The week's pick
Random Articles
Reseach Article
Safe and Reliable Use of Generative AI in IT Operations: Guardrails and Validation Frameworks for Production Systems
| International Journal of Computer Applications |
| Foundation of Computer Science (FCS), NY, USA |
| Volume 187 - Number 88 |
| Year of Publication: 2026 |
| Authors: Ruban Prabhu Selvaraj |
10.5120/ijca2026926533
|
Ruban Prabhu Selvaraj . Safe and Reliable Use of Generative AI in IT Operations: Guardrails and Validation Frameworks for Production Systems. International Journal of Computer Applications. 187, 88 ( Mar 2026), 29-33. DOI=10.5120/ijca2026926533
Abstract
Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used in IT operations to support tasks such as incident analysis, vul-nerability remediation, infrastructure management, and software delivery. Its probabilistic nature, however, introduces risks in-cluding hallucinated outputs, insecure recommendations, and unintended data exposure, which can be unacceptable in regu-lated and mission-critical environments. Existing GenAI safety mechanisms focus mainly on content moderation and developer-centric controls and provide limited assurance about system-level correctness, contextual awareness, or risk-based execution. This paper proposes a multi-layered guardrail and validation framework for the safe and reliable use of GenAI in enterprise IT operations. The framework integrates prompt governance, post-generation validation, context-aware risk assessment, and decision gating with selective human oversight. Using realistic case study scenarios for vulnerability remediation, incident re-sponse, and infrastructure changes, the framework is evaluated with metrics such as operational correctness, hallucination de-tection, and risk mitigation. The results indicate that structured guardrails substantially reduce unsafe outputs while preserving most automation benefits, offering a practical foundation for responsible GenAI adoption in production IT systems.
References
- P. Mell, K. Scarfone, and S. Romanosky, “A complete guide to the Common Vulnerability Scoring System,” Fo-rum of Incident Response and Security Teams, 2007.
- M. Bozorgi, L. K. Saul, S. Savage, and G. M. Voelker, “Beyond heuristics: Learning to classify vulnerabilities and predict exploits,” in Proc. 16th ACM SIGKDD, 2010.
- L. Allodi and F. Massacci, “Comparing vulnerability sever-ity and exploits using case-control studies,” ACM Trans. Info. Sys. Security, vol. 17, no. 1, 2014.
- C. Sabottke, O. Chowdhury, and E. Kirda, “Vulnerability disclosure in the age of social media: Exploiting Twit Twitter for predicting real-world exploits,” in Proc. USENIX Security Symposium, 2015.
- T. Zoppi, A. Ceccarelli, and A. Bondavalli, “Unsupervised algorithms to detect zero-day attacks: Strategy and application,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 90603–90615, 2021.
- Y. Hou et al., “Handling labeled data insufficiency: Semisupervised learning with self-training mixup decision tree,” IEEE Trans. Dependable and Secure Computing, 2022.
- J. Wei et al., “Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, 2022.
- OpenAI, “GPT-4 Technical Report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023.
- A. Agrawal et al., “Large language models for software engineering: Survey and open problems,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03533, 2023.
- N. Carlini et al., “Extracting training data from large language models,” in Proc. USENIX Security Symposium, 2021.
- D. Ganguli et al., “Red teaming language models to reduce harms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.07858, 2022.
- Y. Bai et al., “Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI feedback,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.08073, 2022.
Index Terms
Keywords