Build Your AI Security Roadmap With the SAIL Framework
The SAIL Framework provides a practical, lifecycle-oriented strategy to manage AI-specific risks and build trustworthy AI systems. Developed by practitioners, for practitioners.

AI introduces a powerful new abstraction layer—one that makes autonomous decisions and operates beyond human oversight.
To address its inherent risks, we must shift our security focus upwards: from simply protecting code to securing the business logic and processes AI now controls.
This “Shift Up” approach calls for purpose-built controls specifically designed to safeguard the AI decision-making layer, preventing risks from cascading into critical business impacts.


Why a Unified Framework is Essential
Over the past year, we have collaborated with experienced AI and cybersecurity leaders to understand their core challenges with AI security.
These conversations inspired us to create SAIL,
a framework that provides an overarching and practical approach for safeguarding AI systems across the entire AI lifecycle.
Uncharted Threat Waters
New AI-specific threats like prompt injection and model theft require specialized defenses beyond traditional security controls.
No common language
AI, security, and governance teams lack shared context and unified processes for AI-specific risks.
Lack of skills and knowledge
Organizations struggle to find expertise bridging AI and security, while industry best practices remain fragmented and evolving.
Navigational Overload
Conflicting frameworks and standards leave teams without a clear, actionable roadmap for implementing comprehensive AI security
What is the SAIL Framework?
In essence, SAIL provides a holistic security methodology covering the complete AI journey, from development to continuous runtime operation. Built on the understanding that AI introduces a fundamentally different lifecycle than traditional software, SAIL bridges both worlds while addressing AI's unique security demands.
SAIL's goal is to unite developers, MLOps, security, and governance teams with a common language and actionable strategies to master AI-specific risks and ensure trustworthy AI. It serves as the overarching framework that integrates with your existing standards and practices.
SAIL
Your AI Security North Star
The SAIL Framework is a process-oriented methodology that systematically adds security to each phase of the AI journey. It provides a practical approach to unite development, MLOps, security, and governance teams around a common language to manage specific risks.
Last updated: 1.7.2025
Plan: AI Policy & Safe exp.
1. AI Policy & Safe experimentation
This foundational phase establishes AI security policy frameworks aligned with business objectives, regulatory requirements, and overall AI governance. It covers identifying AI use cases, assessing compliance needs, defining risk-based protection, and setting up secure AI experimentation environments for policy alignment validation. This phase incorporates dedicated threat modeling to proactively identify novel failures and inform architecture decisions. It also establishes initial data and model governance definitions, formalizing the introduction and vetting processes for new data or models.
Code/ No Code: AI Asset Discovery
2. Code/ No Code: AI Asset Discovery
This initial phase focuses on identifying, cataloging, and vetting all AI assets - including models, datasets, no code platforms and code components, whether developed in-house or sourced externally. This comprehensive inventory is crucial not only for understanding the AI system's composition and potential vulnerabilities but also for meeting emerging AI regulatory requirements.
Build: AI Security Posture Mgmt.
3. Build: AI Security Posture Mgmt (AI-SPM)
The Build phase is dedicated to performing a deep risk analysis of the AI assets identified in the discovery phase. It involves intelligently understanding, mapping, and graphing the landscape of these AI assets and their interconnections to establish a clear picture of the system's security posture and potential attack surfaces. Using protection requirements from the Plan phase, organizations can prioritize security controls for each AI asset based on risk levels and identify residual risks.
Test: AI Red Teaming
4. Test: AI Red Teaming
In the Test phase, AI systems undergo rigorous security assessments that simulate adversarial behaviors to uncover vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and risks. Unlike traditional AI testing focused on functionality and performance, AI Red Teaming goes beyond standard validation to include intentional stress testing, simulated attacks, and attempts to bypass safeguards, alongside validating security configurations (hardening). The depth and intensity of red teaming activities should align with the protection requirements of the AI-supported business processes, ensuring appropriate testing rigor for each risk level.
Deploy: Runtime Guardrails
5. Deploy - Runtime Guardrails
The Deploy phase ensures that AI systems are released into production with necessary runtime guardrails and security configurations activated. These measures are critical for the secure transition and ongoing operation, providing protection against runtime application security threats that may emerge once the system is live.
Operate: Safe Execution Env.
6. Operate - Safe Execution Env
During the Operate phase, AI systems, particularly agentic systems like coding agents and AI tools like MCP servers, run within secure and controlled execution environments. This phase implements sandboxing and zero-trust strategies to isolate AI agents from critical infrastructure and sensitive data while enabling their productive operation.
(Sandbox)
Monitor: AI Activity Tracing
7. Monitor - AI Activity Tracing
This phase continuously monitors system activity and collects telemetry. It is essential for detecting anomalies or potential attacks, also for generating audit trails and evidence required for regulatory compliance. This phase triggers automated responses such as containment or rollback upon detection. Monitoring also identifies when end-of-life conditions are met, initiating structured decommissioning procedures to safely archive relevant components and formally close the lifecycle loop.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, and insights to ensure that the SAIL Framework remains a valuable, up-to-date, and practical resource for the entire AI and cybersecurity community
Send feedback & get involved
Copied to clipboard
sail@pillar.security
We would like to extend our gratitude to the following for providing valuable feedback throughout the development of this framework:
Assaf Namer
Head of AI Security
Brandon Dixon
Former Partner AI Strategist
Steve Paek
Director, AI Security
Robert Oh
Digital & Information Officer (CDIO)
Sean Wright
CISO
Tomer Maman
CISO

Nir Yizhak
CISO & VP
Bill Stout
Technical Director, AI Product Security
Erika Anderson
Senior Security and Compliance
Raz Karmi
CISO
Manuel García-Cervigón
Security & Compliance Strategic Product Portfolio Architect
Steve Mancini
CISO

Vladimir Lazic
Deputy Global CISO
Allie Howe
vCISO
Kai Wittenburg
CEO
Ben Hacmon
CISO
James Berthoty
Founder & CEO
Steven Vandenburg
Security Architect
Mor Levi
VP Detection, Analysis & Response (DAR)
Chris Hughes
Founder
Francis Odum
Software Analyst Cybersecurity Research
Colton Ericksen
CISO
José J. Hernández
VP & Chief Information Security Officer
Moran Shalom
CISO
Casey Mott
Associate Director, Data & AI Security
Dušan Vuksanovic
CEO
Cole Murray
AI Consultant
Matthew Steele
CPO
Fabian Libeau
GTM Lead
Ready to
Get Your SAIL Analysis?
See how your AI security measures up against the SAIL framework and get a personalized roadmap for improvement - powered by the Pillar Security platform.
We value your privacy. See our Privacy Policy for details.
See how your AI security measures up against the SAIL framework and get a personalized roadmap for improvement.

We've received your message, and we'll follow up via email shortly