Blog

Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.

Zero Trust Applied to AI Systems: The Per-Request Identity, Policy, and Audit Boundary

Zero-trust architecture replaces the perimeter assumption with per-request verification of identity, device, and policy. Applied to AI systems, the same principle moves the verification to the AI request boundary: who is making the call, what classification the request carries, what policy version evaluates the call, and what audit record the layer commits. This piece walks through the four zero-trust principles and how each one maps to a concrete decision the AI request path has to commit on every call.

AI Security Solutionszero-trustai-securityidentity-awareaudit-logsinline-enforcementpolicy-enforcement
Read post →

AI Agents vs RPA: How the Security Model Changes When the Bot Reasons Before It Acts

RPA bots execute deterministic scripts under a service account. AI agents read context, plan multi-step actions, and call tools whose return values shape the next step. The security model that worked for RPA (network segmentation, credential vaulting, scheduled execution) breaks when the bot reasons before it acts. This piece walks through the four architectural differences between RPA and AI agents, the new attack surfaces the reasoning step introduces, the identity-aware enforcement the deployment owes, and the audit record format that survives a regulator review.

AI Security Solutionsai-agentsrpaagent-securityidentity-awareaudit-logsagentic-ai
Read post →

How to Find Shadow AI Inside Your Organization: A Five-Source Detection Pipeline

Shadow AI lives in the browser tab next to the approved SaaS. The detection stack the security team built for shadow IT does not surface the signal. This piece walks through a five-source detection pipeline (network egress, endpoint telemetry, IdP claims, expense aggregation, approved-route gap analysis), the joining identity that ties the sources together, and the prioritization framework for triaging the patterns the pipeline surfaces.

Problem-Awareshadow-aidiscoverydetectionvisibilitycasbai-discovery
Read post →

Model Context Protocol Security: How the MCP Transport Layer Changes the Inspection Boundary

The Model Context Protocol standardizes how an LLM client connects to tool servers and exchanges context, tool calls, and tool results. The 2026-07-28 revision removed protocol-level sessions and the GET stream, and it now mirrors the method and target name into HTTP headers specifically so intermediaries can route and inspect a call without parsing the body. This piece walks through the two transports, what the Streamable HTTP request actually carries, the OAuth 2.1 requirements the spec places on servers, the identity-aware policy decisions a deployment commits per call, and the audit record format that survives an Article 12 review.

Platform & Architecturemcpmodel-context-protocolagent-securityai-toolinginline-enforcementaudit-logs
Read post →

Shadow AI Detection Methods: The Five Detection Surfaces and Why Three of Them Miss Most Real Usage

Shadow AI detection happens on five surfaces: endpoint agents, network DNS, SSL inspection, identity provider logs, and inline AI request proxies. Endpoint, DNS, and identity logs detect attempts to reach known AI vendor domains but miss prompt content and never see browser-based usage to unsanctioned tools. SSL inspection captures content but only where TLS-break infrastructure is deployed to the AI provider domains. Inline proxies on the AI request path see identity, classification, and policy state at decision time. The five surfaces differ in what they detect and when.

Problem-Awareshadow-aiai-securityai-governanceinline-enforcementcomplianceaudit
Read post →

Shadow AI for CISOs: The Four Questions the Board Asks and the Records the CISO Has to Produce

Cloud Radix reports 90% of CISOs identify shadow AI as their top security concern for the year. Boards are now asking four questions that translate directly into operational records: which AI tools are in use, what data has flowed to them, what policy applied at decision time, and what was the exposure window. The CISO who can answer the four with contemporaneous records has discharged the operational duty. The CISO who reconstructs from logs after the fact has not.

Problem-Awareshadow-aicisoai-securityai-governanceauditcompliance
Read post →

Employee ChatGPT Monitoring: The Inspection Points That Actually See Prompt Content (and the Ones That Miss It)

Employee ChatGPT usage produces five separable telemetry surfaces, and only two of them see the prompt content. Endpoint and DNS surfaces see the connection. SSL inspection and inline AI proxies see the content. SSO sees the sign-in but nothing after it. The combination of where the inspection happens and what the record contains decides whether the monitoring satisfies the operational requirement an auditor or a board would accept. Cloud Radix reports 77% of employees using unauthorized AI admit to pasting sensitive business data into prompts.

Problem-Awareshadow-aichatgptmonitoringinline-enforcementai-governancedlp
Read post →

Enterprise AI Usage Policy Template: The Eight Sections That Survive Both Workforce Adoption and Regulatory Review

An AI usage policy that an enterprise can actually enforce contains eight sections: scope and definitions, sanctioned tools list, data classification rules, role-based permissions, the disclosure obligation, the inspection and monitoring statement, the incident reporting path, and the policy version history. A policy without inspection architecture behind it leaves the enterprise with a written commitment the workforce can ignore. The eight sections align with the EU AI Act Article 26 deployer obligations and the Article 12 record-keeping mandate.

Problem-Awareai-governanceai-policycomplianceshadow-aiauditai-security
Read post →

What Is Agentic AI: The Architectural Definition, the Control-Plane Implications, and the Audit Record It Requires

Agentic AI is a software pattern where an LLM-driven agent decomposes a goal, calls tools, observes results, and iterates until the goal completes. The pattern differs from generative AI by the loop, the tool calls, and the autonomy. The control-plane implications are distinct: identity at the agent level, scoped permissions for each tool call, audit records for each step in the loop, and the question of who carries liability for the agent decisions. The NIST AI agent identity and authorization framework took comments through April 2, 2026 and set the operational baseline.

Problem-Awareagentic-aiai-agentsai-governanceauditinline-enforcementcompliance
Read post →

AI Agent Privilege Abuse: Why Service Credentials Become Effective Superuser Accounts in Multi-Step Agent Workflows

A typical AI agent runs on a single service credential that combines the permissions of every action the agent might need to take. The credential is the union, not the intersection. An agent decomposing a goal can take any action the credential authorizes, including actions the user never intended to delegate. The post-authentication gap is the difference between "the agent is authenticated" and "this specific action against this specific resource is permitted by the user." Closing the gap requires identity propagation from the user through the agent to each tool call.

Problem-Awareagentic-aiai-agentsidentityauthorizationai-securityaudit
Read post →

AI Gateway: The Architectural Component That Sits Between Calling Identities and LLM Endpoints

An AI gateway is the architectural component that sits between calling identities (users, agents, services) and LLM endpoints, terminates the AI provider TLS, evaluates identity-bound policy, applies a pass, redact, or block decision, commits a per-decision audit record, and forwards the request. The category covers four distinct shapes today: developer-tooling proxies, enterprise observability gateways, identity-aware enforcement gateways, and inference-side guardrails libraries. Only one of the four produces the audit record EU AI Act Article 12 reviewers accept.

AI Security Solutionsai-gatewayinline-enforcementai-policy-enforcementllm-securityaudit-logsai-control-plane
Read post →

LLM Proxy: The Architectural Pattern, the Operational Modes, and the Audit Record Each Mode Produces

An LLM proxy is a process that sits on the HTTP path between calling identities and LLM provider endpoints. The proxy can operate in three modes: pass-through observability, policy enforcement, or vendor multiplexing. The choice of mode decides what the audit record contains and whether the record satisfies regulatory expectations. A pass-through proxy logs the call. A policy enforcement proxy commits identity, classification, and policy state. A multiplexing proxy unifies the API across vendors. Regulated deployments typically need the enforcement mode.

AI Security Solutionsllm-proxyai-gatewayinline-enforcementai-securityaudit-logsai-policy-enforcement
Read post →