Smart-AI-Bridge

# NIST AI Risk Management Framework Assessment ## Smart AI Bridge v1.3.0 Security Validation **Document Version**: 1.0 **Assessment Date**: December 9, 2025 **Framework Reference**: NIST AI RMF 1.0 (January 2023) **Assessor**: Automated Security Validation Suite **Status**: ALIGNED WITH DOCUMENTED GAPS --- ## Executive Summary This document assesses Smart AI Bridge v1.3.0 against the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). As an AI bridge/gateway component that routes requests to multiple AI backends (DeepSeek, Qwen, Gemini, local models), the framework's guidance on AI system trustworthiness is particularly relevant. **Overall NIST AI RMF Alignment Score**: 8.3/10 --- ## Framework Overview The NIST AI RMF is organized around four primary functions: 1. **GOVERN** - Organizational governance and culture 2. **MAP** - Context and risk assessment 3. **MEASURE** - Analysis and monitoring 4. **MANAGE** - Risk treatment and response Smart AI Bridge implements controls across all four functions. --- ## GOVERN Function Assessment ### GOVERN 1: Policies and Accountability | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | GOVERN 1.1 | Legal/regulatory compliance | MIT License, open source | 7/10 | | GOVERN 1.2 | Organizational AI policies | Security documentation | 6/10 | | GOVERN 1.3 | Accountability structures | Role-based subagents | 7/10 | | GOVERN 1.4 | Organizational culture | Security-first design | 8/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // config/role-templates.js - Security-auditor subagent 'security-auditor': { description: 'Security vulnerability detection specialist', tools: ['mkg:read', 'mkg:review', 'mcp__serena__*'], capabilities: ['vulnerability detection', 'security analysis'] } ``` **Gaps**: - No formal AI governance policy document - No designated AI risk owner - No ethics review process **Section Score**: 7/10 --- ### GOVERN 2: Risk Assessment Processes | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | GOVERN 2.1 | Risk assessment processes | Security scoring | 8/10 | | GOVERN 2.2 | Risk tolerance definition | DoS limits documented | 8/10 | | GOVERN 2.3 | Risk management integration | Circuit breaker patterns | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // fuzzy-matching-security.js - Risk thresholds export const FUZZY_SECURITY_LIMITS = { MAX_FUZZY_EDIT_LENGTH: 5000, // Complexity risk control MAX_FUZZY_ITERATIONS: 10000, // Runaway process control FUZZY_TIMEOUT_MS: 5000 // Resource exhaustion control }; // circuit-breaker.js - Failure tolerance this.failureThreshold = options.failureThreshold || 5; // Max failures before trip this.timeout = options.timeout || 60000; // Recovery timeout ``` **Gaps**: - No formal risk appetite statement - No documented risk assessment methodology **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ### GOVERN 3: Human Oversight | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | GOVERN 3.1 | Human-AI interaction design | Fallback responses | 9/10 | | GOVERN 3.2 | Human override capabilities | Manual circuit breaker controls | 10/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // circuit-breaker.js:183-196 forceOpen() { this.state = 'OPEN'; this.lastFailureTime = Date.now(); console.error('Circuit breaker forced OPEN for maintenance'); } forceClosed() { this.reset(); console.error('Circuit breaker forced CLOSED'); } ``` **Gaps**: - No human-in-the-loop for high-risk operations - No approval workflow for sensitive actions **Section Score**: 9.5/10 --- ### GOVERN 4: Lifecycle Management | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | GOVERN 4.1 | AI system documentation | README, CHANGELOG, EXTENDING.md | 8/10 | | GOVERN 4.2 | Version control | Git with semantic versioning | 9/10 | | GOVERN 4.3 | Change management | Documented releases | 8/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: - CHANGELOG.md with version history - Semantic versioning (v1.3.0) - Git-based version control - Release documentation **Gaps**: - No formal change approval process - No impact assessment for changes **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ## MAP Function Assessment ### MAP 1: Context Understanding | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MAP 1.1 | Intended purposes documented | README.md, use cases | 8/10 | | MAP 1.2 | Intended users identified | Developer audience | 8/10 | | MAP 1.3 | Deployment context understood | MCP server context | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```markdown # README.md Smart AI Bridge provides: - Unified access to multiple AI backends - Intelligent token management - Security hardening for AI operations - MCP protocol compliance ``` **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ### MAP 2: AI System Categorization | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MAP 2.1 | System capabilities documented | Tool descriptions | 9/10 | | MAP 2.2 | Limitations documented | Error handling | 7/10 | | MAP 2.3 | Risk categorization | Security scoring | 8/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: - MCP tool definitions with descriptions - FUZZY_MATCHING_INTEGRATION.md documenting limitations - Security score (9.7/10 claimed, 8.5-9.5 validated) **Section Score**: 8/10 --- ### MAP 3: Technical Characteristics | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MAP 3.1 | Data characteristics understood | Input validation | 9/10 | | MAP 3.2 | Algorithm transparency | Open source | 10/10 | | MAP 3.3 | Technical dependencies documented | package.json | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // input-validator.js - Data understanding static validateString(value, options = {}) { const { required, minLength, maxLength, allowEmpty, pattern, name } = options; // Comprehensive validation logic } ``` **Section Score**: 9.3/10 --- ### MAP 4: Risk Identification | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MAP 4.1 | AI-specific risks identified | DoS, injection, auth bypass | 9/10 | | MAP 4.2 | Risk interdependencies | Backend failure cascades | 9/10 | | MAP 4.3 | Risk evolution tracking | Metrics and monitoring | 8/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // fuzzy-matching-security.js - Risk tracking detectAbusePatterns() { return { highIterationLimitRate: ..., highTimeoutRate: ..., highComplexityLimitRate: ..., rapidRequestRate: ..., lowSuccessRate: ... }; } ``` **Section Score**: 8.7/10 --- ## MEASURE Function Assessment ### MEASURE 1: Performance Metrics | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MEASURE 1.1 | Performance measurement | FuzzyMetricsTracker | 9/10 | | MEASURE 1.2 | Accuracy metrics | Match success rates | 8/10 | | MEASURE 1.3 | Latency metrics | Timeout tracking | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // fuzzy-matching-security.js:42-54 this.metrics = { totalOperations: 0, exactMatches: 0, fuzzyMatches: 0, failedMatches: 0, averageSimilarity: 0, iterationLimitHits: 0, timeouts: 0, complexityLimitHits: 0, lastReset: Date.now() }; ``` **Section Score**: 8.7/10 --- ### MEASURE 2: Trustworthiness Characteristics | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MEASURE 2.1 | Valid and reliable | Input validation suite | 9/10 | | MEASURE 2.2 | Safe | Security hardening | 9/10 | | MEASURE 2.3 | Secure and resilient | Circuit breaker, rate limiting | 10/10 | | MEASURE 2.4 | Accountable and transparent | Logging, open source | 8/10 | | MEASURE 2.5 | Explainable | Error messages with hints | 9/10 | | MEASURE 2.6 | Interpretable | Clear error classification | 9/10 | | MEASURE 2.7 | Privacy-enhanced | Error sanitization | 9/10 | | MEASURE 2.8 | Fair (bias managed) | N/A (routing, not ML) | N/A | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // error-sanitizer.js - Explainability static getErrorHint(errorType) { const hints = { AUTH_ERROR: 'Verify MCP_AUTH_TOKEN is set correctly', VALIDATION_ERROR: 'Check the input format and required fields', NOT_FOUND: 'Ensure the file path is correct and file exists', ... }; return hints[errorType] || null; } ``` **Section Score**: 9/10 --- ### MEASURE 3: Risk Assessment | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MEASURE 3.1 | Quantitative risk metrics | Security scores | 8/10 | | MEASURE 3.2 | Qualitative risk assessment | Gap analysis | 8/10 | | MEASURE 3.3 | Continuous risk evaluation | Abuse detection | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: - validate-security-score.js provides quantitative scoring - This compliance matrix provides qualitative assessment - Real-time abuse pattern detection **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ### MEASURE 4: Testing and Evaluation | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MEASURE 4.1 | Pre-deployment testing | Security test suites | 10/10 | | MEASURE 4.2 | Post-deployment monitoring | Metrics tracking | 8/10 | | MEASURE 4.3 | Independent evaluation | Third-party audit capability | 7/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```bash # Test suites available node security-tests.js # Path traversal tests (50+ cases) node security-hardening-tests.js # Auth, rate limit, validation tests npm test # Full test suite node validate-security-score.js # Security scoring ``` **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ## MANAGE Function Assessment ### MANAGE 1: Risk Response | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MANAGE 1.1 | Risk prioritization | Critical/high/medium/low | 8/10 | | MANAGE 1.2 | Risk treatment selection | Multiple controls | 9/10 | | MANAGE 1.3 | Resource allocation | Development priorities | 7/10 | **Section Score**: 8/10 --- ### MANAGE 2: Risk Treatment | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MANAGE 2.1 | Technical controls | Auth, rate limit, validation, circuit breaker | 10/10 | | MANAGE 2.2 | Administrative controls | Documentation, procedures | 7/10 | | MANAGE 2.3 | Residual risk acceptance | Documented gaps | 8/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ``` Defense in Depth Architecture: ┌────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Layer 1: Authentication (auth-manager.js) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Layer 2: Rate Limiting (rate-limiter.js) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Layer 3: Input Validation (input-validator)│ ├────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Layer 4: Path Security (path-security.js) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Layer 5: Circuit Breaker (circuit-breaker) │ ├────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Layer 6: Error Sanitization │ └────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ### MANAGE 3: Risk Communication | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MANAGE 3.1 | Stakeholder communication | README, CHANGELOG | 8/10 | | MANAGE 3.2 | Risk reporting | Metrics getters | 8/10 | | MANAGE 3.3 | Incident communication | Error responses with IDs | 9/10 | **Implementation Evidence**: ```javascript // error-sanitizer.js - Incident tracking return { success: false, error: { type: errorType, message: this.getUserMessage(errorType, context), timestamp: new Date().toISOString(), requestId: this.generateRequestId() // ERR-<timestamp>-<random> }, hint: this.getErrorHint(errorType) }; ``` **Section Score**: 8.3/10 --- ### MANAGE 4: Continuous Improvement | Subcategory | Control | Implementation | Score | |-------------|---------|----------------|-------| | MANAGE 4.1 | Lessons learned | CHANGELOG documentation | 7/10 | | MANAGE 4.2 | Process improvement | Version releases | 8/10 | | MANAGE 4.3 | Technology updates | Active development | 9/10 | **Section Score**: 8/10 --- ## Summary Scorecard ### By Function | Function | Score | Status | |----------|-------|--------| | GOVERN | 8.3/10 | ALIGNED | | MAP | 8.6/10 | ALIGNED | | MEASURE | 8.6/10 | ALIGNED | | MANAGE | 8.2/10 | ALIGNED | | **TOTAL** | **8.4/10** | **ALIGNED** | ### By Trustworthiness Characteristic | Characteristic | Score | Evidence | |----------------|-------|----------| | Valid & Reliable | 9/10 | Input validation, testing | | Safe | 9/10 | Security hardening | | Secure & Resilient | 10/10 | Defense in depth | | Accountable & Transparent | 8/10 | Open source, logging | | Explainable | 9/10 | Error hints | | Interpretable | 9/10 | Error classification | | Privacy-Enhanced | 9/10 | Data sanitization | --- ## Critical Gap Remediation Priority ### HIGH Priority (Required for AI Governance) 1. Create formal AI risk management policy document 2. Designate AI risk owner/accountable party 3. Implement persistent audit logging ### MEDIUM Priority (Recommended) 1. Create AI system documentation template 2. Define formal risk assessment methodology 3. Establish change approval process ### LOW Priority (Future Enhancement) 1. AI ethics review process 2. Human-in-the-loop for high-risk operations 3. External audit program --- ## AI-Specific Risk Controls ### 1. Backend AI Reliability **Risk**: AI backend failure causing service disruption **Control**: Circuit breaker pattern with fallback responses **Evidence**: `circuit-breaker.js` ### 2. AI Response Quality **Risk**: Low-quality or harmful AI responses **Control**: Input validation before sending to AI, error sanitization on response **Evidence**: `input-validator.js`, `error-sanitizer.js` ### 3. AI Resource Exhaustion **Risk**: Complex prompts causing resource exhaustion **Control**: Complexity limits, timeouts, iteration caps **Evidence**: `fuzzy-matching-security.js` ### 4. AI Service Abuse **Risk**: Automated abuse of AI services **Control**: Rate limiting, abuse pattern detection **Evidence**: `rate-limiter.js`, `FuzzyMetricsTracker` ### 5. AI Prompt Injection **Risk**: Malicious input manipulating AI behavior **Control**: Input validation, path security **Evidence**: `input-validator.js`, `path-security.js` --- ## Recommendations ### For Public Release (Minimum) 1. Document all known limitations 2. Provide security configuration guide 3. Include disclaimers about AI backend behaviors ### For Enterprise Deployment 1. Implement formal governance documentation 2. Add persistent audit logging 3. Create incident response procedures 4. Establish SLA for security updates --- ## References - [NIST AI RMF 1.0](https://www.nist.gov/itl/ai-risk-management-framework) - [NIST AI RMF PDF](https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/nist.ai.100-1.pdf) - [NIST AI RMF Playbook](https://airc.nist.gov/airmf-resources/playbook/) - [NIST Generative AI Profile](https://airc.nist.gov/AI_RMF_Knowledge_Base/AI_RMF/Foundational_Information/6-sec-profile) --- **Document Control** Last Updated: December 9, 2025 Next Review: Upon v1.4.0 release