Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

Security and engineering teams contend with a constant stream of signals about vulnerabilities, incidents, misconfigurations, identity risks, control gaps, and other findings across their environments. But an individual finding’s severity does not always reflect its potential organizational impact.

AI coding tools help developers build and deploy LLM applications quickly, but this speed comes with new security risks. Traditional static application security testing (SAST) tools that are pattern based weren’t designed to detect LLM-specific issues such as prompt injection sinks and exposed system prompts. These vulnerabilities often don’t become apparent until applications are already running in production, when remediation is more difficult and expensive.

Gartner predicted in mid-2025 that more than forty percent of agentic AI projects would be canceled by the end of 2027, citing escalating costs, unclear business value and inadequate risk controls. Treat the figure as a forward-looking estimate rather than a measurement, since canceled projects tend to be quietly renamed, absorbed or left to lapse rather than formally closed. ‍

Blame for all flaws belongs to the flawed human author. Historically, the bottleneck for finding security bugs in software was human bandwidth. As pointed out in this great post by Tom Ptacek, it appears that large language models are exceptionally good at finding them with simple prompting. This adds substantial bandwidth to the effort of finding bugs.

Public benchmarks in AI provide important signals and allow for regression testing, directional validation of model updates, and public discussion of capabilities and limitations. But the more attention a benchmark receives, the stronger the incentive to optimize for it. Once a score becomes the goal, teams start benchmaxxing: optimizing for the benchmark rather than the capability it is meant to measure. This is a familiar problem in the AI space.

Security teams often evaluate ChatGPT by examining its outputs. The greater risk, however, lies in the information employees submit before the model generates a single response. As generative AI becomes a big part of daily business operations, prompts increasingly contain confidential customer data, proprietary source code, legal documents, and strategic plans.

Securonix has released a Value Package with OOTB policies for detecting threats across AI platform, identities, agents, data movement, endpoints, and network activity.