Law / Frameworks / MIT mitigations Draft / Operational Process Controls
MIT mitigations 3.6Incident Response & Recovery
Protocols and technical systems that respond to security incidents, safety failures, or capability misuse to contain harm and restore safe operations.MIT AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy, preliminary taxonomy, July 2025, 3.6
We read each law below as bearing on this control. That does not mean the control, done well, meets the law: what each law asks is on its own page. Law library as of .
The kinds of duty that reach it: breach notice, security.
- 5
- laws
- 4
- jurisdictions
- 0
- with court rulings behind them
- 1
- not yet in force
- 1
- proposed, not law
Related controls in other frameworks the same duties, in at least two laws we track, reach both
- NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.6 The AI system is evaluated regularly for safety risks – as identified in the..., 3 laws
- NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.7 AI system security and resilience – as identified in the MAP function – are..., 3 laws
- NIST AI RMFMEASURE 2.5 The AI system to be deployed is demonstrated to be valid and reliable...., 2 laws
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-04 Data Privacy, 5 laws
- NIST AI 600-1GAI-RISK-09 Information Security, 5 laws
- NIST AI 200-22.2 Define & Construct, 4 laws
- NIST AI 200-24.3 Composing a TEVV Toolbox, 4 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM01:2026 Prompt Injection, 4 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM02:2026 Sensitive Information Disclosure, 4 laws
- OWASP LLM Top 10LLM04:2026 Supply Chain, 4 laws
- 1 more in the OWASP LLM Top 10
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI01 Agent Goal Hijack, 4 laws
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI03 Identity and Privilege Abuse, 4 laws
- OWASP Agentic Top 10ASI04 Agentic Supply Chain Vulnerabilities, 4 laws
- NIST CSF 2.0PR.IR-03 Mechanisms are implemented to achieve resilience requirements in normal and..., 2 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-DET-001 AI Data Leakage Prevention and Detection, 5 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-PREV-007 Legal and Contractual Frameworks for AI Systems, 4 laws
- FINOS AIGFAIR-PREV-008 Quality of Service (QoS) and DDoS Prevention for AI Systems, 4 laws
- 5 more in the FINOS AIGF
- ETSI EN 304 2235.1.2-2 System built to hold up against adversarial attacks, unexpected inputs and failures., 4 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.1.3-1 Threat modelling and risk management, reviewed regularly and covering..., 4 laws
- ETSI EN 304 2235.2.1-4 Sensitive data such as training and test sets protected from unauthorised access., 4 laws
- 1 more in the ETSI EN 304 223
A law in force is unmarked; the rest wear their state: not yet in force proposed
AI risk obligations
3 laws, 3 jurisdictions| Jurisdiction | Law | How it reaches this control |
|---|---|---|
 European Union |
AI Act, Article 15 (accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity) from , in 13 months |
Through its security duty. What it requires |
 Italy |
Codice Penale Art. 437-bis, Omitted Safety Measures in High-Risk AI Systems and Unlawful Alteration of Them |
Through its security duty. What it requires |
 Vietnam |
Law on Artificial Intelligence, incident management and reporting obligation |
Through its breach notice duty. What it requires |
AI sector rules
1 law, 1 jurisdiction| Jurisdiction | Law | How it reaches this control |
|---|---|---|
| European Union |
MiFID II Algorithmic Trading Controls: Resilient Systems, Testing, Kill Functionality, Records and Notification (Article 17 and RTS 6) |
Through its security duty. What it requires |
AI transparency
1 law, 1 jurisdiction| Jurisdiction | Law | How it reaches this control |
|---|---|---|
| New York City | Chatbot Data Privacy, Security, and Transparency proposed |
Through its security duty. What it requires |
Full text of the MIT AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy, CC BY 4.0. MIT AI Risk Initiative (MIT FutureTech), AI Risk Mitigation Taxonomy. Data from the MIT AI Risk Initiative is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Cite as: Mapping AI Risk Mitigations: Evidence Scan & Draft Mitigation Taxonomy Every control of the framework.