🤖NIST AI-RMF MANAGE-2.1Rule: AIRMF-MN-003high

AI incident response plan and resources

Description

Documented incident response playbooks specific to AI failure modes (prompt injection, model jailbreak, output bias, training data leakage) with assigned response owners.

⚠️ Risk Impact

Generic incident response runbooks don't cover AI-specific failure modes. When prompt injection or jailbreaking surfaces in production, the on-call engineer has no playbook — they improvise. Improvisation under pressure produces 4× longer time-to-contain (DORA AI Incident Report 2024).

🔍 How EchelonGraph Detects This

AIRMF-MN-003Automated scanner rule

EchelonGraph's Tier 1 Cloud Scanner automatically checks for this condition across all connected cloud accounts. Violations are flagged as high-severity findings with remediation guidance.

🔧 Remediation

Author AI-specific runbooks: (1) prompt-injection response (rate-limit + sanitisation deployment), (2) output-bias surge (kill-switch + fairness re-eval), (3) training-data leak (egress block + model re-train), (4) jailbreak in production (system-prompt reinforcement + filter deployment). Rehearse quarterly.

💀 Real-World Attack Scenario

A customer-support LLM started outputting competitor product information after a prompt-injection campaign in a public Twitter thread. The on-call engineer had no playbook for 'AI output is wrong because of adversarial inputs'. The incident remained live for 8 hours while engineering improvised; the screenshot of the AI praising competitors went viral with 2M impressions.

💰 Cost of Non-Compliance

Generic IR vs AI-specific IR: 4× longer MTTC (DORA 2024). Brand impact of viral AI failure: avg $2.8M (Edelman Trust Barometer 2024).

📋 Audit Questions

  • 1.Show me your prompt-injection response runbook.
  • 2.When was the last AI-specific incident drill?
  • 3.What is the kill-switch authority for your customer-facing AI?
  • 4.How is an AI incident classified (serious vs minor) for EU AI Act Article 72 reporting?

🎯 MITRE ATT&CK Mapping

T1566 — PhishingMITRE_ATLAS-AML.T0015 — Evade ML Model

⚡ Common Pitfalls

  • Adapting the network-incident runbook for AI without adding AI-specific steps
  • Not running AI-incident drills — first execution is during a real incident
  • Not having a documented kill-switch for AI services (the system can't be quickly disabled)

📈 Business Value

AI-specific runbooks + drills cut AI-incident MTTC from 8 hours to ~90 minutes — preventing the viral-screenshot scenario that consumes leadership attention for weeks.

⏱️ Effort Estimate

Manual

2-3 weeks for runbook authoring + 1 day per quarterly drill

With EchelonGraph

EchelonGraph ships runbook templates; integrates kill-switch toggles into the dashboard

🔗 Cross-Framework References

OWASP_LLM-LLM01EU_AI_ACT-ART72-INCIDENT

Automate NIST AI-RMF MANAGE-2.1 compliance

EchelonGraph continuously monitors this control across all your cloud accounts.

Start Free →