Comparing GenAI Governance Frameworks: OWASP, NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, and CipherNorth’s Foundational Approach
Why Compare Frameworks?
Generative AI (GenAI) has moved fast, much faster than most governance programs. Today, leaders face a crowded field of frameworks and standards: some are open-source and tactical, others are formal and certifiable. The question is not whether you need governance, but which approach makes sense for your organization right now.
Below we compare four major approaches:
OWASP Top 10 for LLMs - Security-focused, community-driven, leans toward developing AI.
NIST AI RMF & AI 600-1 - U.S. government-led, risk-based, broad, and well recognized.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 - Global, certifiable AI management system standard.
CipherNorth’s Foundational Framework - Practical “minimum viable governance” for organizations just starting out.
Framework Summaries
OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
What it is: A community-built list of the top ten security risks unique to large language models (LLMs).
Strengths: Practical, developer-friendly, and immediately actionable for AppSec teams.
Limitations: Narrower focus on security vulnerabilities; does not cover broader governance or compliance needs.
NIST AI RMF + NIST AI 600-1
What it is: A voluntary U.S. framework for managing AI risks across the lifecycle; AI 600-1 is the generative AI-specific profile.
Strengths: Comprehensive, flexible, risk-based; widely recognized; aligns with federal guidance, easily maps to NIST 800-53, 800-61, CSF.
Limitations: Non-certifiable; requires customization; some organizations may find it too high-level without companion profiles.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023
What it is: The first international standard for AI management systems, certifiable by independent auditors.
Strengths: Globally recognized, formal certification; aligns with existing ISO frameworks like 27001; trusted by regulators and enterprise buyers.
Limitations: Paywalled; resource-intensive; requires external certification; not designed for rapid or lightweight adoption.
CipherNorth’s Foundational Framework
What it is: A streamlined, “minimum viable” governance framework built on NIST CSF, NIST AI 600-1, and SP 800-53.
Strengths: Practical, fast to adopt, focuses on key guardrails (policies, onboarding, training, vendor review).
Limitations: Not certifiable; less detailed than full frameworks; intended as a starting point, not a long-term solution.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Framework | Focus | Certification | Best For | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OWASP Top 10 for LLMs | Application & security risks | ❌ No | Developers, AppSec, product teams | Free, actionable, easy to integrate | Narrow focus, not governance |
| NIST AI RMF + AI 600-1 | Risk management & trustworthy AI | ❌ No | Enterprise, Regulated,Risk managers, compliance, policy teams | Flexible, recognized, covers entire lifecycle | High-level, requires tailoring |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 | AI management system | ✅ Yes | Enterprises, regulated sectors, global vendors | Formal certification, global credibility, procurement advantage | Costly, resource-heavy, paywalled |
| CipherNorth Foundational Framework | Practical starter guardrails | ❌ No | Orgs just beginning with GenAI | Quick to implement, realistic minimum | Not certifiable, less comprehensive |
Pros & Cons at a Glance
OWASP Top 10 → Pros: Specific, security-focused, developer-friendly. Cons: Too narrow for org-wide adoption.
NIST AI RMF + AI 600-1 → Pros: Comprehensive, flexible, U.S. government-backed. Cons: Non-certifiable, high-level.
ISO/IEC 42001 → Pros: Certification, global recognition, trust-building. Cons: Costly, requires auditors, not open-access.
CipherNorth’s Framework → Pros: Practical, minimal entry point, actionable. Cons: No certification, interim solution.
Which Should You Choose?
If you’re just starting: Use CipherNorth’s foundational framework as a baseline.
If your concern is security & AppSec: Implement OWASP Top 10 alongside your AppSec practices.
If you want comprehensive risk governance: Adopt NIST AI RMF and the AI 600-1 profile.
If you need global certification: Pursue ISO/IEC 42001 for competitive advantage and regulatory credibility.
Conclusion
No single framework solves everything. The right approach depends on your organization’s maturity, risk appetite, regulatory environment, and business needs. Many organizations will layer these approaches, starting with a foundational framework, integrating OWASP security controls, mapping risks with NIST, and ultimately pursuing ISO certification for credibility.