AI in Cybersecurity: The Governance Question No One Is Asking

Artificial intelligence is now embedded across cybersecurity tooling - from detection and response to policy management and reporting.

But regulators are asking a different question than vendors:

Who remains accountable when AI is involved?

What regulators actually care about

UK and EU regulators are broadly aligned on one principle:

AI may support decisions, but accountability must remain human.

This is consistent with guidance from bodies such as:

• The Information Commissioner's Office, which emphasises explainability and accountability
• Emerging EU AI governance principles that stress auditability and oversight

As the ICO has stated:

“Organisations must be able to explain and justify decisions made with the assistance of AI.”

Where AI genuinely adds value

In a cyber governance context, AI is highly effective when used for:

• Risk aggregation and pattern detection
• Mapping controls to regulatory obligations
• Translating technical exposure into business language
• Preparing board-ready insight

These are preparation activities - not governance judgements.

Where AI must not decide

AI should not:

• Accept or reject risk
• Set risk appetite
• Override board judgement
• Replace decision ownership

From a regulatory standpoint, automated governance is indefensible.

RockSec360’s AI philosophy

At RockSec360, AI is used to remove friction - not responsibility.

Our model is simple:

AI prepares.
People decide.
Governance is evidenced.

This alignment is critical for regulator trust, insurer confidence, and board protection.

Experience AI-enabled governance without accountability dilution via the Cyber Risk & Compliance ScoreCard