Skip to content
Research Article Open access CC BY 4.0

Securing Enterprise AI Supply Chains: A Framework for Model Provenance, Third-Party Risk, and Compromised AI Components

Favour Amarachi Ezeugwa

Journal of Engineering Research and Reports · pp. 115–129 · Published 14 Oct 2026

10.9734/jerr/2026/v28i102023

Abstract

Enterprises assemble AI systems from externally sourced models, datasets, libraries, agents and serving components whose origin and integrity they cannot directly observe. This study asks how provenance assurance, third-party dependency exposure and supply-chain governance relate to the disclosed-vulnerability record of such components, and argues that this record measures security observability as much as security risk. Drawing on resource dependence, information asymmetry and signalling theory, we assemble a cross-sectional secondary dataset of 1,321 widely used open-source AI/ML components (GitHub, deps.dev, OpenSSF Scorecard, OSV, PyPI statistics, CISA KEV) and the 1,000 most-downloaded Hugging Face models, and estimate negative binomial, logistic, hurdle and zero-inflated models with robust standard errors and influence and selection diagnostics. Disclosed advisories are rare but concentrated: 8.9% of components carry one yet attract 39.4% of monthly downloads, and advisory publication rose from 54 in 2023 to 486 in the first nine months of 2026. Advisory counts rise with ecosystem reach (incidence rate ratio 2.49 per log unit of stars), release activity and, in the Scorecard subsample, detection and disclosure practices (IRR 1.48 per index point), whereas hardening and provenance controls show no negative association. Disclosure therefore tracks scrutiny and transparency rather than the absence of defects, motivating a six-pillar framework in which continuous observability, not silence, is the basis for trusting AI components. We recommend that enterprises assess AI suppliers on verifiable provenance, safe serialisation and disclosure capacity rather than on advisory counts and embed AI bills of materials and exploitation-aware monitoring in continuous engineering controls, and that standards bodies distinguish disclosure capacity from vulnerability prevalence in AI risk frameworks.

Artificial intelligence supply chain model provenance third-party risk vulnerability disclosure security observability negative binomial regression cyber resilience

Cited by 0

No indexed citations yet.

Article metrics

Real usage data collected on this platform.

1

Page views

0

PDF downloads

0

Outbound clicks

0

Citations

Views over time

Views by country

Approximate, from request IP at view time — not citizenship or institution. Countries with fewer than 5 views are grouped as "Other".

Traffic sources

Referring site, by host.

Views and downloads exclude known bots/crawlers. Citations combines this platform's own DOI-resolved index with each external source's own reported total — see Cited by above for individually listed citing works. Last refreshed 0 seconds ago.