{domain:"www.qualitydigest.com",server:"169.47.211.87"} Skip to main content

        
User account menu
Main navigation
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Resource Management
  • Videos/Webinars
    • All videos
    • Product Demos
    • Webinars
  • Advertise
    • Advertise
    • Submit B2B Press Release
    • Write for us
  • Metrology Hub
  • Training
  • Subscribe
  • Log in
Mobile Menu
  • Home
  • Topics
    • Customer Care
    • Regulated Industries
    • Research & Tech
    • Quality Improvement Tools
    • People Management
    • Metrology
    • Manufacturing
    • Roadshow
    • QMS & Standards
    • Statistical Methods
    • Supply Chain
    • Resource Management
  • Login / Subscribe
  • More...
    • All Features
    • All News
    • All Videos
    • Training

NIST Supports Continuous-Monitor-and-Update Security Model for AI Systems

Mathematical proof provides rigorous explanation of why a ‘one and done’ security model won’t do

NIST
Bio
Wed, 07/15/2026 - 12:02
  • Comment
  • RSS

Social Sharing block

  • Print
Body

(NIST: Gaithersburg, MD) -- Can we make artificial intelligence impervious to adversaries who want to twist the technology to nefarious ends? Though AI is among the newest of technologies, the question’s answer is nearly a century old.

ADVERTISEMENT

Try as we might, we can’t render AI completely unassailable using conventional security models. In the peer-reviewed journal IEEE Security and Privacy, Apostol Vassilev, a senior scientist at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has published a mathematical proof of this statement building on work published in 1931 by famed logician Kurt Gödel. His incompleteness theorems showed that there are limits to what can be proved within a system built on a finite number of rules.

The guardrails that govern an AI’s behavior are just such a system, and one of the proof’s implications is that there will always be a way to prompt an AI system to disregard its rules—it’s just a matter of finding it.

 …

Want to continue?
Log in or create a FREE account.
Enter your username or email address
Enter the password that accompanies your username.
By logging in you agree to receive communication from Quality Digest. Privacy Policy.
Create a FREE account
Forgot My Password

Add new comment

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
Please login to comment.

© 2026 Quality Digest. Copyright on content held by Quality Digest or by individual authors. Contact Quality Digest for reprint information.
“Quality Digest" is a trademark owned by Quality Circle Institute Inc.

footer
  • Home
  • Print QD: 1995-2008
  • Print QD: 2008-2009
  • Videos
  • Privacy Policy
  • Write for us
footer second menu
  • Subscribe to Quality Digest
  • About Us