EU AI Act
EU AI Act - High-Risk Classification and Requirements

EU AI Act EUAI-Art.15: Accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity

High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in such a way that they achieve an appropriate level of accuracy, robustness, and cybersecurity, and shall perform consistently in those respects throughout their lifecycle. Resilience to errors, faults and inconsistencies; protection against attempts by unauthorised third parties to alter use, output or performance (incl data poisoning, model poisoning, adversarial examples and confidentiality attacks).

Maintained by Gerard BlokdykVerified against the published standard Control text last updated

What else in your programme already covers this

This control maps to 34 controls across 10 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 · 7 controls

SOC 2 · 6 controls

  • SOC2-A1.1 A1.1 Managing processing capacity
  • SOC2-CC5.2 CC5.2 General controls over technology (COSO principle 11)
  • SOC2-CC6.6 CC6.6 Protection against threats from outside the system boundary
  • SOC2-CC6.8 CC6.8 Preventing and detecting unauthorised or malicious software
  • SOC2-PI1.3 PI1.3 Controls over system processing
  • SOC2-PI1.4 PI1.4 Controls over output delivery

ISO 27001:2022 · 4 controls

  • 8.26 Application security requirements
  • 8.27 Secure system architecture and engineering principles
  • 8.29 Security testing in development and acceptance
  • 8.8 Management of technical vulnerabilities
  • AIRMF-MS-1.1 Approaches and metrics for measurement of AI risks enumerated during the MAP function are selected for implementation starting with the most significant AI risks, and the risks or trustworthiness characteristics that will not or cannot be measured are properly documented
  • AIRMF-MS-2.5 The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be valid and reliable, and limitations of the generalizability beyond the conditions under which the technology was developed are documented
  • AIRMF-MS-2.6 AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks as identified in the MAP function, is demonstrated to be safe, its residual negative risk does not exceed the risk tolerance, and it can fail safely, particularly if made to operate beyond its knowledge limits
  • AIRMF-MS-2.7 AI system security and resilience as identified in the MAP function are evaluated and documented

NIS2 Directive · 3 controls

  • Art.21.2.g Basic cyber hygiene practices and cybersecurity training
  • Art.21.2.h Policies and procedures on the use of cryptography and, where appropriate, encryption
  • Art.21.2.i Human resources security, access control policies and asset management

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 · 2 controls

  • A.6.2.4 AI system verification and validation
  • A.6.2.6 AI system operation and monitoring

DORA · 1 control

  • CRA-Art.11_12 Relationship with general product safety and AI Act (Articles 11-12)

GDPR · 1 control

Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.

Other controls in EU AI Act - High-Risk Classification and Requirements

You are reading one control. How much of EU AI Act have you already done?

EU AI Act EUAI-Art.15 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of EU AI Act your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and 17 of 43 EU AI Act controls already carry evidence.

Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the ISO/IEC 42001:2023 pair alone.

Query this from an agent

The graph holds this control, the 34 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.