SQEP-led, independent cyber resilience for Singapore CII and enterprise across APAC
SQEP-led, independent cyber resilience for Singapore CII and enterprise across APAC
A named senior owner for the governance, risk and security of the AI systems your organisation uses, buys or deploys. AI risk assessment, governance structure, policies, controls and independent testing, aligned to ISO/IEC 42001 and NIST AI RMF, the ISO AI risk and impact assessment standards, and what CSA, IMDA, MAS and PDPC expect in Singapore. Part-time, on retainer. Infracom is a security consultancy: we govern, assess and secure AI systems and the environments they run in; we do not build them.
A fractional Chief AI Officer (vCAIO) is the senior person accountable for AI risk in your organisation, on a part-time retainer: an inventory of every AI system in use, a risk assessment of each, the governance structure, policies and controls that manage them, and independent testing before an AI system or agent goes live. Singapore now asks for that person by name. The MAS Guidelines on AI Risk Management, issued on 7 October 2026, expect every financial institution to designate a member of senior management as responsible for AI oversight and to keep an inventory of AI use, including AI inside third-party services. The Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust marks include AI security since 2025. Infracom supplies the officer and the assurance behind the sign-off. We are a security consultancy: we do not build AI systems, we make sure the ones you use are governed, assessed and secure.
Three jobs most organisations currently leave to nobody: govern, assess and assure. A fractional CAIO holds all three for a fixed number of days a month, with Infracom's GRC and penetration testing teams behind every decision.
ISO/IEC 42001 defines the AI management system; ISO/IEC 38507 describes what the governing body must do when an organisation uses AI. The CAIO puts that structure in place: accountability, policies, an approval path for AI use, and reporting the board can act on.
Every AI system in use, including AI embedded in vendor software and tools staff adopted on their own, is inventoried and assessed with the NIST AI RMF functions (Govern, Map, Measure, Manage), the ISO/IEC 23894 risk process and the ISO/IEC 42005 impact assessment that ISO/IEC 42001 requires.
The security controls the CSA Guidelines on Securing AI Systems and the 2026 Securing Agentic AI Addendum call for, tested against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM and Agentic Applications and MITRE ATLAS, and the evidence MAS, PDPC and the Cyber Trust mark ask to see, all kept current.
One governance programme mapped to the international standards and the Singapore guidance at the same time, so one set of evidence answers the board, the auditor and the regulator.
The certifiable management-system standard for AI: AI policy, roles, impact assessment, lifecycle controls, internal audit and management review, built onto an existing ISO 27001 system. Accredited certification is available in Singapore. Infracom builds readiness; certification is issued by an accredited body.
The NIST framework for trustworthy AI and its four functions: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage, with the 2024 Generative AI Profile. Infracom's working method for assessing the AI a client uses.
The Cyber Security Agency's guidelines and companion guide (2024) for owners of AI systems: secure by design across the lifecycle, a four-step AI risk assessment, controls drawn from MITRE ATLAS and OWASP; extended in 2026 for agentic AI.
The Model AI Governance Framework, the 2024 edition for generative AI and the 2026 Model Framework for Agentic AI, with AI Verify as the testing toolkit. The reference points Singapore regulators and customers use.
Issued 7 October 2026 for financial institutions: AI oversight, identification and inventory, risk materiality, lifecycle controls and capability, applying from 7 October 2027 and 7 October 2028.
The AI risk management process built on ISO 31000, and the AI system impact assessment that ISO/IEC 42001 requires. The method the CAIO runs for each AI system in the inventory.
Guidance for governing bodies on their responsibilities when the organisation uses AI. The basis for the board-level structure, accountability and reporting the CAIO puts in place.
The threat and test vocabulary for AI security assessments and red teaming: the 2026 OWASP lists for language-model and agentic applications, and MITRE's catalogue of attacks on AI systems.
The AI security requirements added to the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust marks in 2025, and the PDPC Advisory Guidelines on personal data in AI systems (2024) and in generative AI (2026).
Two years ago AI governance in Singapore was voluntary guidance. In 2026 it carries dates, named roles and audit expectations.
Issued 7 October 2026. Sections on oversight, identification, inventory and risk materiality apply from 7 October 2027; lifecycle controls and capability from 7 October 2028. Even institutions with low-impact AI use must designate a senior management member responsible for AI oversight, keep an approved-tool list and an AI inventory that includes AI in material third-party services, and show the board understands AI well enough to challenge it.
In April 2025 CSA added cloud, AI and operational technology to both marks: visibility over the third-party AI tools employees use, AI risks in the Cyber Trust templates, and an attack scenario where a language model is manipulated through malicious prompts. An organisation certifying from 2026 has to evidence AI oversight as part of its cyber mark.
In 2026 CSA issued an advisory on the risks of frontier AI models and wrote to the boards and chief executives of critical information infrastructure owners asking for a review of their cyber posture, including the organisation's own use of AI, as a matter for the board rather than the IT department. Directors' bodies in Singapore now list AI governance among directors' responsibilities.
The PDPA applies to every AI system that touches personal data, whether developed, deployed or procured. The CAIO ties each AI use case to the data it uses, the consent and purpose that cover it, and the impact assessment that is expected, working alongside your Data Protection Officer.
Infracom does not build AI systems. What we assess is the AI system you use and the environment it runs in: the model and its prompts, the data it reads and writes, the tools and permissions an agent holds, the cloud and identity around it, and the vendor behind it. The assessment follows the CSA Guidelines on Securing AI Systems and NIST AI RMF, draws on the MITRE ATLAS and OWASP catalogues, and ends in a risk-rated report with remediation owners, the same discipline as every Infracom security assessment.
Most organisations start with a short assessment that makes AI visible and risk-rated, then keep the CAIO on a retainer so the programme stays current as tools, rules and use cases change.
AI inventory including shadow AI and vendor-embedded AI, risk assessment of each system against NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 23894, governance gap analysis against ISO/IEC 38507 and 42001, approved-tool list, policy and a board paper.
Use-case approvals, vendor and model reviews, policy upkeep, AI incident handling, regulatory tracking, staff training and a quarterly AI risk report to the board. The named senior owner regulators and customers ask for.
A defined project with more days: MAS AI Guideline compliance before the 2027 and 2028 dates, ISO/IEC 42001 readiness, or an AI security assessment and remediation before a major system goes live.
↔ Swipe to compare
| Dimension | Fractional CAIO (Infracom) | Full-time Chief AI Officer | AI vendor or internal champion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Named senior owner | Yes, designated in writing, reports to the board | Yes | No, or a junior enthusiast without authority |
| Independence from the tools | Independent; no AI product to sell and none to defend | Employee | The vendor governs its own product |
| Security depth | Backed by a licensed penetration testing team that tests AI systems and agents | Depends on the individual | Rarely tested by an adversary |
| Standards alignment | ISO/IEC 42001, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 23894 and 42005, ISO/IEC 38507, OWASP and MITRE ATLAS, plus CSA, IMDA, MAS and PDPC guidance | Depends on the individual | The vendor's own framework |
| Cost | Fixed monthly retainer sized to the days needed | A senior six-figure hire that most mid-size organisations cannot justify, in a market where the title barely exists | Hidden in licence fees and in incidents |
| Best fit | A fractional CAIO suits organisations adopting AI faster than they can govern it: financial institutions facing the MAS dates, firms certifying under Cyber Trust, public-sector suppliers, and any company whose staff already use AI tools nobody has approved. Where a fractional CISO is also in place, Infracom runs both roles as one accountable function. | ||
Sources: NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 and NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile (nist.gov); ISO/IEC 42001:2023, ISO/IEC 23894:2023, ISO/IEC 42005:2025 and ISO/IEC 38507:2022 (iso.org); OWASP GenAI Security Project (genai.owasp.org); MITRE ATLAS (atlas.mitre.org); Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, Guidelines and Companion Guide on Securing AI Systems and Securing Agentic AI Addendum (csa.gov.sg); Monetary Authority of Singapore, Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence Risk Management for Financial Institutions, 7 October 2026 (mas.gov.sg); Infocomm Media Development Authority and AI Verify Foundation, Model AI Governance Frameworks; Cyber Security Agency of Singapore, Guidelines on Securing AI Systems and the Cyber Essentials and Cyber Trust marks (csa.gov.sg); Personal Data Protection Commission (pdpc.gov.sg). Obligations depend on your sector and designation; confirm with the issuing authority before relying on this comparison.
Discovery first, then risk assessment, then governance, then assurance, then a monthly rhythm. Every step produces a document your board, auditor or regulator can read.
Every AI system in the organisation, including tools staff adopted on their own and AI embedded in vendor software, with the data each one touches and the decisions it influences.
Each system assessed against NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 23894: impact on customers, data, decisions and operations; rated, and allowed, restricted or stopped.
The ISO/IEC 38507 governance structure, AI policy and acceptable use, approved-tool list, roles and sign-offs, and staff training so the rules are known, not just written.
Architecture review and testing by Infracom's penetration testing team: prompt attacks, data leakage, tool and permission abuse, agent behaviour, and the cloud and identity around the system.
Fixed days each month for approvals, vendor and model reviews, incidents and regulatory changes; a quarterly AI risk report in business language.
MAS AI Guideline dates, Cyber Trust evidence or ISO/IEC 42001 readiness delivered on a plan; the programme transfers in full if you later hire a full-time officer.
What the role is, who it suits, how it fits with your CISO and your data protection duties, and what Infracom will and will not claim.
Tell us how your organisation uses AI today and the rules that apply to you. A consultant will respond within 1 business day with a scoping call and a proposal.
Your one-stop IT & cybersecurity partner — Singapore HQ since 2008, expanding to Australia in 2026.
506 Chai Chee Lane
Singapore 469026
Mon – Fri
9AM – 6PM SGT