines are all a potential outcome.

What can organisations do to reduce the risk, both internally and through working with suppliers?

The first stage is to understand the suppliers you have in both areas, their cyber maturity and the requirement for them to disclose incidents. Especially in the case of smaller companies, controls are often lacking and there is too much trust placed in employees, with security being an “add-on” job for IT.

Secondly assess, validate and evidence the controls that your supply chain has in place. A simple way to do this is to assess the access they have to your people and environments, and then insist on similar controls being evidenced. Make this a key component of every procurement, whether software or services.

Additionally, make the disclosure of any cyber security incident within the supplier a contractual obligation. Request evidence of penetration testing, vulnerability management and user awareness training (where you can’t get this data, consider the risk before you purchase). Key steps to reduce supply chain security risks should include:

Create ring fenced and surrounding controls for supply chain access, such as segregated landing zones, highlighting in email messages, and strict policies around supply chain “helping”.

Validate your emergency patching and crisis scenario testing scenarios to include both software supply chain and direct supply chain attacks.

Include suppliers email addresses in your phishing testing, as the senders, get your organisation used to the fact that breaches can (and do) occur this way.

Sign off any new procurements with an individual security assessment, conducted with evidence outside of the procurement team.

What steps should suppliers have in place as a minimum? Should this be part of a due diligence process when selecting and reviewing suppliers?

From our experience at Cyberfort we advise all organisations to take action with the following 8 steps:

Validate your own supply chain, often suppliers and sub suppliers go down in size and hence in cyber maturity.

Ensure your security controls are appropriate for the level of business risk you’re dealing with.

Migrate to SaaS where possible, utilise the security packages for an efficient and effective minimal effort approach to security management.

Validate and evidence the controls that your suppliers have in place, it’s not your effort but hold the supplier to account.

Make sure you have cyber essentials plus.

Keep on top of pen testing and VM (see SaaS point above) and keep track of evidence.

Understand what your customer expects of you in security and compliance, and price this into your solution.

Ask your customer about their controls, likely targets and defences, find a trusted advisor/partner to help you extrapolate this to the threats you are likely to face.

How can organisations go about monitoring suppliers (and the wider supply chain) to reduce the risk that they will be impacted? Can AI help?

The challenge with monitoring suppliers (and there are a number of solutions that purport to do this) is that they are typically focused on either:

Forms completed by the supplier (and the smaller they are, the more likely they are to either deliberately or through a lack of knowledge not be completed correctly).

Systems that look only at external posture. This is important as indicators of risk can be extensive externally but massively reduced through surrounding controls. For example, a supplier having credentials available publicly seems very bad, however if this is mitigated through MFA, security baselines, certificated logins and device management, the potential risk is reduced. Similarly, if a piece of custom software is in use that communicates in an unusual or legacy way, this may not be recognised as a risk.

AI or machine learning can help here but it is not the “silver bullet”. It can help through trend analysis of connections and anomalies for example, but this requires human investigation and analysis of the anomaly.

The best answer is a combination of validated and evidenced checking, standard accreditations (such as cyber essentials plus) automated software where available and in use, controls and mitigations in the customer, and contractual requirements to continue to comply and evidence alignment to the required risk levels. However, this can be an arduous task so this should be combined with appropriate risk governance for every contracted software or purchase, and segmentation, controls and training for the customers networks and resources to identify, report and mitigate the risk.

How might this shape up over the next few years? Is it likely to become more of an issue?

As above this is an attractive area for both mass and targeted attackers. For the financially motivated, the concept of one hit, many scalps is an attractive and lucrative option, and the extended reach of software supply chain breaches will continue to grow.

For the targeted breach, the attraction of a high value asset acquisition in an environment that is tightly controlled without requiring advanced skills and techniques is equally beneficial to the attacker.

The use of AI to target content and attacks that are less direct will be even more prevalent and increasing (for example by using a generative AI to review a compromised mailbox) the attacker could create content that is targeted to the sender and recipients conversation styles, abbreviations and specific circumstances without a requirement for human intervention. This type of attack is difficult to detect, train and police. As mentioned above, often relationships with very small or transactional suppliers are driven by lowest cost, which can lead to the temptation to cut corners on both the customer and suppliers’ side.

For more information about our Supply Chain Cyber Security Services, please contact us at [email protected]

It is no secret AI is at the forefront of technological innovation, reshaping industries, driving efficiencies, and unlocking unprecedented opportunities. From healthcare breakthroughs to personalised customer experiences, AI is transforming how we live and work.

According to Statista, the Artificial intelligence (AI) market is projected to grow from £4.8bn to £20.68bn within the next 5 years, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 27.6%.

However, alongside this growth and AI’s potential, AI can introduce significant risks—ethical dilemmas, data privacy concerns, and the potential for harm if left unchecked. This dual nature of AI has made governance a critical focus for businesses and regulators alike.

This blog explores the transformative potential of AI, the associated risks, and why governance is essential to ensure AI remains a force for good. It also sets the stage for understanding emerging regulatory frameworks, including the EU AI Act and standards like ISO 42001, designed to guide responsible AI adoption.

What is Artificial Intelligence?

Think about the human brain – a vast, complex, intricate network of billions and trillions of neurons working together. These neurons communicate to process information, store memories, and as a result, enable critical thinking. Through past experiences and knowledge it acquires, the human brain is able to make decisions and come up with predictions by identifying patterns observed over the course of a lifetime.

Now, consider developing a machine that mimics the human brain’s ability to decide based on reasoning, facts, emotions, and intuition. This is where AI comes into play. Instead of neurons, AI relies on sophisticated algorithms and computational models to think, plan, and make decisions. The algorithms are designed to solve problems and make decisions, while the computational models are there to simulate a particular process based on the AI design purpose, such as mimicking how the brain works.

With the availability of powerful technologies, AI is capable of enhancing the brain’s functionalities by processing large sets of data, executing tasks at a faster rate, all with greater accuracy. It reduces errors and automates tasks, improving efficiency for both companies and people’s lives. While it falls short in emotional decision-making, abstract reasoning, and intuition, the emotional AI market is also witnessing a significant growth that is expected to reach £7.10bn within the next 5 years – According to Markets and Markets – with giant companies like Microsoft exploring its potential.

The Rise of AI: Opportunities and Challenges

AI as a Transformative Force

AI is no longer the technology of tomorrow — it is here today, powering innovations across multiple sectors, fundamentally reshaping how businesses operate and how societies function. Recent examples of AI’s power in transforming different sectors include:

Healthcare
AI-driven diagnostics are enabling earlier detection of diseases, personalising treatment plans, and optimising resource allocation in hospitals. For example, AI systems are being used to predict patient outcomes, reducing strain on healthcare providers. Stanford Medicine’s study demonstrates that AI algorithms enhance the accuracy of skin cancer diagnoses.

Finance
Fraud detection systems powered by machine learning can identify suspicious transactions in real-time, while automated trading platforms leverage AI algorithms to execute trades with precision and speed. Juniper Research forecasts significant growth in AI-enabled financial fraud detection, with cost savings reaching $10.4 billion globally by 2027. Whilst, MarketsandMarkets projects the overall global AI usage in finance to grow from USD 38.36 billion in 2024 to USD 190.33 billion by 2030, at a CAGR of 30.6%.

Retail
AI enhances customer experiences by using predictive analytics for inventory management, dynamic pricing, and personalised recommendations based on shopping behaviours. McKinsey highlights that embedding AI in operations can lead to reductions of 20 to 30 percent in inventory.

Manufacturing
Predictive maintenance powered by AI minimises equipment downtime by identifying potential failures before they occur. Deloitte’s infographic outlines the benefits of predictive maintenance, including substantial downtime reduction and cost savings. Automated quality control systems ensure consistent production standards. Elisa IndustrIQ explains how AI-driven quality control enhances product quality and consistency in manufacturing.

Transportation
Autonomous vehicles and AI-driven logistics solutions are optimising supply chains, reducing costs, and improving delivery efficiency. PwC’s 2024 Digital Trends in Operations Survey discusses how AI and other technologies are transforming operations and supply chains.

These applications demonstrate AI’s potential to revolutionise industries, boost productivity, and drive economic growth, while addressing complex challenges such as resource optimisation and scalability.

Risks of Unchecked AI

Despite the transformative potential of AI, there are ethical and pragmatic concerns related to AI that can have widespread implications, if not addressed effectively. Some of these risks currently exist, while others remain to be a hypothesis of the future.

Data Privacy Concerns
High-profile breaches have highlighted vulnerabilities in systems that lack robust security measures. AI often requires a large collection of data, potentially including personal information, to function effectively. This raises concerns around consent, data storage, and potential misuse, with high risks of data spillover, repurposing, and long-term data persistence.

Bias and Discrimination
AI systems rely on data for analysis and decision-making. If the data is flawed or biased in any way, then the outcome will reflect those inaccuracies. Poorly trained AI systems can unintentionally reinforce or amplify existing biases, particularly in sensitive areas like hiring, lending, or law enforcement.

Lack of Transparency
Complex AI models, often referred to as “black boxes,” produce decisions that are difficult to interpret. This opacity can erode trust, especially in high-stakes applications such as healthcare diagnostics and criminal justice.

Security Vulnerabilities
AI systems, if not properly secured, can be exploited by cyber criminals to cause operational disruptions, gain unauthorised access to sensitive information, and could affect human life. Adversarial attacks, where malicious actors manipulate AI inputs to alter outcomes, are a growing concern. At the Black Hat security conference in August 2024, researcher Michael Bargury demonstrated how Microsoft’s AI system, Copilot, could be manipulated for malicious activities. By crafting specific prompts, attackers could transform Copilot into an automated spear-phishing tool, mimicking a user’s writing style to send personalized phishing emails. This highlights the susceptibility of AI models to prompt injection attacks, where adversaries input malicious instructions to alter the system’s behaviour.

Ethical Dilemmas
The deployment of AI in areas such as surveillance or autonomous weaponry raises ethical questions about accountability, societal impact, and potential misuse. A 2024 study highlighted that the integration of AI into autonomous weapons systems poses significant risks to geopolitical stability and threatens the free exchange of ideas in AI research. The study emphasises the ethical challenges of delegating life-and-death decisions to machines, accountability issues, and the potential for unintended consequences in warfare.

Emerging Regulations: Setting the Stage for Responsible AI

AI is intended to drive innovation while safeguarding individuals and organisations from potential harm. With the growing awareness of risks and vulnerabilities in AI technology, governments and international bodies are recognising the need for robust AI governance frameworks. The introduction of regulations like the EU AI Act is a testament to the growing focus on balancing innovation with accountability.

This section provides a brief overview of the EU AI Act, which we will explore in greater detail in the next blog of this series, focusing on its goals, risk-based framework, and implications for businesses.

What Is the EU AI Act?

The EU AI Act aims to establish a harmonised regulatory framework for AI, addressing risks while advancing AI technology responsibly. It categorises AI systems into risk levels and sets stringent requirements for high-risk applications. This regulatory approach ensures AI systems operate in ways that respect human rights, societal values, while fostering safe innovation and sustainable growth.

Compliance Timelines for the EU AI Act

April 2021: The European Commission published the draft EU AI Act, marking the start of the legislative journey.
December 2023: The Act was formally adopted by the European Council and Parliament.
Early 2024: Finalised legal text expected to be published in the EU Official Journal.
Mid-2024: The entry into force of the Act, initiating the countdown to compliance deadlines.
2025–2026: A transitional period allowing organisations to prepare for full compliance. Most requirements will likely become enforceable by mid-2026.

These timelines are critical for businesses to understand and plan their AI compliance strategies accordingly.

UK Post-Brexit – Does the EU AI Act Apply?

The EU is not alone in prioritising AI governance. Countries like the UK, US, and Canada are also exploring regulatory initiatives. The UK’s recent signing of the world’s first international AI treaty highlights its commitment to managing AI risks on a global scale, reflecting a shared understanding of the importance of governance in AI development and expressing support for the EU as a leader in promoting trustworthy AI.

Despite Brexit, UK businesses need to be aware of this Act as it can impact their ability to engage with consumers, an area which we will explore further in blog 2.

The Role of Standards in AI Governance – Introducing ISO 42001 and NIST AI RMF

Standards like ISO 42001 and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) are emerging as key tools for organisations to implement robust governance practices. The ISO 42001 is a structured approach to managing AI risks, focusing on accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement. The NIST AI RMF on the other hand, is a flexible, iterative methodology for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks throughout the AI lifecycle.

Both standards complement each other and could be used simultaneously for a more holistic approach to managing AI security. By adopting these standards, organisations can:

Proactively address risks and align with emerging regulations.
Embed ethical principles into AI systems from inception.
Demonstrate a commitment to responsible AI practices, enhancing stakeholder trust.

Final thoughts
AI has the potential to be a transformative force for good, but it requires robust governance to ensure its risks are managed and its benefits are maximised. As the regulatory landscape evolves, frameworks like the EU AI Act, ISO 42001, and NIST AI RMF are becoming essential tools for guiding responsible AI adoption.

In the next blog of this series, we will dive deeper into the EU AI Act, exploring its risk-based approach, what it means for UK-based businesses, and the importance of collaboration across borders.

Stay tuned to learn more on how your organisation can proactively prepare for the future of AI governance and navigate the evolving landscape with more confidence!

For more information about the services we offer at Cyberfort to help you secure AI contact us at [email protected]