{
"$type": "site.standard.document",
"bskyPostRef": {
"cid": "bafyreihrxttxu3ra22ymdkokepuxnhoy332tg7xkepsvugbgarvfgcg2tu",
"uri": "at://did:plc:lk3jfj3zq4k4wxnk474axylu/app.bsky.feed.post/3mgb775tevp42"
},
"path": "/t/which-are-your-best-settings-for-the-strongest-cybersecurity-in-europe/1375716#post_1",
"publishedAt": "2026-03-04T20:44:53.000Z",
"site": "https://community.openai.com",
"tags": [
"GPT builders > Plugins / Actions builders",
"GPT builders",
"Community"
],
"textContent": "Strongest cybersecurity settings for GPT & AI GPT builders > Plugins / Actions builders (not just from Europe with NIS2 + EU AI Act + sovereignty.\n\nHi all\n\nI’m in the EU and want to standardize the strongest practical cybersecurity posture for GPT Builders. In Europe this is harder than elsewhere because we’re dealing with sovereignty expectations, multiple languages, and a moving compliance timeline (NIS2 national transposition + phased EU AI Act obligations). So I’m aiming for an “EU baseline” that stays defensible across Member States.\n\nI’m preparing a complete article/checklist for faster, higher-quality outcomes, but before publishing I’d like to audit it with the community:\n\nWhat are your non-negotiable settings/workflow rules in EU deployments?\n\n(MFA/passkeys, session control, key hygiene, spend limits/alerts, logging/redaction, retention, incident response)\n\nHow do you handle “sovereign” requirements in practice (data residency, access control, vendor risk)?\n\nDo you treat “private vs public profile” as sufficient, or do you enforce additional guardrails by default?\n\nI know: In the UAE and in the UK are different structures, but the rules for best outcomes are easier.\n\nPlease avoid sharing any secrets/tokens/logs—redaction by default.\n\nThanks GPT builders and Community members!\n\nKeep calm and stay out!\n\nReference (EU official):\n\nEU AI Act policy\n\nNIS2 transposition context\n\nGDPR\n\nMDR",
"title": "Which are your best settings for the strongest cybersecurity in Europe?"
}