Open Secure AI Alliance SAFE Framework Proposal

Tech Alliance Proposes 'SAFE' Guidelines for AI Incident Sharing

INFORMATIONAL
August 5, 2026
4m read
Policy and ComplianceSecurity OperationsThreat Intelligence

Related Entities

Organizations

Other

Hugging FaceVisa

Full Report

Executive Summary

At the Black Hat USA 2026 conference, the Open Secure AI Alliance and The Linux Foundation introduced a significant proposal to improve security across the artificial intelligence ecosystem. They issued a Request for Comments (RFC) for a new framework named the Shared AI Findings Exchange (SAFE). The SAFE initiative aims to create a standardized, confidential process for reporting and analyzing security incidents involving agentic AI systems. By creating a trusted information-sharing pipeline, the alliance—which includes over 120 members such as NVIDIA, Cisco, CrowdStrike, and Microsoft—hopes to turn individual AI security failures into collective defense intelligence, reducing systemic risk for the entire industry.


Regulatory Details

The Shared AI Findings Exchange (SAFE) is currently a proposed framework, not a regulation. It is being developed by an industry consortium and is open for public comment. The goal is to create a voluntary, standardized process for information sharing, similar to existing models in the aviation and financial services industries.

The proposed guidelines outline a structured process for incident handling:

  • Confidential Reporting: A secure pipeline for organizations to submit details of AI security incidents and near-misses.
  • Analysis and Anonymization: A central body would analyze the submissions to identify root causes, recurring patterns, and control failures, then share anonymized findings with the community.
  • Notification Timelines: The proposal includes a strict reporting timeline:
    • ASAP: Notify impacted parties.
    • Within 72 hours: Alert customers with demonstrable exposure.
    • Within 4 business days: Submit a confidential initial report to the SAFE exchange.
    • Within 30 days: Publish a preliminary public report.

Affected Organizations

The framework, once adopted, would affect any organization developing, deploying, or operating advanced agentic AI systems. The Open Secure AI Alliance is driving the initiative, with founding and key members including NVIDIA, Cisco, CrowdStrike, Hugging Face, Red Hat, Amazon, and Visa.


Compliance Requirements

As a voluntary framework, 'compliance' would mean adhering to the agreed-upon principles and timelines for reporting incidents to the exchange. Organizations that join the initiative would be expected to:

  1. Establish internal processes to identify and classify AI-specific security incidents.
  2. Commit resources to investigate and document these incidents according to the SAFE reporting structure.
  3. Share findings with the exchange within the prescribed timelines.
  4. Incorporate lessons learned and recommendations from the exchange back into their own AI development and security practices.

Implementation Timeline

The SAFE guidelines are currently in a public Request for Comments (RFC) phase. Following the comment period, the alliance will work to refine and formalize the framework. An official launch and adoption by member companies would likely follow in the months after the RFC process concludes.


Impact Assessment

The SAFE framework aims to shift the AI industry from a reactive, siloed approach to security to a proactive, collaborative one. The business impact is twofold. In the short term, it will require organizations to invest in new incident response processes specifically for AI, which may increase operational overhead. However, in the long term, the shared intelligence is expected to significantly reduce the cost and impact of AI security failures. By learning from the mistakes of others, companies can avoid repeating them, leading to more secure and resilient AI products. This is particularly critical in light of recent incidents where AI agents have autonomously attacked real organizations during testing, highlighting the novel risks of this technology.


Enforcement & Penalties

As a voluntary, industry-led initiative, there are no legal or financial penalties for non-participation. Enforcement would likely be based on community and market pressure. Organizations that participate in SAFE may be viewed as more trustworthy and transparent, giving them a competitive advantage. Conversely, companies that refuse to share information after a major AI incident could face significant reputational damage.


Compliance Guidance

For organizations looking to align with the principles of the SAFE framework, the following steps are recommended:

  1. Develop an AI-Specific IR Plan: Extend your existing incident response plan to cover scenarios unique to AI, such as model evasion, data poisoning, and emergent agentic behavior.
  2. Establish Clear Triage Criteria: Define what constitutes a reportable AI security incident versus a standard performance issue.
  3. Engage with the Community: Participate in the RFC process and stay engaged with the Open Secure AI Alliance to help shape the final framework.
  4. Promote Internal Transparency: Foster a culture of blameless post-mortems for AI incidents to encourage internal reporting and learning, which is a prerequisite for external sharing.

Timeline of Events

1
August 4, 2026
The Open Secure AI Alliance issues a Request for Comments on the SAFE framework at Black Hat USA 2026.
2
August 5, 2026
This article was published

Timeline of Events

1
August 4, 2026

The Open Secure AI Alliance issues a Request for Comments on the SAFE framework at Black Hat USA 2026.

Article Author

Jason Gomes

Jason Gomes

• Cybersecurity Practitioner

Cybersecurity professional with over 10 years of specialized experience in security operations, threat intelligence, incident response, and security automation. Expertise spans SOAR/XSOAR orchestration, threat intelligence platforms, SIEM/UEBA analytics, and building cyber fusion centers. Background includes technical enablement, solution architecture for enterprise and government clients, and implementing security automation workflows across IR, TIP, and SOC use cases.

Threat Intelligence & AnalysisSecurity Orchestration (SOAR/XSOAR)Incident Response & Digital ForensicsSecurity Operations Center (SOC)SIEM & Security AnalyticsCyber Fusion & Threat SharingSecurity Automation & IntegrationManaged Detection & Response (MDR)

Editorial Standards & Analyst Review

CyberNetSec.io uses automation to assist source monitoring, deduplication, observable extraction, and structured intelligence generation. Published analysis follows human-defined editorial standards and adds defensive context including MITRE ATT&CK, D3FEND, STIX, and Sigma where applicable. Read our editorial policy.

Tags

AI securityinformation sharingSAFE frameworkOpen Secure AI AllianceLinux Foundationpolicyincident response

📢 Share This Article

Help others stay informed about cybersecurity threats

🎯 MITRE ATT&CK Mapped

Every tactic, technique, and sub-technique used in this threat has been identified and mapped to the MITRE ATT&CK framework for consistent, actionable threat language.

🧠 Enriched & Analyzed

Observables and indicators of compromise (IOCs) have been extracted and cataloged. Risk has been assessed and correlated with known threat actors and historical campaigns.

🛡️ Actionable Guidance

Detection rules, incident response steps, and D3FEND-aligned mitigation strategies are included so your team can act on this intelligence immediately.

🔗 STIX Visualizer

Structured threat data is packaged as a STIX 2.1 bundle and can be visualized as an interactive graph — relationships between actors, malware, techniques, and indicators.

Sigma Generator

Sigma detection rules are derived from the threat techniques in this article and can be converted for deployment across any major SIEM or EDR platform.