Bike4Mind Control Objectives & Security Controls Framework

Executive Summary

This document defines our security control objectives and implementation controls based on our threat model, compliance requirements (SOC 2), and risk assessment. Our approach leverages 30+ years of game development security experience to anticipate and defend against adversarial behavior.

1. Risk Assessment & Threat Model

1.1 Business Context

• Platform: AI-powered knowledge management with multi-LLM support
• Deployment Model: Source-available with customer-hosted options
• Compliance Target: SOC 2 Type II readiness
• Geographic Flexibility: Multi-region deployment (US, EU) for regulatory compliance

1.2 Key Assets

Asset	Classification	Business Impact	Threat Level
Customer Data (Sessions, Files)	Confidential	Critical	High
AI Model Access & Prompts	Proprietary	High	Medium
Authentication Credentials	Sensitive	Critical	High
Source Code	Proprietary	Medium	Medium
Infrastructure Configuration	Internal	High	Medium

1.3 Threat Model (Game Development Security Perspective)

Primary Threat Vectors

1. Prompt Injection & AI Manipulation (Similar to game input validation attacks)
2. Data Exfiltration (Like save game tampering)
3. Authentication Bypass (Account takeover attacks)
4. Rate Limiting Abuse (Resource exhaustion attacks)
5. Supply Chain Attacks (Mod/plugin security)

Threat Actors

• Script Kiddies: Automated scanning, known exploits
• Competitors: Data harvesting, feature reverse engineering
• Nation State: Advanced persistent threats, data collection
• Insiders: Privileged access abuse

2. Control Objectives

CO-1: Data Protection & Privacy

Objective: Protect customer data confidentiality, integrity, and availability throughout its lifecycle.

Risk Addressed: Data breaches, unauthorized access, data corruption Compliance Mapping: SOC 2 CC6.1, CC6.7

CO-2: Access Control & Authentication

Objective: Ensure only authorized users can access systems and data with appropriate permissions.

Risk Addressed: Account takeover, privilege escalation, unauthorized access Compliance Mapping: SOC 2 CC6.2, CC6.3

CO-3: AI Security & Prompt Safety

Objective: Maintain AI model integrity and prevent malicious prompt exploitation.

Risk Addressed: Prompt injection, model manipulation, jailbreaking Compliance Mapping: Custom control for AI platforms

CO-4: Infrastructure Security

Objective: Secure cloud infrastructure and prevent unauthorized system access.

Risk Addressed: Infrastructure compromise, lateral movement Compliance Mapping: SOC 2 CC6.6, CC7.1

CO-5: Application Security

Objective: Develop and maintain secure application code and dependencies.

Risk Addressed: Code vulnerabilities, supply chain attacks Compliance Mapping: SOC 2 CC8.1

CO-6: Monitoring & Incident Response

Objective: Detect, respond to, and recover from security incidents effectively.

Risk Addressed: Undetected breaches, prolonged incidents Compliance Mapping: SOC 2 CC7.2, CC7.3

3. Security Controls Implementation

3.1 Data Protection Controls (CO-1)

C1.1: Data Classification & Handling

Control Description: All data is classified according to sensitivity and handled appropriately.

Implementation:

// Data classification enum in common types
export enum DataClassification {
  PUBLIC = 'public',           // Marketing materials, public docs
  INTERNAL = 'internal',       // Company operational data
  CONFIDENTIAL = 'confidential', // Customer data, sessions
  SENSITIVE = 'sensitive'      // Auth data, payment info
}

// Applied to data models
interface ClassifiedData {
  classification: DataClassification;
  retentionPeriod?: number; // Days
  encryptionRequired: boolean;
}

Validation:

• Automated: Schema validation in CI/CD pipeline
• Manual: Quarterly data classification review
• Frequency: Continuous (automated), Quarterly (manual)

C1.2: Encryption at Rest & Transit

Control Description: All sensitive data encrypted using industry standards.

Implementation:

• MongoDB: Encryption at rest enabled in Atlas
• S3: Server-side encryption (SSE-S3) for all buckets
• Transit: TLS 1.2+ for all communications
• Application: bcrypt for password hashing, JWT with strong secrets

Validation:

# Automated validation script
#!/bin/bash
# Check S3 bucket encryption
aws s3api get-bucket-encryption --bucket $BUCKET_NAME

# Check MongoDB encryption (Atlas API)
curl -X GET "https://cloud.mongodb.com/api/atlas/v1.0/groups/$PROJECT_ID/clusters/$CLUSTER_NAME/encryption" \
  --header "Authorization: Bearer $ATLAS_TOKEN"

# Verify TLS configuration
curl -I https://app.bike4mind.com | grep -i "strict-transport-security"

Frequency: Daily automated checks, Monthly manual verification

C1.3: Data Retention & Disposal

Control Description: Data retained only as long as necessary and securely disposed.

Implementation:

// Automated cleanup job in SST
new Cron(stack, 'dataRetentionJob', {
  schedule: 'cron(0 2 * * ? *)', // Daily at 2 AM
  job: {
    function: {
      handler: 'packages/client/server/cron/dataRetention.handler',
      bind: [MONGODB_URI],
      timeout: '15 minutes'
    },
  },
});

Validation:

• Automated: Daily retention job execution logs
• Manual: Quarterly retention policy compliance audit
• Frequency: Daily (automated), Quarterly (manual)

3.2 Access Control Controls (CO-2)

C2.1: Multi-Factor Authentication

Control Description: MFA required for all administrative and privileged accounts.

Implementation:

• OAuth providers (Google, GitHub, Okta) with MFA enforcement
• JWT token expiration (1 day access, 2 days refresh)
• Admin accounts require additional verification

Validation:

// Automated MFA verification
export async function validateMFACompliance() {
  const adminUsers = await User.find({ isAdmin: true });
  const nonCompliantUsers = adminUsers.filter(user => 
    !user.authProviders?.some(provider => provider.mfaEnabled)
  );
  
  if (nonCompliantUsers.length > 0) {
    await sendSlackAlert(`MFA compliance violation: ${nonCompliantUsers.length} admin users`);
  }
  
  return { compliant: nonCompliantUsers.length === 0 };
}

Frequency: Daily automated checks, Weekly manual review

C2.2: Least Privilege Access (CASL)

Control Description: Users granted minimum necessary permissions using CASL framework.

Implementation:

// CASL permission validation in API routes
.use((req, res, next) => {
  if (!req.ability?.can(Permission.read, FabFile, { userId: req.user.id })) {
    throw new UnauthorizedError('Insufficient permissions');
  }
  next();
})

Validation:

// Automated CASL testing
export async function validateCASLPermissions() {
  const testCases = [
    { user: 'regular', resource: 'FabFile', action: 'read', shouldPass: true },
    { user: 'regular', resource: 'AdminSettings', action: 'update', shouldPass: false },
    // Additional test cases...
  ];
  
  for (const testCase of testCases) {
    const result = await testPermission(testCase);
    if (result !== testCase.shouldPass) {
      throw new Error(`CASL validation failed for ${JSON.stringify(testCase)}`);
    }
  }
}

Frequency: Continuous (in CI/CD), Weekly comprehensive test

3.3 AI Security Controls (CO-3)

C3.1: Prompt Injection Prevention

Control Description: All user inputs sanitized and validated before LLM processing.

Implementation:

// Prompt sanitization service
export class PromptSanitizationService {
  private dangerousPatterns = [
    /ignore previous instructions/i,
    /system prompt/i,
    /you are now/i,
    /<script|javascript:|data:/i,
    // Game dev experience: similar to chat filter patterns
  ];
  
  sanitize(prompt: string): { sanitized: string; flagged: boolean } {
    let sanitized = prompt;
    let flagged = false;
    
    for (const pattern of this.dangerousPatterns) {
      if (pattern.test(prompt)) {
        flagged = true;
        sanitized = sanitized.replace(pattern, '[FILTERED]');
      }
    }
    
    return { sanitized, flagged };
  }
}

Validation:

• Automated: Test suite with known injection patterns
• Manual: Red team exercises quarterly
• Frequency: Continuous (automated), Quarterly (manual)

C3.2: AI Output Filtering

Control Description: LLM outputs filtered for sensitive information and harmful content.

Implementation:

// Output filtering using existing moderation
export class OutputFilterService {
  async filterOutput(output: string): Promise<{ filtered: string; violations: string[] }> {
    const violations = [];
    let filtered = output;
    
    // Check for PII patterns (leveraging game dev regex experience)
    const piiPatterns = {
      email: /\b[A-Za-z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Za-z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z|a-z]{2,}\b/g,
      phone: /\b\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}\b/g,
      ssn: /\b\d{3}-\d{2}-\d{4}\b/g
    };
    
    for (const [type, pattern] of Object.entries(piiPatterns)) {
      if (pattern.test(output)) {
        violations.push(`PII_${type.toUpperCase()}`);
        filtered = filtered.replace(pattern, `[${type.toUpperCase()}_REDACTED]`);
      }
    }
    
    return { filtered, violations };
  }
}

Validation: Daily automated PII detection tests, Weekly manual review

3.4 Infrastructure Security Controls (CO-4)

C4.1: Network Security

Control Description: Network traffic controlled through WAF, security groups, and monitoring.

Implementation:

• AWS WAF rules for common attacks (existing)
• Security groups with least privilege network access
• VPC flow logs for network monitoring

Validation:

# Automated WAF rule validation
aws wafv2 get-web-acl --scope CLOUDFRONT --id $WAF_ID --name $WAF_NAME
aws ec2 describe-security-groups --group-ids $SG_ID

Frequency: Daily automated checks, Monthly manual review

C4.2: Infrastructure as Code Security

Control Description: Infrastructure deployed through secure, version-controlled templates.

Implementation:

• SST configuration with security best practices
• Secrets managed through SST Secrets (not hardcoded)
• Infrastructure changes through PR review process

Validation:

// Infrastructure security validation
export async function validateInfrastructureSecurity() {
  // Check for hardcoded secrets in SST config
  const configFiles = await glob('sst.config.ts', 'packages/**/sst.*.ts');
  
  for (const file of configFiles) {
    const content = await fs.readFile(file, 'utf-8');
    const secrets = content.match(/(password|key|secret|token)\s*[:=]\s*['"][^'"]+['"]/gi);
    
    if (secrets) {
      throw new Error(`Potential hardcoded secrets in ${file}: ${secrets}`);
    }
  }
}

Frequency: Every deployment (automated), Monthly comprehensive review

3.5 Application Security Controls (CO-5)

C5.1: Static Code Analysis

Control Description: Code analyzed for vulnerabilities before deployment.

Implementation:

• Semgrep: SAST scanning in CI/CD pipeline
• ESLint: Code quality and security rules
• TypeScript: Type safety to prevent runtime errors

Validation:

# GitHub Actions workflow
- name: Run Semgrep
  uses: returntocorp/semgrep-action@v1
  with:
    config: >-
      p/security-audit
      p/secrets
      p/typescript
    generateSarif: "1"
    
- name: Upload SARIF file
  uses: github/codeql-action/upload-sarif@v2
  with:
    sarif_file: semgrep.sarif

Frequency: Every commit (automated)

C5.2: Dependency Security

Control Description: Third-party dependencies monitored and updated for vulnerabilities.

Implementation:

• Gitleaks: Prevents secret commits
• npm audit: Dependency vulnerability scanning
• Dependabot: Automated dependency updates

Validation:

# Automated dependency security check
npm audit --audit-level moderate
# Check for known vulnerable packages
npm audit --parseable | grep -E "(high|critical)"

Frequency: Daily automated scans, Weekly manual review

3.6 Monitoring & Incident Response Controls (CO-6)

C6.1: Security Monitoring

Control Description: Comprehensive logging and monitoring of security events.

Implementation:

• CloudWatch logs for all application events
• Slack alerts for security violations
• MongoDB Atlas monitoring for database access
• S3 access logging for file operations

Validation:

// Security monitoring validation
export async function validateSecurityMonitoring() {
  const requiredLogGroups = [
    '/aws/lambda/auth-service',
    '/aws/lambda/api-handler',
    '/aws/apigateway/access-logs'
  ];
  
  for (const logGroup of requiredLogGroups) {
    const exists = await cloudWatchLogs.describeLogGroups({
      logGroupNamePrefix: logGroup
    }).promise();
    
    if (exists.logGroups?.length === 0) {
      throw new Error(`Missing log group: ${logGroup}`);
    }
  }
}

Frequency: Continuous monitoring, Daily validation checks

C6.2: Incident Response Capability

Control Description: Documented procedures for security incident response.

Implementation:

• Incident response playbooks (documented)
• 24/7 alerting through Slack integration
• Emergency access procedures for critical systems
• Regular incident response drills

Validation:

• Automated: Alert system testing
• Manual: Quarterly incident response drills
• Frequency: Weekly (automated), Quarterly (manual)

4. Control Validation Framework

4.1 Automated Validation

// packages/scripts/security-validation.ts
export class SecurityControlValidator {
  async validateAllControls(): Promise<ValidationReport> {
    const results = await Promise.allSettled([
      this.validateDataProtection(),
      this.validateAccessControls(),
      this.validateAISecurity(),
      this.validateInfrastructure(),
      this.validateApplicationSecurity(),
      this.validateMonitoring()
    ]);
    
    return this.generateReport(results);
  }
  
  private async validateDataProtection() {
    // Implement C1.1, C1.2, C1.3 validation
  }
  
  // Additional validation methods...
}

4.2 Validation Schedule

Control Category	Automated	Manual	Frequency
Data Protection	Daily	Quarterly	Continuous/Quarterly
Access Control	Daily	Weekly	Continuous/Weekly
AI Security	Continuous	Quarterly	Real-time/Quarterly
Infrastructure	Daily	Monthly	Daily/Monthly
Application Security	Per Commit	Weekly	Continuous/Weekly
Monitoring	Continuous	Monthly	Real-time/Monthly

4.3 Control Effectiveness Metrics

interface ControlMetrics {
  controlId: string;
  effectivenessScore: number; // 0-100
  lastValidated: Date;
  validationMethod: 'automated' | 'manual' | 'both';
  findings: SecurityFinding[];
  remediationStatus: 'compliant' | 'minor_issues' | 'major_issues' | 'non_compliant';
}

5. Continuous Improvement

5.1 Control Evolution

• Quarterly: Review control effectiveness based on metrics
• Annually: Update threat model and risk assessment
• As Needed: Adapt controls for new features or threats

5.2 Game Development Security Lessons Applied

1. Assume Adversarial Users: Every input is potentially malicious
2. Defense in Depth: Multiple validation layers (like anti-cheat systems)
3. Real-time Monitoring: Immediate detection of anomalous behavior
4. Rapid Response: Quick patches for discovered vulnerabilities
5. Community Feedback: Leverage user reports for security improvements

6. SOC 2 Readiness Assessment

Current State

• Common Criteria: 85% implemented
• Security: 90% implemented
• Availability: 80% implemented
• Processing Integrity: 75% implemented
• Confidentiality: 90% implemented

Gap Analysis

1. Formal risk assessment documentation (this document addresses)
2. Vendor management procedures for AI model providers
3. Change management controls for infrastructure
4. Business continuity testing procedures

Recommendation

Ready for SOC 2 Type I audit with minor gap remediation. Type II readiness estimated 6-8 months with consistent control operation evidence.

---

Document Approval:

• Security Team: [Signature Required]
• CTO: [Signature Required]
• Date: [Approval Date]

Next Review: Quarterly (Q2 2025)