Blog

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

Identity-Aware AI Gateway: Why Per-User, Per-Role Policy Has to Live at the Request Boundary

An identity-aware AI gateway attaches the enterprise IdP identity to each AI request, evaluates per-user and per-role policy at the request boundary, and commits the audit record with identity context bound at decision time. The architecture differs from generic gateways that operate on application credentials only. The EU AI Act Article 19 identity-of-natural-persons requirement, the NIST agent identity framework, and the post-authentication gap each push the gateway to attach identity at the request rather than the session.

AI Security Solutionsai-gatewayidentityinline-enforcementai-policy-enforcementaudit-logscompliance
Read post →

Fail-Closed AI Gateway: Why the Default Has to Be Deny in Regulated Environments

A fail-closed AI gateway defaults to block when the policy decision is unreachable, when the classification result is uncertain, or when the gateway itself loses upstream connectivity. The opposite (fail-open) defaults to pass, which trades the regulatory record for availability. For high-risk AI under EU AI Act Article 12, DORA Article 19, and Fannie Mae LL-2026-04, the regulatory posture only holds under a fail-closed default. The architectural cost is operational investment in availability; the regulatory cost of fail-open is the loss of the contemporaneous record at exactly the moment a regulator would ask for it.

AI Security Solutionsai-gatewayfail-closedai-policy-enforcementinline-enforcementcomplianceaudit
Read post →

Zero Trust LLM: How the Zero-Trust Principles Apply to AI Request Flows

Zero trust applied to LLM traffic means three things at the architectural level. Identity is verified at every request, not just at the session. Authorization is evaluated per request against the user, agent, role, and resource. The audit record is written independently of the application or the model that handled the request. The three principles map directly to the inspection-layer pattern that closes the post-authentication gap in AI deployments.

Platform & Architecturezero-trustllm-securityinline-enforcementai-policy-enforcementidentityaudit-logs
Read post →

AI Gateway Latency: Why Sub-50ms Overhead Sits Below the Noise Floor of LLM Inference

LLM inference takes 500 ms to 5 seconds per response. A well-engineered AI gateway adds under 50 ms of overhead in internal testing. The 10x gap between inference time and gateway overhead is the architectural fact that makes inline enforcement viable for regulated production AI. The latency budget across policy evaluation, prompt classification, identity validation, and audit commit fits inside the 50 ms envelope under realistic load.

Platform & Architectureai-gatewaylatencyinline-enforcementperformanceai-policy-enforcementaudit-logs
Read post →

Shadow AI Detection: The Three Signals That Actually Identify Unauthorized LLM Use Inside the Enterprise

Shadow AI detection works on three signals: DNS resolution to known LLM endpoints, HTTP request shape against published API contracts, and identity-bound prompt content captured at the HTTP layer. Network DLP and CASB inventories miss the prompt body because it sits inside TLS to a sanctioned destination. This piece walks through each signal, what the detection misses without inline inspection, and the architectural pattern that produces a per-request record auditors can sample.

Problem-Awareshadow-aishadow-ai-detectionai-securityinline-enforcementvisibility
Read post →

LLM DLP: The Inspection Point Where Prompt Content Becomes Sensitive Data

LLM DLP is the inspection layer that catches PII, PHI, source code, and customer data inside the prompt body before it reaches an LLM endpoint. Network DLP, endpoint DLP, and email DLP each terminate inspection before the prompt is in scope. This piece walks through where each traditional layer stops, why the LLM request path slips through, the regulatory framing under EU AI Act Article 12 and HIPAA, and the architectural placement that produces a defensible per-request record.

AI Security Solutionsllm-dlpai-dlpdata-loss-preventionai-securityinline-enforcement
Read post →

AI Data Classification: The Categories the Audit Record Has to Carry at the LLM Request Boundary

AI data classification is the layer that labels prompt content before policy evaluates and before the audit record commits. Deterministic categories for PII, PHI, source code, customer data, and free-form sensitive labels supply the field the EU AI Act Article 19 record expects on every decision. This piece walks through the categories, the placement where the classifier runs, the regulatory framing, and how the labels feed identity-bound policy at the request boundary.

AI Security Solutionsai-data-classificationllm-dlpai-securitydata-governanceeu-ai-act
Read post →

Prompt-Level DLP: Inspection at the Field Where the User Says What They Mean

Prompt-level DLP runs inspection at the prompt body sent to an LLM endpoint, not at file boundaries or network egress. The prompt is the data, and the prompt sits inside an encrypted POST body to a SaaS destination. This piece walks through where prompt-level DLP sits, the classifier categories it has to recognize, how the redaction decision feeds the model, and the regulatory framing under EU AI Act Article 12 and HIPAA.

AI Security Solutionsprompt-level-dlpllm-dlpai-dlpai-securityinline-enforcement
Read post →

AI Prompt Redaction: The Substitution Step That Lets the Model Reason Without Touching the Raw Data

AI prompt redaction substitutes placeholders for sensitive content in the prompt before the model receives the request. The substitution preserves the structural cues the model needs to produce a coherent response while keeping the raw PII or PHI off the model provider. This piece walks through the redaction pattern, how placeholders feed the model, the audit record fields the redaction lands on, and the EU AI Act and HIPAA framing.

AI Security Solutionsai-prompt-redactionllm-dlpai-dlpai-securityinline-enforcement
Read post →

AI Agent Action Lineage: Reconstructing What an Autonomous Agent Did From the Audit Record

AI agent action lineage is the record series that lets a security team reconstruct what an autonomous agent did across a sequence of LLM calls, tool invocations, and downstream actions. The record has to carry the agent identity, the originating user identity, the prompt and response on every step, the policy state, and the cross-references between steps. This piece walks through the lineage record, where it sits, and what audit obligations it satisfies.

Problem-Awareai-agent-action-lineageagentic-aiai-agent-securityaudit-logseu-ai-act
Read post →

The AI Agent Post-Authentication Gap: Why Identity at Login Is Not Identity at the Tool Call

Most enterprise agent architectures authenticate the user at the start of the session and then let the agent run with a service identity that carries no user context. The gap between the login identity and the per-tool-call identity is the post-authentication gap. This piece walks through the gap, where it shows up in production, the audit record fields it breaks, and the architectural pattern that closes it.

Problem-Awareai-agent-post-authentication-gapagentic-aiai-agent-securityai-agent-identityaudit-logs
Read post →

Shadow AI for Healthcare: PHI, HIPAA, and the BAA Gap

Cloud Radix found that 57% of healthcare professionals use unauthorized AI tools to process PHI - SOAP notes, diagnostic plans, prior authorization summaries - without a Business Associate Agreement in place. The Office for Civil Rights treats unauthorized PHI disclosure as a HIPAA violation regardless of intent. This piece walks through how shadow AI shows up in clinical settings, why traditional DLP fails to catch it, and what the architecture for HIPAA-compliant AI usage actually requires.

Industry Verticalsshadow-aihealthcarehipaaphicomplianceai-security
Read post →