How do you keep track of the AI agents running across your environment? They handle workflows, query systems, and automate decisions. They’re also fast, efficient, and integrated into your stack. 

‍

But AI agent security isn’t built-in by default, and your existing security program likely isn’t built to defend against how they behave.

‍

AI agents operate differently. They don’t have user sessions. They make decisions on your behalf. They can act autonomously and at scale. And most organizations haven’t updated their threat models, access controls, or monitoring to account for that.

‍

This is a real problem that creates a gap in enterprise AI security strategies.

Table of Contents

• Reason #1: AI agents can bypass your core AppSec defenses without you knowing
• Reason #2: Insecure prompting = New attack surface
• Reason #3: AI agents are getting more access than they need and no one’s watching
• Reason #4: You probably have no idea what your AI agents are actually doing
• Reason #5: Your current threat modeling doesn’t cover how AI agents actually behave
• You need to get ahead of AI agent risk before it turns into your next incident

‍

Reason #1: AI agents can bypass your core AppSec defenses without you knowing

The issue is how AI agents don’t behave like users, and they don’t use your application the way it was designed to be used. They go straight to APIs, trigger backend processes, and access systems in ways your AppSec stack isn’t monitoring.

‍

Traditional security controls like WAFs, IAM policies, DLP, and RBAC are built to monitor human-driven actions. They expect user sessions, browser headers, and login flows. AI agents skip all of that.

‍

Once authenticated, an agent can make thousands of internal calls: service-to-service, behind the UI, and often outside your usual security monitoring. This means your perimeter tools don’t see the activity, and your enforcement mechanisms don’t apply.

‍

Here’s what that leads to:

‍

1. Minimal visibility: If the behavior isn’t tied to a user session or a known workflow, most tools don’t flag it.
2. No real enforcement: Policies built for humans don’t stop machine-driven access that’s happening in the background.

‍

Most threat models, access controls, and monitoring systems (that you’re probably already using) weren’t designed with autonomous AI systems in mind.

‍

Reason #2: Insecure prompting = New attack surface

AI agents run on prompts (which I know you know already): natural language instructions, context data, and task-specific parameters passed in at runtime. These inputs drive decisions, trigger actions, and determine how the agent responds or what it does next. But did you know that most of these weren’t validated, monitored, or even threat-modeled?

‍

Prompt injection is a real and rapidly growing threat. An attacker can manipulate input data to hijack the agent’s behavior, bypass internal controls, or exfiltrate sensitive information. And because these inputs often come from other systems, users, or dynamic sources, the attack surface is wide open.

‍

Here’s what’s happening under the hood:

‍

• Agents are often designed to take natural language from users, APIs, or internal systems to determine what to do.
• That prompt data may include system instructions, role context, memory, and even access parameters.
• If an attacker can inject malicious instructions into that stream, whether through user input, compromised data sources, or poisoned API responses, they can take over the agent’s behavior.

‍

Most orgs aren’t inspecting this flow. There’s no equivalent of input sanitization, no logging of prompt content, and definitely no detection running on whether the agent is being influenced in real time.

‍

This is a security blind spot because:

‍

1. Prompts are treated like “safe” internal data when in reality, they’re dynamic and high-risk.
2. There’s no control layer. Most security tooling doesn’t even recognize prompts as a potential input vector.
3. Behavior changes aren’t flagged. If the agent starts making different decisions based on injected input, no one’s alerted.

‍

If your security team isn’t modeling how prompts are handled, passed, and executed, you’re ignoring a fast-expanding attack vector that can be exploited without touching your app code or infrastructure. This is one of the most overlooked AI security risks today.

‍

Reason #3: AI agents are getting more access than they need and no one’s watching

Most LLM agents are granted broad permissions out of convenience. They need to move fast, pull data, update records, and trigger actions across multiple systems. And the fastest way to make that happen is to give them high-level access from day one.

‍

That’s where things break down.

‍

When an agent can access everything without restrictions, it becomes a high-risk entity. And since it’s acting autonomously, there’s no human in the loop to verify what it’s doing with that access.

‍

Here’s what this typically looks like:

‍

• The agent is given admin-level or service-wide permissions to reduce friction.
•  It can query databases, invoke APIs, kick off CI/CD workflows, and even delete or modify sensitive data (without checks).
•  There’s often no dynamic permission enforcement, logging, or policy guardrails based on task context.

‍

This goes directly against the principle of least privilege. And in most environments, these agents are operating 24/7, at scale, across production systems.

‍

Here’s what makes this a serious issue:

‍

1. If the agent is compromised (via prompt injection, misconfiguration, or hijacked input), the attacker now has full access to every system the agent can touch.
2. If there’s no task-based permission enforcement, the agent can trigger critical operations it was never meant to control (because the system isn’t validating intent).
3. Security teams often don’t have visibility into what agents are accessing in real-time. These permissions are “set and forget” during deployment.

‍

AI agents are not traditional users. They don’t need broad access permanently. They need scoped and time-bound permissions based on specific tasks. Most orgs aren’t doing this yet, and it’s creating massive exposure. Securing LLM agents means enforcing least privilege at every decision point.

‍

Reason #4: You probably have no idea what your AI agents are actually doing

Most teams have deployed AI agents without setting up the visibility needed to track their behavior. There’s limited logging, minimal context around decision-making, and almost no traceability across workflows. That’s a major problem. Because when something goes wrong, there’s no audit trail to investigate.

‍

Here’s what’s missing in most environments:

‍

• Logs often record the output but not the input. You don’t see the original prompt or context that led to an action.
• There’s usually no capture of which tools or APIs the agent called, when it did it, or what data it pulled.
• Most SIEMs and monitoring tools don’t treat AI activity as first-class events, so agent behavior ends up buried or ignored.

‍

Incident response becomes almost impossible because of this. If an AI agent deletes a record, changes a config, or triggers a workflow based on a manipulated input, good luck figuring out why it happened or how it got there. Key issues:

‍

1. No visibility into intent: You see the result, not the reasoning or the trigger.
2. No chain of custody: There’s no end-to-end view of what input led to which action.
3. No accountability: If something goes wrong, you don’t know whether it was a bad prompt, a poisoned input, or an internal misuse.

‍

Logging that doesn’t include prompts, decisions, tool calls, and timestamps only makes your AI agent security posture weaker. They’re executing actions without observability across critical systems.

‍

Reason #5: Your current threat modeling doesn’t cover how AI agents actually behave

Security teams are still threat modeling like it’s 2015: focusing on static app flows, predictable user input, and predefined logic paths. That doesn’t work when you’ve got autonomous systems making decisions on the fly.

‍

As we’ve established already, AI agents don’t follow fixed rules. They process real-time inputs, pull from memory, choose tools, and execute tasks based on dynamic conditions. That means their behavior is fluid and so are the risks. Here’s what happens when you’re not actively modeling:

‍

• What the agent can do under different input scenarios
• Which external tools or APIs it can call autonomously
• How prompt injection or misaligned intent could drive misuse

‍

…then you’re missing high-risk threat paths. And those gaps don’t stay quiet for long.

‍

Here’s where this breaks down:

‍

1. You’re not mapping adversarial inputs that exploit prompt logic.
2. There’s no review of chained actions across systems the agent can trigger.
3. Nobody’s tracking how model changes or prompt tuning can shift behavior over time.

‍

And this has everything to do with operational risk.

‍

Traditional DevSecOps for AI is still catching up to how these agents behave in dynamic environments. AI agents are already plugged into your production systems, and without an updated threat modeling approach, you’ve got no way to understand or reduce the impact of misuse.

‍

You need to get ahead of AI agent risk before it turns into your next incident

AI agents are already acting on real data, triggering workflows, and making decisions across your systems. And in most environments, they’re doing it without proper oversight, access control, or audit trails.

‍

Here’s what to do now:

‍

• Build agent-specific threat modeling into your security process. Focus on prompt inputs, dynamic behavior, and chained actions.
• Review access privileges. No agent should have more access than it needs, especially across critical systems.
• Improve visibility. Make sure you’re logging inputs, decisions, tool usage, and context.
• Start automating reviews and controls. Manual reviews won’t scale with autonomous AI system behavior.

‍

Want a deeper breakdown of the risks and real-world examples?

‍

Join our webinar AI Agent Security: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly on May 8 at 9 AM PST to learn what most security teams are missing, and what actually works in production.

‍

Apply HERE!