Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

Most enterprise AI agent governance programs publish policies at the bottom three rungs of a runtime enforceability ladder while their architecture diagrams claim rung four. Almost no program reaches rung five, the only rung that produces evidence an auditor cannot dispute. The mismatch shows up in the audit committee meeting. The CISO walks in with the NIST AI RMF mapping, the AUP, the model cards, and the vendor risk assessments for every third-party API the agents call.

A CNAPP isn’t a single instrument. It bundles five separately-instrumented security domains — CSPM, CWPP, CIEM, CDR, and a fifth add-on module marketed as AI security — each watching a different observation point. So when leadership asks whether your CNAPP can secure the AI agents your team has shipped, you don’t get one answer. You get five.

Your platform team already runs a production-readiness review on every workload that ships to Kubernetes. When the workload is an AI agent, the PRR doesn’t get thrown out — it gets a delta. Most of the items still apply; specific ones need extension when the workload is non-deterministic, calls tools dynamically, and exercises identity at runtime in ways the manifest didn’t predict.

Most threat modeling assumes the attacker has to break something. AI agents change that assumption. An attacker who controls a prompt can make the agent misbehave without breaking anything at all. The prompt can be a customer support ticket the agent reads, a document it retrieves, or a tool response it processes — any input the agent treats as context is an attack surface. On Kubernetes, that attack surface has physical form.

Every guide to AI agent observability tells you what to capture — prompts, tool calls, token usage, traces, syscalls. Almost none address which of those signal sources you can still trust when the agent itself is part of the threat model. That distinction is the entire difference between observability that helps your SRE team debug a slow reasoning chain and observability that helps your security team investigate a breach.

When AI agent workloads start generating more alerts than your SOC can keep up with, the instinct most teams reach for is to deploy more triage on top of what they already have. If the SIEM is producing thousands of atomized alerts, plug in something downstream that can cluster, prioritize, and auto-resolve them faster than a human can. The market has consolidated around exactly this answer.

At 2:47 PM on a Tuesday, a customer support agent receives a routine ticket asking about return policy edge cases. The agent retrieves a section from your internal policy wiki through RAG to formulate the response. Three weeks earlier, an attacker had planted a hidden instruction in that wiki page. Bedrock Guardrails scored the retrieved context at 0.04 — well within benign range.

MITRE ATLAS catalogs sixteen tactics and eighty-four techniques adversaries use against AI systems, including fourteen agent-focused techniques added through the October 2025 Zenity Labs collaboration. It is the canonical taxonomy a security architect’s CISO, auditor, or RFP will name. It is not a detection plan. ATLAS organizes around adversary objectives.

It usually starts the same way. The CISO comes back from a board meeting having signed off on agentic AI for production. The SOC lead is told, in roughly that many words, to build detection for the agents. And the security stack she has — CNAPP for posture, EDR on the nodes, container runtime sensors, a SIEM ingesting everything — was architected before AI agents existed as a workload class.

A platform team finishes a two-week observation window on a new internal research agent. The baseline is stable; the sensor produced a clean profile. By Friday, no policy has shipped — and the blocker isn’t tooling.