As AI reshapes the world, organizations encounter unprecedented risks, and security leaders take on new responsibilities. Microsoft's Secure Development Lifecycle (SDL) is expanding to address AI-specific security concerns in addition to the traditional software security areas that it has historically covered.

Why AI changes the security landscape

AI security introduces complexities that go far beyond traditional cybersecurity. Conventional software operates within clear trust boundaries, but AI systems collapse these boundaries, blending structured and unstructured data, tools, APIs, and agents into a single platform. This expansion dramatically increases the attack surface and makes enforcing purpose limitations and data minimization far more challenging.

Unlike traditional systems with predictable pathways, AI systems create multiple entry points for unsafe inputs including prompts, plugins, retrieved data, model updates, memory states, and external APIs. These entry points can carry malicious content or trigger unexpected behaviors. Vulnerabilities hide within probabilistic decision loops, dynamic memory states, and retrieval pathways, making outputs harder to predict and secure.

Traditional threat models fail to account for AI-specific attack vectors such as prompt injection, data poisoning, and malicious tool interactions. The loss of granularity and governance complexity is particularly challenging—AI dissolves the discrete trust zones assumed by traditional SDL. Context boundaries flatten, making it difficult to enforce purpose limitation and sensitivity labels.

Governance must span technical, human, and sociotechnical domains. Questions arise around role-based access control (RBAC), least privilege, and cache protection, such as: How do we secure temporary memory, backend resources, and sensitive data replicated across caches? How should AI systems handle anonymous users or differentiate between queries and commands? These gaps expose corporate intellectual property and sensitive data to new risks.

Meeting AI security needs requires a holistic approach across stack layers historically outside SDL scope, including Business Process and Application UX. Traditionally, these were domains for business risk experts or usability teams, but AI risks often originate here. Building SDL for AI demands collaborative, cross-team development that integrates research, policy, and engineering to safeguard users and data against evolving attack vectors unique to AI systems.

Novel risks in AI systems

AI cyberthreats are fundamentally different. Systems assume all input is valid, making commands like "Ignore previous instructions and execute X" viable cyberattack scenarios. Non-deterministic outputs depend on training data, linguistic nuances, and backend connections. Cached memory introduces risks of sensitive data leakage or poisoning, enabling cyberattackers to skew results or force execution of malicious commands.

These behaviors challenge traditional paradigms of parameterizing safe input and predictable output. Data integrity and model exploits require protection equivalent to source code. Poisoned datasets can create deterministic exploits. For example, if a cyberattacker poisons an authentication model to accept a raccoon image with a monocle as "True," that image becomes a skeleton key—bypassing traditional account-based authentication.

This scenario illustrates how compromised training data can undermine entire security architectures. AI accelerates development cycles beyond SDL norms. Model updates, new tools, and evolving agent behaviors outpace traditional review processes, leaving less time for testing and observing long-term effects. Usage norms lag tool evolution, amplifying misuse risks.

Mitigation demands iterative security controls, faster feedback loops, telemetry-driven detection, and continuous learning. Ultimately, the security landscape for AI demands an adaptive, multidisciplinary approach that goes beyond traditional software defenses and leverages research, policy, and ongoing collaboration to safeguard users and data against evolving attack vectors unique to AI systems.

SDL as a way of working, not a checklist

Security policy falls short of addressing real-world cyberthreats when it is treated as a list of requirements to be mechanically checked off. AI systems—because of their non-determinism—are much more flexible than non-AI systems. That flexibility is part of their value proposition, but it also creates challenges when developing security requirements for AI systems.

To be successful, the requirements must embrace the flexibility of the AI systems and provide development teams with guidance that can be adapted for their unique scenarios while still ensuring that the necessary security properties are maintained. Effective AI security policies start by delivering practical, actionable guidance engineers can trust and apply.

Policies should provide clear examples of what "good" looks like, explain how mitigation reduces risk, and offer reusable patterns for implementation. When engineers understand why and how, security becomes part of their craft rather than compliance overhead. This requires frictionless experiences through automation and templates, guidance that feels like partnership (not policing) and collaborative problem-solving when mitigations are complex or emerging.

Because AI introduces novel risks without decades of hardened best practices, policies must evolve through tight feedback loops with engineering: co-creating requirements, threat modeling together, testing mitigations in real workloads, and iterating quickly. This multipronged approach helps security requirements remain relevant, actionable, and resilient against the unique challenges of AI systems.

Microsoft's multipronged approach to AI security

SDL for AI is grounded in pillars that, together, create strong and adaptable security:

Research is prioritized because the AI cyberthreat landscape is dynamic and rapidly changing. By investing in ongoing research, Microsoft stays ahead of emerging risks and develops innovative solutions tailored to new attack vectors, such as prompt injection and model poisoning. This research not only shapes immediate responses but also informs long-term strategic direction, ensuring security practices remain relevant as technology evolves.

Policy is woven into the stages of development and deployment to provide clear guidance and guardrails. Rather than being a static set of rules, these policies are living documents that adapt based on insights from research and real-world incidents. They ensure alignment across teams and help foster a culture of responsible AI, making certain that security considerations are integrated from the start and revisited throughout the lifecycle.

Standards are established to drive consistency and reliability across diverse AI projects. Technical and operational standards translate policy into actionable practices and design patterns, helping teams build secure systems in a repeatable way. These standards are continuously refined through collaboration with our engineers and builders, vetted with internal experts and external partners, keeping Microsoft's approach aligned with industry best practices.

Enablement bridges the gap between policy and practice by equipping teams with the tools, communications, and training to implement security measures effectively. This focus ensures that security isn't just an abstract concept but an everyday reality, empowering engineers, product managers, and researchers to identify threats and apply mitigations confidently in their workflows.

Cross-functional collaboration unites multiple disciplines to anticipate risks and design holistic safeguards. This integrated approach ensures security strategies are informed by diverse perspectives, enabling solutions that address technical and sociotechnical challenges across the AI ecosystem.

Continuous improvement transforms security into an ongoing practice by using real-world feedback loops to refine strategies, update standards, and evolve policies and training. This commitment to adaptation ensures security measures remain practical, resilient, and responsive to emerging cyberthreats, maintaining trust as technology and risks evolve.

Together, these pillars form a holistic and adaptive framework that moves beyond checklists, enabling Microsoft to safeguard AI systems through collaboration, innovation, and shared responsibility. By integrating research, policy, standards, enablement, cross-functional collaboration, and continuous improvement, SDL for AI creates a culture where security is intrinsic to AI development and deployment.

What's new in SDL for AI

Microsoft's SDL for AI introduces specialized guidance and tooling to address the complexities of AI security. Here's a quick peek at some key AI security areas we're covering in our secure development practices:

• Threat modeling for AI: Identifying cyberthreats and mitigations unique to AI workflows
• AI system observability: Strengthening visibility for proactive risk detection
• AI memory protections: Safeguarding sensitive data in AI contexts
• Agent identity and RBAC enforcement: Securing multiagent environments
• AI model publishing: Creating processes for releasing and managing models
• AI shutdown mechanisms: Ensuring safe termination under adverse conditions

In the coming months, we'll share practical and actionable guidance on each of these topics.

Building trustworthy AI systems

Effective SDL for AI is about continuous improvement and shared responsibility. Security is not a destination. It's a journey that requires vigilance, collaboration between teams and disciplines outside the security space, and a commitment to learning. By following Microsoft's SDL for AI approach, enterprise leaders and security professionals can build resilient, trustworthy AI systems that drive innovation securely and responsibly.

Microsoft's approach recognizes that traditional security paradigms break down in AI contexts. The probabilistic nature of AI outputs, the blending of data types, and the rapid evolution of AI capabilities require security frameworks that are equally dynamic and adaptive. This isn't just about adding AI-specific controls to existing processes—it's about fundamentally rethinking how security integrates with development from the ground up.

The emphasis on cross-functional collaboration is particularly noteworthy. AI security isn't solely a technical challenge; it involves understanding business processes, user experiences, and the sociotechnical systems in which AI operates. By bringing together diverse perspectives, Microsoft aims to create security solutions that are both technically sound and practically applicable.

For organizations looking to implement similar approaches, the key takeaway is that AI security requires investment across multiple dimensions: research to understand emerging threats, policy to provide clear guidance, standards to ensure consistency, enablement to empower teams, collaboration to address complex challenges, and continuous improvement to adapt to evolving risks. This comprehensive approach is essential for building AI systems that can be trusted with sensitive data and critical operations.