AI-Assisted Secure Coding (Appendix C) · Validation of AI-Generated Code
Extra review for security-critical files
Verify that security-critical files require an elevated review threshold when AI generated or modified them: two-person review, security-team sign-off, or stricter. Security-critical files here include authentication, authorization, and cryptography code; IAM policy; CI/CD workflow definitions; deployment manifests; and sandbox or network policy artifacts.
OWASP AISVS v1.01, requirement AC.4.4
In plain English
Changes that AI makes to security-critical files need extra review, such as two reviewers or security team sign-off. That covers authentication, authorisation and cryptography code, IAM policies, CI/CD workflows, deployment manifests and sandbox or network policies.
What good looks like
- Security-critical paths are listed.
- Changes to them need the higher review level.
- The rule is enforced by tooling.
How teams usually do it
- CODEOWNERS entries for security-critical paths requiring the security team.
Evidence an auditor would accept
- The CODEOWNERS file and branch protection.
Common mistakes
- A list of critical paths that misses CI workflow files.
Not sure which requirements apply to your system? Take the assessment.
Requirement text from the OWASP AI Security Verification Standard, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. This guidance is shared under the same licence.