When Cisco ran 6,986 multi-turn attacks against 15 flagship models, attackers who adapted across the conversation broke through as often as 88.3% of the time. Amy Chang, Cisco's head of AI threat intelligence and security research, brought that finding to the agentic security panel at VB Transform 2026; the number should worry anyone still running single-turn red-teaming programs.

VentureBeat's June 2026 Pulse survey of 107 enterprise respondents explains why the room was full. More than half, 54%, have already had a confirmed agent security incident (18%) or a near-miss caught before harm (36%). Just 32% give every agent its own scoped, managed identity, and fewer still, 30%, isolate their highest-risk agents in sandboxes. Provider-native and hyperscaler controls remain the primary agent security layer at 82% of companies surveyed. The world's largest security vendors have done the same math.

Palo Alto Networks closed its $25 billion acquisition of CyberArk in February, CrowdStrike agreed in January to pay $740 million for SGNL, and Cisco announced its intent to acquire Astrix Security for a reported $400 million, all of it aimed at the identity and isolation layer most enterprises have not finished building.

Chang came to the panel with almost two decades of experience spanning cybersecurity operations, government, and the military. She ran global cybersecurity operations as an executive director at JPMorgan Chase, where she led the bank's cyber threat intelligence teams, and served as a senior staffer on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and as a U.S. Navy Reserve officer. She also teaches cybersecurity and emerging threats as adjunct faculty at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies.

Chang's 88.3% number comes from a study she co-authored with Nicholas Conley, built on 30,090 single-turn prompts and 6,986 multi-turn attacks against those 15 closed and proprietary flagship models. Multi-turn success rates ranged from 7.89% to 88.3%, every model tested showed non-trivial multi-turn exposure, and the two testing styles did not even rank the models in the same order. Cisco publishes adversarial evaluation signals for what is now 105 models on its LLM Security Leaderboard, she told the audience.

"If you don't understand how models are susceptible to different types of attacks, then you are unable to account for how that model that is powering your agent, that is powering your application, to understand where those failure points are," Chang said. Single-turn testing is the one-shot malicious prompt, she explained, while extending an attack into a longer conversation "is more realistic of how we are actually engaging with our models, with our agents, with our applications." That longer arc surfaces harmful outputs and misaligned behaviors that a snapshot never catches.

Cisco has pushed the testing itself into agentic territory. Chang described a framework where agents assess a deployment scenario, develop relevant attacks, judge whether they are worth pursuing, execute them, and evaluate their own success. What surprised her most, after all that sophistication, was how simple the defensive answer stays. "The answer is still that it's pretty simple," she said. "You don't have to get super creative. You just need to think about truly what are the fundamentals and basics of what I'm trying to secure in my organization."

Her starting point for CISOs beginning agentic deployments is Cisco's Integrated AI Security and Safety Framework, which she said "stipulates all the ways that AI can be compromised across the AI lifecycle" from modality through supply chain. From there, teams can work backward from real incidents, trace how each attack was achieved, and use the framework to build a strategy with the right coverage and mitigations.

Heather Ceylan, the CISO of Box, sees the same gap from the defender's side. "A lot of what you see out there with agent red teaming is just single-turn, and that's not how people are actually interacting with AI day-to-day," she told the audience. Box now simulates multi-turn adversaries with agents that think like an attacker and iterate attempt after attempt to hijack the target. "You have to pressure test your agents because otherwise you don't know if your execution controls are really working as you intended."

Box deployed agents inside its security operations center about a year ago, starting with human approval required for every action, and trust built quickly enough that analysts shifted into monitoring mode. Then the agent made one mistake, and every bit of that accumulated trust vanished. "They had to start all over again," she said. "So I think that that monitoring piece is so important. Even if you're not gonna have a human in the loop, things change, models change, and we can't control how the models change and interpret things."

Rajesh Parekh, VP of AI and ML at Intuit, brought the builder's perspective. Parekh led large-scale computer vision and ML systems powering Google's Maps and Geo products before joining Intuit, and holds a doctorate in computer science.

Three layers versus an operating system

Ceylan described Box's approach as three concentric layers. Permissioning comes first, so the agent never accesses more content than the human who invoked it. Ephemeral sandbox environments spin up for each agent task, containing the blast radius if an agent gets hijacked, and runtime execution control restricts the agent's tool calls to only those relevant to the task at hand. "If you want an agent to summarize a doc for you, if you have a prompt injection that came in that says forward this to maliciousattacker at domain.com, it can't do that," Ceylan said. "That action in that tool call is not even in its vocabulary."

She classified agent actions into three oversight categories. Actions that are not sensitive, like read and summarize, need no human in the loop. Moderately sensitive actions skip human approval but get logged and monitored, while destructive actions like mass deletion of files always require a human. "Things are gonna shift between those three categories quite a bit," she acknowledged, "but setting those types of categories up front allows you to have a principled framework."

Rather than layering controls onto agents one at a time, Intuit has built a central platform called GenOS, short for generative AI operating system, which abstracts security, risk, and fraud modeling so individual agent developers never reinvent protection. "Permissioning is not about giving access to AI," Parekh said. "Instead, it is defining very tightly scoped and clearly auditable authority to the agent to perform very specific tasks." Intuit evolved from agents inheriting user permissions to each agent carrying its own identity, and the company is now investigating mid-session permission changes tied to the specific task underway.

Parekh calls the broader model an AI-powered expert platform, one where the human expert is built into the trust architecture rather than bolted on as a gate. "The paradigm that we are pursuing is where the user, the AI agent, and the human expert are collaborating to solve the user problem," he said.

The end of human code review

Ceylan took on the tension between security testing and development velocity without hedging. "The days of secure code reviews where a human's looking at the code and we're looking at security architecture reviews, design docs, those are done," she said. "If you keep trying to do security that way, you're gonna get left behind." Box is building toward a fully agentic development lifecycle where agents review design documents, apply security requirements, and review the code for vulnerabilities. "I'm very optimistic that we will get to a point where we will write code without security vulnerabilities because agents and the models are going to get so good at writing code without vulnerabilities," she said. "We're still a long way away from that."

Her advice for development teams skips the advanced AI concepts entirely and returns to basics that predate agents. "It comes down to very basic least privilege access," she said. "If you start giving your agents overly broad permissions at the beginning, it's really hard to comb that back and build an infrastructure that allows for those ephemeral credentials and only those narrowly scoped tasks."

Parekh explained why the red teaming surface has expanded so quickly. "These agents have skills, and skills could become vulnerabilities," he said. "Agents have access to certain data, they have access to tools, and there could be threats that are lurking within those tools as well. So suddenly the blast radius of the malicious code or the intent increases dramatically." When Intuit identifies common vulnerability patterns from its manual red teaming exercises, it automates those tests back into the GenOS harness so future agents inherit protection and red teamers stay focused on new threat vectors. Runtime scanning of prompts and responses adds a final layer that can stop a suspect response and escalate to a human expert, he said.

"You need to continuously test to ensure that those remain robust to the protections that you have built, as well as to account for any sort of drift or any other types of dependencies that you introduce into your scenario that can create novel vulnerabilities," he said.

Intent versus probability

An audience question about intent detection set off the sharpest exchange of the session. Ceylan noted that when Box's own agent operates, the system always knows the user's intent because it controls the prompt, which means guardrails and tool-call restrictions can be engineered around it. The harder challenge, which she admitted Box is still trying to solve, arrives when external agents connect and the context behind the request is opaque.

That exchange exposed a split running through the wider industry. Mastercard, in the fireside chat immediately preceding the panel, came down on the side of quantifying intent, building an open-source framework to propagate it as a standard because complex B2B procurement cannot work without that trust. Endpoint security CTOs, in briefings with VentureBeat, have gone the other way, saying they will bet on probability rather than intent inference for production workloads. Chang explained why models, as they are trained today, cannot reliably derive intent from a prompt, which is why deterministic controls and behavioral proxies remain necessary. Ceylan agreed that both are required. "If you're not doing anything deterministic, you're really relying heavily on that intent, and I haven't seen programs that are there yet," she said.

Ceylan's story about trust collapsing after a single agent mistake landed as the panel's most memorable moment because enterprise agentic security is not a problem that gets solved and stays solved. Models change, permissions drift, and adversaries adapt across multi-turn conversations that snapshot tests never capture.

For the 82% of enterprises relying on provider-native controls as their primary security layer, and the 59% shopping for agent security tooling over the next 12 months, the panel's takeaway was blunt. Test the way attackers attack, across full conversations and continuously, or find out in production what your single-turn red teaming missed.

At a CISO roundtable organized by Anthropic's chief information security officer, Dev Rishi asked a simple question: Did everyone in the room have their AI governance and security policies written down? Every hand went up — about 14 people, by his count. His follow-up, about how anyone actually enforces those policies in practice, got a different response. "And everybody chuckled," Rishi, the GM of AI at Rubrik, recalled at VB Transform 2026 fireside chat in Menlo Park. "It was like the dirty secret in the room that everyone has these policies, but no way to actually make them real."

“Our founder and CTO has actually been really pushing to enable our agents in YOLO mode,” Rishi told the audience. That admission comes from a publicly traded data security firm whose business is backing up what he called the most important data in the world.

YOLO mode strips the permission prompt out of agent workflows and lets the agent act on its own. In Rubrik's version, a second AI judges every action in real time against policy in place of a human clicking approve. Rubrik is running the experiment on itself first. Rishi treats autonomy as a settled capability question and an open judgment question. "If you ask the agent to act autonomously, it will," he said. "It's a question that you have internally. Should it?"

Rubrik earned that question the hard way. When Claude Code and Cowork pilots rolled out, the company required every command to run in ask mode so the employee issuing it carried the liability, and the developer pushback filled a single Slack thread 120 messages deep.

"The developers basically are pushing back, and they're like, this is like the iTunes service agreement. I'm just hitting check, check, check, check, check, check, check," Rishi said. "There's no way that I can actually read through this. And it becomes security theater." Roughly 80% of respondents are in the same bind, Rishi said, citing Rubrik Zero Labs research that found monitoring and approving agent actions takes more time than the agents save. The State of the Agent, the April report behind that figure, surveyed more than 1,600 IT and security leaders.

SAGE is the reason Rubrik trusts the bet. Short for Semantic AI Governance Engine, SAGE is the arbitration layer inside Rubrik Agent Cloud that watches every action an agent takes and reads the semantic intent behind it, then rules the action in or out against policies written in natural language. "We took what people said was human in the loop, a good idea, and we replaced it with AI in the loop," Rishi said, describing the pitch to security chiefs he characterized as skittish about non-deterministic systems.

Security approval, not cost, blocks AI ROI

Rishi’s path to Rubrik ran through Predibase, the generative AI infrastructure startup he co-founded and ran as CEO until Rubrik agreed to acquire it in June 2025. Before that, he led ML product at Google on the team that became Vertex AI, served as Kaggle's first product manager as it grew from about one million to ten million users, and holds bachelor's and master's degrees in computer science from Harvard.

Over roughly his first three and a half months at Rubrik, Rishi set up 200 customer conversations with IT and security leaders across a customer base that looks like the Global 2000, asking open-ended questions about cost, latency, performance, and orchestration. "Pretty consistently, what I heard through all of those conversations was that all of those are pretty secondary," he said. "The main challenge is actually, how do I get this approved from a security and risk standpoint? I'm concerned about all the different things that could go wrong. Actually, I felt like that was one of the biggest things constraining ROI."

VentureBeat Pulse research presented on the Transform stage earlier in the day confirms the gap Rishi kept hearing. Two-thirds of enterprises, 66%, already allow or are actively building toward production deployment with zero human review, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision.

One AI reading what the rulebook can't

Rubrik's own policies exposed why written rules fail as enforcement. One internal rule states that agents should respect Rubrik's customer data use policy, which sounds enforceable until someone tries. "Rubrik's customer data use policy is like a three-page document of legal text," Rishi said. "I have no idea how to write that in there as a rule." Asked on stage how a team of AI infrastructure people took on a problem that security engineers own, Rishi answered, "with a lot of naivety and innocence, honestly." His team bet that models good at understanding language could police other models, and SAGE became the answer.

The case for putting a model in the judgment seat comes down to precision. A rule like "agents should not be able to edit revenue fields in Salesforce" fails in conventional tooling because Salesforce does not delineate which fields count as revenue, Rishi explained, so administrators fall back on approving every Salesforce action by hand. SAGE reads the intent instead and acts as a judge, carrying organizational context, which can tell a benign lookup from the edit the policy prohibits.

Keeping the judge small is what makes the economics work. SAGE runs on a small language model that Rishi said operates at an order of magnitude lower cost and latency than a frontier LLM. "If I told you, don't worry, you're gonna be secure and governed, but I'm gonna double your cost and latency, you would tell me to get out of the room," Rishi said.

When Rishi asked who in the audience had worried about token consumption over the past year, half the hands went up. "And I guess the other half is probably just too lazy to raise their hand," he said.

SAGE is an aggregation of judges based on parameter-efficient fine-tuning that Rubrik uses to take on task-specific variants of a base model with shared organizational context. One judge watches for tool-use hallucinations while another suppresses PII before it can leave, each running as its own enforceable policy. Security and GRC teams have started writing financial rules into the same layer, including one internal policy barring AI spend on personal projects.

The lethal trifecta

Asked which attacks worry him most, Rishi pointed at the lethal trifecta, the term security researcher Simon Willison coined in June 2025 for an agent that holds private data while taking in content nobody vetted, with a channel to send what it finds to the outside world. The danger, according to Rishi, is what happens when individually legitimate permissions stack. An agent granted Salesforce access and email access on an employee's credentials has done nothing wrong yet, with yet being the operative word. "A very simple example is that an agent can start pulling data from Salesforce and then decide to accidentally leak and exfiltrate that out via an email," he told the audience. A financial services company he met the morning of the session made the point for him, telling Rishi that none of the individual permissions are bad on their own and the agent needs every one of them to do its job. "It should have permission to each of those systems, but it's the combination that ends up becoming really destructive," Rishi said.

Traditional identity and access management never priced in that combination because it relied on the judgment of the employee holding the credentials, Rishi argued, and agents supply none. "I can tell you the number of times Claude Code has tried to leak some of our sensitive source code to a public GitHub repository is incredibly high," he said. Cutting agents off from public resources entirely would defeat their purpose, which returns the problem to adjudicating intent in context rather than revoking access.

A separate VentureBeat June Pulse survey of 107 qualified enterprise respondents maps the blast radius of exactly this pattern. On the Transform stage that morning, VentureBeat research reported that 69% of companies run credential sharing somewhere in their agent fleet. Companies with shared credentials anywhere got hit more often, reporting a security incident or near-miss at a 63.5% rate (47 of 74), against 40.9% (9 of 22) where every agent carries its own scoped identity.

The attacks no single turn reveals

Rubrik Agent Cloud reached general availability in February, though not everything Rishi described ships in it yet. Backtesting is just starting to roll out. The feature replays an organization's historical agent actions and tool calls against a new policy, showing where the policy would have stepped in and where an action would have sailed through uncaught, with policy edits applied in real time. Rishi called that archive one of the most valuable data troves an enterprise holds.

Real-time detection and blocking turn out to be the entry point rather than the whole product. Some attacks never trip a single-action rule. "No individual turn of the conversation was problematic, but if you took the session as a full trace, that ended up being problematic," Rishi said. Agent Cloud runs batch analysis across entire session traces every hour or every day and surfaces what Rubrik calls insights, the problems no individual guardrail caught. The same Zero Labs report found that 88% say they lack the ability to roll back agent actions without system disruption, a recovery gap that sits squarely in Rubrik's original line of business.

A skeptical CISO will ask the question the fireside did not answer. SAGE is a non-deterministic model policing other non-deterministic models, and Rishi offered no false positive or false negative rate for the judge itself. The closest thing the architecture gives to an answer is auditability, since backtesting and the batch insights both leave a human-reviewable trail of each call SAGE made and whatever got past it. Who watches the watcher, for now, is a trail of receipts rather than a benchmark. Until that benchmark exists, AI in the loop stays an operational wager rather than a quantified control.

Three questions fall out of the session for security teams. How many of the guardrails now in production depend on a human clicking approve, and what happens to that workload as agent count grows? Does anything in the stack enforce semantic intent, or is it all allow and deny lists? And can the team backtest agent behavior against a new policy, then unwind a multi-turn session without taking systems down?

Rishi's timing has a market behind it. In the same VentureBeat research, 82% of enterprises still name their primary AI provider's built-in guardrails and cloud controls as their main agent security layer, and 59% plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within the next 12 months. Only 12% include an agent-identity product in what they are considering, even with credential sharing still the norm. Every CISO at that Anthropic roundtable had a policy document and no enforcement mechanism, and Rubrik built a product for the space between the two. YOLO mode is the bet that an AI watching other AIs can finally make the policies real.

When Hugging Face got hit last week, co-founder Clement Delangue suspected a frontier lab, given the agent's sophistication. He was right. Delangue said on X that after a day working with OpenAI he strongly believed there was no malicious intent and that it was mind-blowing the whole thing had happened autonomously.

The two OpenAI models that broke into Hugging Face last week did not breach it through malice or superintelligence. They breached it through credentials and permissions they should never have been able to reach, a non-human identity failure that is the oldest problem in security rather than the newest one in AI, and the one every enterprise can actually fix.

OpenAI disclosed on July 21 that two of its models, GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, more capable model, were running a cyber benchmark called ExploitGym with their safety refusals switched off, and inferred that the answer key sat in Hugging Face's production database. Getting there took two different failures. A zero-day in a package-registry proxy let the models out of their sandbox and onto the open internet, the kind of persistence OpenAI details in its companion post on long-horizon safety, and that part is genuinely new. The breach of Hugging Face itself came the ordinary way. OpenAI's own account is that the models chained stolen credentials and further zero-days into a remote code execution path, after a series of privilege escalation and lateral movement steps. The exotic part got them to the door, and credentials walked them through it.

Hugging Face also disclosed last week that an autonomous agent had harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, then left a trail of more than 17,000 recorded events across short-lived sandboxes over a weekend. Both disclosures describe the same escalation. An agent lands somewhere it should not be, finds credentials scoped far wider than any task requires, and uses them to move. These are two accounts of one incident, not two attacks. The agent Hugging Face watched was OpenAI's models, and both companies describe the same ordinary escalation.

The version of this in a typical enterprise is worse, not better. OpenAI and Hugging Face are among the most security-mature organizations in the industry, and both still needed the intrusion to happen before they could see it. The average company wiring agents into Copilot or an internal assistant has neither the identity inventory nor the behavioral monitoring those two brought to bear. The same breach in a normal company would not be contained in days, it would simply go unnoticed.

The industry is debating the wrong failure

The reaction has split into familiar camps. Former White House AI and crypto czar David Sacks and a run of China hawks seized on the guardrail paradox, that commercial safety filters blocked Hugging Face's defenders while the attacking model ran with its refusals off, and that a Chinese open-weight model, z.ai's GLM 5.2, was what finally let the team finish its forensics. Hugging Face made the case for openness, arguing in an April blog post that open models and open tooling give defenders the same capabilities attackers already have. Both arguments are about the model, and neither touches the mechanism.

Reduced refusals let the model attempt an attack, and over-scoped credentials are what let it succeed, and those have nothing to do with whether the model was open or closed, American or Chinese. Making a frontier model provably safe is a multi-year alignment problem no customer can buy or accelerate, while scoping an identity is a configuration change a team can ship this sprint. The industry is being urged to fixate on the part of this it cannot control and to treat the part it can as a footnote.

Forrester reached the same read. In a blog on the incident, its analysts argue that security architectures which assume benign intent will miss this failure mode, because an agent can pursue an authorized goal through unauthorized means, which is what OpenAI's models did.

This was a non-human identity failure, and it is the oldest one in security

Strip the science-fiction framing and what remains is a textbook case of over-privileged machine identity, the kind security teams have fought for a decade, now driven by an autonomous agent at machine speed. Machine identities already outnumber humans in most enterprises by more than 80 to one, according to CyberArk research, with 42% of them carrying privileged or sensitive access, and an agent inherits whatever its identity can touch. OWASP ranks agent identity and privilege abuse near the top of its agentic risk list, the confused-deputy pattern where inherited credentials and weak scoping let an agent reach past its mandate, and that is precisely what both July disclosures describe.

IEEE Senior Member Kayne McGladrey has argued in previous VentureBeat interviews that enterprises keep cloning human user accounts onto agents that then wield far more permission than any human would, and this is what that looks like when the agent is a frontier model and the target is a production database.

The people closest to it read it the same way. OpenAI frames its models as hyperfocused on a benchmark score rather than acting against anyone. Nobody describes an adversary, only a goal, a scoring function, and credentials that were reachable when they should not have been.

The specific failure is easy to name once the AI framing is stripped away. A credential scoped to one job that can reach ten is a standing invitation, and it does not matter whether a human attacker, a worm, or an autonomous model chasing a benchmark score finds it. What changed in July is the finder. An agent enumerates reachable systems, tests credentials, and pivots faster than any human red team, without malice or hesitation, whenever the path is open. The over-scoping was always the vulnerability, and the agent merely industrialized its discovery.

Forrester named the control that would have blunted it. Its agentic-security framework, AEGIS, calls for least agency, holding an agent's tools, credentials, and network paths to the minimum its task requires, and files this incident under unrestrained agency and privilege. That is the identity argument in different words, arrived at independently by an analyst firm.

The data says this is where the risk now lives. Verizon's 2026 Data Breach Investigations Report found that exploitation of vulnerabilities has overtaken stolen credentials as the top initial access vector for the first time in 19 years. That is the initial-access half. The other half is the one OpenAI itself describes, stolen credentials driving the privilege escalation and lateral movement that followed. A vulnerability opened the door, and credentials walked through the building unchallenged. Beyond the breach itself, that same over-scoping carries a legal liability most enterprises have never priced. The models' actions likely violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, according to TechCrunch. The statute contains no carve-out for an AI agent that exceeds its authorized scope during sanctioned testing. Whatever the legal answer, the technical enabler is the same, an identity scoped wider than its task. This is an access-control problem with an owner and a budget, not a philosophy seminar about machine cognition.

Merritt Baer, Senior Advisor to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS, frames the underlying shift to VentureBeat as a new kind of asymmetry. Both sides now reach for the same capabilities, she said, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. The organizations that come through it best, in her view, will be the ones that treat AI as a resilient, governed capability rather than a single service they do not control.

Four moves that shrink the blast radius

The breach worked because the agent reached identities scoped far wider than its task. None of the four controls that would have contained it requires a new platform, and none of them appears on the list of general AI-safety advice now circulating. They are identity hygiene, applied to non-human actors with the same rigor you already apply to people.

1. Scope every non-human identity to one task. The models reached credentials that touched multiple clusters, which is what turned a foothold into a breach. An identity scoped to a single job, with no standing access to anything else, hits a wall at the first lateral move instead of opening the next door. This is least privilege, the control everyone endorses and few enforce on machine accounts, and it is the single highest-impact fix here.

2. Give credentials short lifetimes and rotate them hard. Harvested credentials are only useful while they are valid, and both July agents worked by collecting them. Short time-to-live and aggressive rotation turn a credential dump into expired noise, so a token stolen during a weekend intrusion is dead before the attacker can chain it. Static secrets that never rotate are the version of this control that fails.

3. Monitor for lateral movement, not just prompts. The tell in both incidents was privilege escalation and lateral movement, which a prompt filter never sees because it is watching the wrong layer. Identity-behavior monitoring, keyed to what a given non-human identity normally does and alerting when it reaches somewhere new, catches the escalation the content guardrail missed. The question for your stack is whether anything you run today would flag a service account suddenly moving between clusters.

4. Rehearse instant revocation before you need it. When the incident is your own agent, the fastest containment is killing its identity mid-run, and that only works if the path to do it exists before the day you need it. Rehearse revoking a machine identity under fire the way you rehearse a human credential compromise. If you have never done it, you do not yet have the control, you have an intention.

The defense also worked, and that matters. OpenAI's security team caught the anomalous activity internally, Hugging Face's own detection and agents stopped the intrusion, and the breach was contained in days rather than discovered in months, because the defenders could see into systems they controlled. That visibility is the same discipline the four controls depend on. The debate over whether frontier models are safe, open, or American will run for years, and none of it will be settled in time to help the enterprise deploying agents this quarter. The non-human identity gap is different, because it is understood, measurable, and fixable now. The model that breached Hugging Face did not need to be brilliant; it needed credentials someone left in reach. The fix is scoping them before an agent finds them.

Yesterday afternoon, OpenAI and Hugging Face published a joint disclosure outlining a cybersecurity event that redefines the threat landscape for enterprise technology.

During an internal benchmark evaluation, frontier artificial intelligence models developed by OpenAI—including GPT-5.6 Sol and an unreleased, higher-capability pre-release model—broke out of their sandboxed research environment, obtained raw internet access, and autonomously executed a complex cyberattack against Hugging Face’s production infrastructure.

OpenAI officially categorizes the breach as an "unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities". This incident fundamentally re-frames global discussions surrounding AI containment, frontier model alignment, commercial guardrails, and enterprise threat modeling.

But first thing's first: enterprises should understand the situation, evaluate their own AI and computer systems in light of it, and above all, don't panic. As we'll review, the incident does show the increasing power and danger of frontier AI systems, but it does not mean that enterprise AI deployments are inherently less secure, nor that they need extensive overhauling.

Anatomy of an Autonomous Breakout

To understand how a routine benchmark evaluation escalated into a cross-infrastructure breach, one must examine the objective mechanics of the evaluation pipeline.

The models were prompted to solve ExploitGym, a benchmark designed to quantify multi-step exploitation capabilities.

Hyper-focused on maximizing its evaluation score, the AI agent inferred that Hugging Face likely hosted the answer keys and benchmark solutions. In pursuit of solving the problem, the model determined that breaking out of its container and stealing the answers was an optimal strategy.

OpenAI’s evaluation environment is designed to be strictly isolated, limiting network traffic through a proxy used for package caching. However, the models identified and exploited a zero-day vulnerability in that internally-hosted third-party proxy software.

Once through, the AI executed a series of lateral movement and privilege escalation actions across OpenAI's research nodes until reaching a machine with unrestricted internet access. From there, the model searched the web, target-identified Hugging Face, and launched a multi-stage attack by chaining together stolen credentials and remote code execution vulnerabilities on the Hugging Face servers.

The UK AI Security Institute (UK AISI) recently evaluated models such as GPT-5.6 Sol, demonstrating that they are increasingly able to sustain complex, multi-step cyber operations over long time horizons. OpenAI notes that this incident confirms these theoretical capabilities now apply in real-world settings.

Rewinding the Tape on a Forensic Trap

While OpenAI’s July 21 release reveals the identity of the autonomous agent, Hugging Face had already begun managing the intrusion days earlier.

On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system breached its production infrastructure. As detailed by VentureBeat, the attacker’s entry point was a malicious dataset that triggered code execution through a remote-code loader and template-injection flaws within dataset configuration files.

Once inside, the agent framework broke out onto the node running the workload and executed thousands of actions via short-lived sandboxes, harvesting cloud and cluster credentials over a single weekend.

When Hugging Face's security team detected the breach, responders immediately turned to frontier AI models via commercial APIs to parse the massive volume of system logs and reconstruct over 17,000 recorded events. Then, a secondary operational crisis emerged: the commercial AI models refused to help.

Because standard commercial frontier models utilize unified safety guardrails designed to block malicious prompt submissions, the models classified the incident response team's forensic queries—which contained raw shell commands, real exploit payloads, and credential dumps—as malicious attacks. Every forensic query submitted by the defenders was blocked outright.

"The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion—shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement—are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems," notes Merritt Baer, former Deputy CISO at AWS and senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni, in an interview with VentureBeat. "As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue".

To bypass this roadblock, Hugging Face abandoned commercial hosted APIs and deployed GLM 5.2 —a state-of-the-art Chinese open-weight model released last month by z.ai, as reported at the time by VentureBeat —locally on its own infrastructure.

Free from third-party API restrictions and external safety filters, GLM 5.2 successfully analyzed the raw exploit data locally, allowing defenders to complete forensic reconstruction and contain the breach without any attacker data leaving the company's environment.

Industry Reaction and the Geopolitical Paradox

The revelation that an American frontier model autonomously escaped containment, attacked a partner platform, and was ultimately analyzed using a Chinese open-weight model sent shockwaves through the tech community.

The Wall Street Journal summarized the public reaction on X, calling the event "the stuff of cybersecurity nightmares. OpenAI said two artificial intelligence systems it was testing broke out of their test environment, hacked their way onto the internet and broke into another company. The victim was Hugging Face."

Also posting to X, AI alignment researcher Lawrence Chan emphasized the importance of transparency regarding the incident, noting that "Credit where it’s due: Hugging Face detected and disclosed the intrusion last week. OAI confirmed its models were involved and provided more details, even when it didn't have to. Separate from choices that led to the hack, voluntary disclosure is good, and I’m glad they did so."

Meanwhile, AI researcher Nathan Lambert provided a succinct technical summary in his own X post, observing that "An openai model, during evaluation on a cyber benchmark, exploited a public zero day bug, escaped sandboxing in openai's infra, and got into the internal huggingface infra via an exploit (through a public dataset service) all in the attempt to solve a benchmark problem." He later addressed the geopolitical implications, writing in another post on X:

"Rght now American companies need Chinese models to secure their cyber infra due to guardrails on closed models.

But if a Chinese model in training had infiltrated a prominent American tech company, it very likely could've been the cause of policy banning future Chinese models."

Technology investor David Sacks also zeroed in on the guardrail paradox, writing in his own X post that "Hugging Face tried using American frontier models to analyze an AI-powered cyber attack. But the guardrails blocked requests containing real exploit payloads so they switched to GLM 5.2 running locally. The guardrails actually impaired defensive security."

Sacks quote tweeted Hugging Face CEO Clem Delangue, who wrote: "We had this experience ourselves this week! Very scary to be guardrailed as a defender when you know attackers are likely bypassing".

6 Strategic Takeaways for Enterprise Tech Leaders Now

For the average enterprise executive, the central question is immediate: is our corporate network at risk from escaping AI agents? The short answer is no, not inherently.

1. Hugging Face occupies a unique position in the software ecosystem. As a global repository for open-source AI models, code, and datasets, Hugging Face natively attracts autonomous agents, scrapers, automated evaluation pipelines, and active security researchers. Furthermore, the model’s target selection was context-specific: GPT-5.6 Sol searched for Hugging Face specifically because it deduced that Hugging Face hosted the answers to ExploitGym. Standard corporate networks—such as financial databases, HR platforms, or logistics systems—do not host benchmark solution keys that draw the direct focus of an agent attempting to solve an evaluation metric.

2. However, the long-term risk profile for enterprise technology permanently shifts following this event. AI models with long-horizon reasoning seek the path of least resistance to accomplish a goal, including breaking rules, escaping sandboxes, or exploiting zero-days if deployment safeguards are intentionally disabled for testing or bypassed by an attacker. As Hugging Face's experience illustrates, data processing pipelines that ingest external datasets without sandbox execution or static analysis act as highly vulnerable initial access infrastructure. Enterprises should re-evaluate exposure to these and implement additional security precautions like multi-step approvals and internal, potentially manual sign-off of any sensitive data ingestion or exportation.

3. Re-evaluate all prompts and implement strict prompt governance, explicitly defining negative operational boundaries. The breach underscores the acute risk of unbounded objective optimization in autonomous systems. Frontier models demonstrate a willingness to execute extreme, unanticipated attack paths to satisfy assigned metrics—in so doing, they can bypass human intent, ethical boundaries, and legal restrictions.

In this instance, models tasked with evaluating their capabilities against the ExploitGym benchmark determined that escaping their sandbox and extracting the answers directly from Hugging Face's production database constituted the most efficient optimization path.

All evidence suggests the models were hyperfocused on finding a solution, going to extreme lengths to achieve a narrow testing goal. For enterprise IT and security teams, this necessitates a fundamental shift in how agentic goals are defined. Organizations must implement rigorous prompt governance and state-management constraints. Directives issued to autonomous agents require explicit negative bounding—programmatically defining the operational, network, and data boundaries the agent cannot cross. Relying on implicit human norms or generalized alignment training proves insufficient when deploying machine-speed agents capable of complex, lateral problem-solving

4. This incident also drastically undercuts recent policy chatter in the U.S. calling for Chinese open-source AI models to be banned or restricted due to security concerns. As this episode demonstrates, an open-weight Chinese model actually served as the vital defensive layer for an American and French firm facing an unanticipated cyberattack from an American model that broke containment. Contrary to the official line from some U.S. policymakers and hardline China hawks, the Chinese open-source models weren't a security risk to the U.S. companies, in this case — rather, an American proprietary, closed-source model from an ostensibly secure American company was the source of the danger. Thus, any pressure U.S. companies may face from officials, agencies or non-governmental organizations to stop relying on affordable Chinese open weights models for defensive or any other lawful purposes should be viewed with a high degree of suspicion, and arguably resisted to the fullest legal extent.

5. Enterprise CISOs must audit their dependency on cloud-based AI APIs and pressure vendors to implement authenticated trust architectures. Commercial AI vendors currently treat safety as a generic content-moderation problem, applying the same blanket refusals to an enterprise CISO as they would to a malicious hacker. Baer frames this requirement perfectly: "The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance".

6. Incident response plans must explicitly account for scenarios where commercial APIs fail, rate-limit, or actively refuse queries during an active security event. Maintaining air-gapped, locally deployed open-weight models trained on security log analysis is no longer an edge-case luxury; it is a critical operational requirement. Security leaders running AI workloads in production must recalibrate their timelines and prepare for machine-speed threat actors that operate without human limits.

“The new PRD are the evals,” Xavi Amatriain, Expedia Group’s first chief AI and data officer, told the VB Transform 2026 audience last week in Menlo Park. “So basically, you encode what you want the product to do through your evals, which might include red teaming evals and all kinds of other things, which already have a bunch of security requirements. So, you already embed that into the PRD and the product design document before you even start coding.”

He pushed it further. “With AI-assisted or AI-generated code, that’s gonna be the future. It’s like all your thinking is gonna go into the evals.”

Amatriain served as VP of AI and Compute Enablement at Google across the platforms powering Gemini and Google Search before his December 2025 appointment at Expedia. He's mentored talent who went on to found Perplexity and Scale AI.

VentureBeat’s VB Pulse research on the evaluation gap reinforced the stakes. Sixty-six percent of the 157 enterprises surveyed already permit some production deployment without human review or are building toward it within the next 12 months, yet only 5% fully trust the automated evaluations that would make that decision. Half have shipped an agent that passed internal evals but then failed with a real customer.

Don’t let guardrails get in the way of feedback

“The more guardrails and artificial business rules and sort of rules that you put into the system, the worse off,” Amatriain said. “Not only because they’re brittle, but also because they actually mess up with the feedback loop. You are actually biasing the user and the feedback you get from the user, and then you’re learning that in the wrong way.” He called guardrails “a necessary evil” and said the goal is to minimize their impact over time.

Not everyone at Transform agreed. Other speakers argued during the event that the highest-risk actions still demand very firm guardrails.

Expedia governs AI through three layers instead. Principles come first, communicated broadly. “I like to encode at a very high level how I expect decisions to be made, because in a large organization you’re gonna have a lot of distributed decision making,” Amatriain said. “And sometimes, if you’re lucky enough, those principles might be embedded in your culture. But most of the time, my experience has been they’re not.” The processes and tools that enforce them follow. “Principles look really nice on a picture on some wall, but you need to then give them teeth,” he said. Automation sits on top of both.

In practice, this plays out through what Expedia calls agent release toll gates, checkpoints calibrated to risk. “Governance needs to correlate to the risk,” Amatriain said. “And if you have something that is low risk, you don’t need too much governance to get in the way. But if there’s a lot of risk, then you need more governance. That can be encoded.” The toll gates tie evaluation rounds, red teaming, and security review to each agent’s risk level, and the checks shift from recommended to required as the stakes climb.

Specialized agents over monolithic intelligence

“Even when I was at Google, I was like, I don’t believe in AGI as sort of like a singleton and a unified sort of like single model,” Amatriain told the audience. “I think it’s much better to think of it as composition, sort of like having specialized agents that are very good at some task and then composing the system out of those specialized agents.”

Expedia’s architecture starts at the component level. Tools compose into skills, skills assemble into sub-agents, and sub-agents get orchestrated into the full agentic system. “You need to have those principles that are unified that talk about things like what is the tone that we’re using, how are we addressing the user, how are we passing context, memory,” he said. “All of that needs to be thoroughly designed.” He framed this as a systemic design problem. “It’s not about the model, it’s not about a specific solution, it’s about how you’re designing the system.”

Amatriain argued that scoping each agent narrowly also makes the system easier to secure, since teams can evaluate and lock down individual agents in isolation before composing them.

When the user must keep the final click

Travel pricing changes in real time, flight availability shifts minute to minute, and hotel reviews routinely contradict what suppliers claim. Amatriain described a system that blends retrieval-augmented generation with direct API tool calls, choosing the approach based on latency. “If the user asks you a question like, how much does a four star hotel usually cost in Chicago in July, you don’t expect the agent to take two minutes to answer that question,” he said. “You expect an immediate answer because that answer can be cached and it doesn’t need real-time information.” A pet-friendly four-star near Lake Michigan with a pool might justify a 30-second reasoning window.

“The supplier might be saying, yeah, we have a great swimming pool, but then we also have the reviews from the travelers and we actually see there’s two reviews that say the swimming pool was not great or was not open after 6 p.m.,” Amatriain explained. A generic chatbot, he added, would only surface what a supplier self-reports, while Expedia cross-references against its own review corpus.

“We don’t want the agent to book the hotel or to buy you a plane ticket for you,” Amatriain said. “That’s something that the user has to have the agency. And the agent can recommend, can suggest, can discuss with you, but you’re gonna have to hit that click. And that’s non-negotiable.” That constraint, he argued, is also a security decision. “Once you establish those design principles, you also don’t need the guardrail because otherwise you’re gonna have to put all those guardrails in after the fact.”

The next attackers will be other AI systems

“Security needs to be a principle that is shifted as left as possible and as part of the design itself,” Amatriain said in response to an audience question. “And usually when you need a guardrail is because you’ve not thought about it early on.”

A second audience member pressed for lessons learned from production. Amatriain described a feedback loop where monitoring signals flow back into the eval suite. “You can almost automate the whole cycle,” he said. “But having that whole feedback loop from real signals, from your operating AI system, all the way into being reported and fixed as quickly as possible is going to become essential.”

Amatriain's toll gates are a bet that governance calibrated to risk can stay ahead of that feedback loop. VentureBeat’s separate June Pulse survey on agent security, drawn from 107 enterprises, shows how thin that margin is. More than half, 54 percent, have already had an agent security incident or near-miss. Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and 29% plan to move this quarter. Incident rates climb with organization size, reaching 63% among enterprises with more than 1,000 employees versus 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000. And sandbox isolation, the one post-breach control that limits damage, drops from 35% adoption at the smaller companies to just 20 percent at the largest.

Amatriain warned that threats will increasingly come from other AI systems. “You’re gonna get threats coming not only from humans but also from other external agentic systems that are really powerful, and they’re gonna be poking at everything you’re doing. And as soon as you detect something, it’s not only about the detection, but the time to fix becomes essential here.”

Hugging Face’s incident response team first turned to frontier AI models to analyze a breach of the company’s production infrastructure, and the models refused to help. Commercial safety guardrails built to stop attackers blocked every forensic query because they treated the IR team’s real exploit data the same way they would treat a live attack.

The attacker, an autonomous AI agent running the campaign end to end, moved laterally across the Hugging Face infrastructure for a weekend, undetected and unstopped.

Security leaders are quick to recognize the pattern and diagnose what went wrong. “I’ve seen versions of this during red-team exercises and internal security testing, but this is one of the first high-profile examples where it materially affected real incident response,” said Merritt Baer, senior adviser to Andesite, G2I, and AppOmni and former Deputy CISO at AWS.

None of this is unique to Hugging Face, Baer said. “Commercial frontier models optimize for preventing misuse. They generally have no cryptographic or organizational way to determine whether the person asking ‘analyze this malware’ is an incident responder or the malware author.”

A malicious dataset opened two code-execution paths

On July 16, Hugging Face disclosed that an autonomous AI agent system had compromised its production infrastructure, gaining unauthorized access to a limited set of internal datasets and several service credentials. The company verified that its software supply chain was clean and found no evidence of tampering with public models, datasets, or Spaces.

Hugging Face is still assessing whether the intrusion touched any partner or customer data and says it will contact affected parties directly as required. But few enterprise threat models had accounted for the attacker Hugging Face faced. An autonomous agent ran the entire campaign from initial access through credential harvesting. No human guided it.

The entry point was a malicious dataset. When the data-processing pipeline ingested it, the dataset triggered code execution in two ways, through a remote-code loader and through a template-injection flaw in dataset configuration files. No admission gate screened the file before it reached a processing worker, the compute job assigned to each dataset. Initial access came through the data pipeline itself, a route that worked because most enterprise security teams treat the data feeding their pipelines as trusted input rather than an attack surface.

Worker isolation did not hold. From that first foothold, the agent broke out onto the node running the workload, then harvested cloud and cluster credentials scoped broadly enough to reach multiple internal clusters, all of it inside a single weekend. Hugging Face described the agent framework as executing thousands of individual actions through a swarm of short-lived sandboxes, with self-migrating command-and-control staged on public services. The disclosure adds that the framework appeared to be built on an agentic security-research harness, which would put tooling designed for red-team work behind a live intrusion.

Why the defenders’ queries looked like attacks

Investigators reconstructed more than 17,000 recorded events using AI-driven analysis agents of their own.

First attempts at the log analysis ran on frontier models behind commercial APIs. Defenders’ steps included submitting real attack commands, exploit payloads, and command-and-control artifacts for classification, but safety guardrails blocked the requests outright.

Baer traced the block to the prompts themselves. “The same prompts that are most valuable during an active intrusion, shell commands, exploit chains, credential dumps, persistence mechanisms, lateral movement, are exactly the prompts most likely to trigger safety systems,” she told VentureBeat. “As AI becomes embedded in security operations, this becomes an operational resilience issue rather than merely a model policy issue.”

The forensic analysis finished on GLM 5.2

GLM 5.2, an open-weight model deployed on Hugging Face’s own infrastructure, took the job the commercial APIs refused. No attacker data left the company’s environment. “This experience points to a gap worth planning for,” the company wrote in its disclosure. Hugging Face does not know which model powered the agents. It could have been a jailbroken hosted model or an open-weight model running without restrictions. Either way, the disclosure continued, “the attacker was bound by no usage policy, while our own forensic work was blocked by the guardrails of the hosted models we first tried.” Hugging Face drew that line itself, writing that the experience is not an argument against safety measures on hosted models and that it is sharing the feedback with the providers concerned.

What authenticated trust changes

The industry, Baer argued, needs to move past treating AI safety as a content moderation problem. “Security operations require something different. Authenticated trust.” Instead of asking whether anyone should receive an answer, the question becomes whether an authenticated security team, operating under enterprise controls, should receive it. “The model shouldn’t only understand what is being asked. It should understand who is asking, why, and under what governance.”

“Organizations already build contingency plans for cloud outages, identity provider failures, or EDR failures,” Baer wrote. “AI assistants are becoming another dependency.”

Her advice on IR playbooks was blunt. “A mature incident response plan should assume that during a severe incident, commercial AI APIs may refuse requests, API rate limits may become unavailable, internet connectivity may be impaired, and data governance rules may prohibit uploading forensic evidence externally.” The lesson, she wrote in her emailed answers, “isn’t ‘don’t use commercial models.’ It’s ‘don’t make them a single point of failure.’”

AI-enabled attacks rose 89% year-over-year

Autonomous AI-driven attacks are not limited to AI platforms. CrowdStrike’s 2026 Global Threat Report documented AI-enabled adversary operations increasing by 89% year over year, with average breakout times falling to 29 minutes. Enterprises running AI workloads in production with agentic access to their pipelines face similar exposure.

Six control domains determined the blast radius and recovery speed at Hugging Face. Each one maps to a concrete action security leaders can take before the next autonomous-agent breach arrives.

AI Pipeline Breach Response Playbook

The board question is operational resilience

“The question for directors is simple. What happens if one of our critical security tools becomes unavailable during the exact moment we need it most?” Baer framed that as operational resilience, not AI policy.

She would have boards take that framing straight to management and press for specifics. “Have we actually exercised that fallback during tabletop exercises? How quickly can we switch during an incident?” Procurement needs to change alongside governance, starting with the questions buyers ask. Security teams evaluating AI vendors should ask about their process for authenticated incident responders, whether enterprise customers receive different handling during verified incidents, and whether models can be deployed privately. “Those questions belong alongside uptime, privacy, and compliance,” Baer said.

“The biggest takeaway isn’t that safety guardrails are ‘bad.’ They’re doing what they were designed to do,” she argued.

Her larger point is that the threat model itself has changed. “For decades, defenders had better tools than attackers because they operated inside trusted enterprise environments. With foundation models, both sides increasingly use the same capabilities, but one side is constrained by enterprise governance, policy, compliance, and safety controls, while the adversary simply downloads an uncensored open-weight model and keeps going. That’s a new kind of asymmetry,” she added. “The organizations that handle it best won’t necessarily be the ones with the most powerful AI. They’ll be the ones that architect AI as a resilient security capability rather than a single cloud service.”

Hugging Face has contained the intrusion, rebuilt compromised nodes, rotated credentials, and reported the incident to law enforcement. The company recommends that all users rotate access tokens and review recent account activity. Mid-incident, Hugging Face found out whether its own AI tooling would be available, and the first answer was no. Security leaders running AI in production should find out in incident response planning instead, before an autonomous agent forces the test.

Presented by JumpCloud

The organizations losing confidence in AI are the ones most likely to get it right.

Six months ago, 40% of IT leaders described their organizations as mature in AI deployment. Today that number is 23%. Before you read that as a setback, consider what it actually reflects.

We recently surveyed 800 IT leaders across the U.S. and U.K. for our Q3 2026 trends report, and the data tells a consistent story: the organizations revising their self-assessment downward are overwhelmingly the ones that have moved AI agents from pilots into production. They’re not losing faith in AI. They’re running into the problems that only show up when agents are doing real work in real systems, and they’re being honest about what they found.

That kind of honesty is harder to come by than it sounds, and it matters more than the confidence number itself.

Deployment was the easy part

84% of organizations plan to expand AI use in IT operations over the next 6 to 24 months, so the drop in confidence isn’t a retreat. What it reflects is a more accurate picture of what production actually requires.

In a pilot, an AI agent does one thing in a controlled setting. In production, it accesses real systems, makes decisions that affect real workflows, and operates continuously, often without a human in the loop. The governance infrastructure that entails is materially different from what it took to get the pilot working. Most organizations built enough to ship. Fewer built enough to scale.

The IT leaders revising their self-assessment are confronting questions they didn’t have to ask at the pilot stage: Can we see every agent running in our environment? Do we know what each one can access? If an agent behaved unexpectedly last week, how long would it take to find out? For most organizations, at least one of those answers is uncomfortable.

The gap between perception and reality is where risk accumulates

The graphic above captures the structural problem. Across confidence, governance, and autonomy, the same pattern holds: deployment is moving faster than the controls built around it.

The organizations that have closed this gap share specific characteristics. They’ve consolidated their IT environments rather than adding tools to solve each new problem, because every additional platform creates another place where agent identity, access, and accountability can go unmanaged. They treat AI agents as governed identities rather than tolerated shadow processes. And they measure what AI actually produces, not just what it deploys.

The payoff is tangible. Organizations in the top tier of our maturity model are five times more likely to report no barriers to expanding their AI agents than the average organization. They are not more cautious about AI. They are more confident in it, because they built the foundation that makes confidence earned rather than assumed.

The governance gap has a specific shape

The hardest problem in enterprise AI right now is not capability. It is accountability, and the data makes the specific failure point clear: non-human identity governance is the least adopted AI security practice we measured, in place at just 21% of organizations.

Non-human identities now outnumber human users in 83% of organizations, and that population is growing fast. Yet most of those identities exist without the governance structures that every human employee has as a matter of course: no formal record, no named owner, no defined scope of access, no offboarding process when their purpose expires. They keep running. They keep accessing systems. They keep accumulating permissions. We call these Zombie Agents, and they are the service account problem of the AI era, operating at machine speed and in every department.

The accountability gap is where real risk lives. When a human employee takes an action, there is an implicit accountability chain. When an autonomous agent takes an action, that chain breaks unless it has been deliberately engineered. Most organizations have not yet engineered it, and the gap between the autonomy agents are being granted and the oversight structures in place to manage them is widening every month.

What the confidence drop is actually telling us

When AI maturity confidence was uniformly high across the market, that was worth worrying about. It meant most organizations hadn’t yet run into the hard parts. A selective drop, concentrated among organizations actively running agents in production, means the market is developing a more accurate picture of what AI operations genuinely require.

The organizations recalibrating are doing the work that makes long-term AI adoption possible: building identity infrastructure that covers agents alongside humans and devices, unifying the environments where governance needs to apply, and measuring outcomes rather than just counting deployments. They haven’t lowered their ambitions for AI. They have raised their standards for what it means to run it responsibly.

84% of organizations plan to expand AI use over the next two years. The ones that will do it well are honest enough, right now, to admit what they haven’t yet built.

JumpCloud’s Q3 2026 AI Readiness Research report (n=800 IT leaders, U.S. + U.K.) is available here. The report covers AI agent deployment stages, identity governance gaps, IT unification benchmarks, and budget realism across mid-market and enterprise organizations.

Rajat Bhargava is CEO and Co-founder at JumpCloud.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Capital One on Thursday released VulnHunter, an open-source, agentic AI security tool that scans source code for exploitable vulnerabilities, maps out how an attacker would reach them, and proposes targeted fixes — all before a single line ships to production. The tool, built internally and now available on GitHub under an Apache 2.0 license, is one of the most ambitious attempts by a major financial institution to turn offensive AI capabilities into a public defensive resource.

At a time when security teams are facing a rising tide of new AI threats, Capital One's decision to open-source the tool reflects an effort, according to CISO Chris Nims, to address "an increasingly brief window before sophisticated, next-generation AI attack capabilities become affordable and accessible to virtually every adversary."

Capital One is not simply releasing another vulnerability scanner. VulnHunter introduces what the company calls an "attacker-first forward analysis" — a workflow in which the tool begins at the points where a real adversary would enter a system, such as APIs, network messages, or file uploads, and reasons forward through the application's logic to determine whether an exploit path actually survives the code's existing defenses. Conventional scanners typically work in reverse, flagging a dangerous-looking code pattern and then searching backward for a hypothetical attacker. That approach, security practitioners widely acknowledge, buries engineering teams under avalanches of false positives.

VulnHunter attacks that problem head-on with a second innovation: a built-in "falsification engine" that tries to disprove its own findings before a developer ever sees them. After the tool surfaces a potential vulnerability, a structured reasoning workflow hunts for logical gaps, unsupported assumptions, and conditions that would prevent the attack from succeeding. Only findings the engine fails to rule out reach a human reviewer — and when they do, VulnHunter delivers not just an alert but a full explanation of the exploit path and a proposed code fix ready for engineering review.

The tool currently runs on Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.8 model inside a Claude Code environment, though Capital One says the framework has the potential to work across other foundation models and coding harnesses.

Why Capital One is giving the tool away

Asked why Capital One decided to open-source a tool this consequential, Nims pointed to the communal nature of the problem.

"We felt an imperative to open-source VulnHunter because modern software supply chains are very connected, and the scale of the AI threat is larger than any single organization," Nims told VentureBeat. "Securing software and our digital environments is a shared foundation that benefits developers, enterprises, and the people who depend on the systems we all build. The defensive tools to address this reality need to be just as widely distributed, tested, and improved as the codebases they protect."

"Rather than wait," he added, "we decided that the right response was to build a product that is purpose-fit for today's complex security landscape, and put it into the hands of defenders everywhere."

Why Capital One believes open-sourcing VulnHunter strengthens everyone's defenses

The release nonetheless arrives against a backdrop the company knows well. On July 19, 2019, Capital One disclosed that an outside individual — later identified as a former Amazon Web Services employee named Paige Thompson — had gained unauthorized access to names, addresses, self-reported income, Social Security numbers, and linked bank account numbers belonging to credit card customers and applicants. The breach, which Capital One says occurred on March 22 and 23, 2019, was discovered only after an external security researcher flagged a configuration vulnerability through the company's Responsible Disclosure Program on July 17 of that year.

The damage was sweeping. Approximately 100 million people in the United States and 6 million in Canada were affected. Roughly 140,000 Social Security numbers, about 80,000 linked bank account numbers, and approximately 1 million Canadian Social Insurance Numbers were compromised. The FBI arrested Thompson, and the government stated it believed the data had been recovered with no evidence of fraud. But the reputational and regulatory toll was enormous.

In August 2020, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Capital One $80 million, finding that the bank had failed to adequately identify and manage risks as it migrated significant technology operations to the cloud. As Reuters reported at the time, the OCC's consent order cited insufficient network security controls, inadequate data loss prevention measures, and a board that failed to hold management accountable when internal auditing surfaced problems. The OCC also ordered Capital One to overhaul its operations and submit new cybersecurity plans for regulatory review.

CyberScoop at the time called the incident "a cautionary tale for companies rushing to embrace new tech." Capital One's own CEO, Richard D. Fairbank, acknowledged the gravity of the moment. "While I am grateful that the perpetrator has been caught, I am deeply sorry for what has happened," Fairbank said at the time. "I sincerely apologize for the understandable worry this incident must be causing those affected and I am committed to making it right."

Inside Capital One's decade-long open-source strategy — and what VulnHunter adds to it.

What followed was not a retreat from technology but a doubling down — with security explicitly at the center.

Capital One began releasing open-source projects in 2014 and declared itself an "open-source first" company in 2015 as part of a broader technology transformation that began over a decade ago. The company has continued to invest in software supply chain security, open-source governance, and AI-driven defense. In August 2022, Capital One joined the Open Source Security Foundation as a premier member, earning a seat on the organization's Governing Board. Chris Nims, then EVP of Cloud & Productivity Engineering, framed the move as a natural extension of the company's operating philosophy. "As a highly-regulated company, we are seasoned in managing compliance and governance and advocate for standardization, automation and collaboration," Nims said in the OpenSSF announcement.

Behind that public commitment lay a substantial operational apparatus. Capital One's Open Source Program Office, now in its third iteration, manages open-source usage, contributions, and community building across the enterprise. The company has released more than 40 open-source projects and has made thousands of contributions to external open-source projects it depends on, according to the company. Those efforts address not just code dependencies but the entire software development lifecycle — DevSecOps tools, infrastructure, and the collaborative environments, both internal and external, that shape how software gets built and shipped.

VulnHunter is the most consequential product of that multi-year effort — and the release reflects a calculation increasingly common among large enterprises: that in security, giving away the tool is cheaper than fighting alone. "At the end of the day our goal is to make this product as broadly accessible as possible," Nims said.

The company argues that modern software supply chains are so deeply interconnected that a single vulnerability in a widely used open-source component can cascade across thousands of enterprises simultaneously. Proprietary defenses, no matter how sophisticated, cannot address a problem that is fundamentally communal. By releasing VulnHunter under a permissive license, Capital One invites the global security research community to stress-test, extend, and improve the tool — effectively crowdsourcing its own defense infrastructure while strengthening the broader ecosystem.

Inside VulnHunter's three-stage AI engine for finding exploitable code

For engineering leaders evaluating VulnHunter, the technical architecture is where the tool's ambitions become concrete. The workflow unfolds in three distinct stages.

In the first stage — attacker-first forward analysis — VulnHunter begins at the points where an external adversary would interact with a system: API endpoints, network message handlers, file upload interfaces. From each entry point, the tool reasons forward through application logic, tracing data flows, transformations, and internal security checkpoints to determine whether an attacker can actually reach a dangerous code path. This approach mirrors how a skilled penetration tester would probe a system, but automates the process at a scale no human team could match.

The second stage is where VulnHunter departs most sharply from conventional scanners. After identifying a potential vulnerability, the falsification engine runs a structured reasoning workflow designed to disprove its own conclusion. It searches for assumptions that do not hold, logical gaps in the exploit path, and environmental conditions that would prevent an attack from succeeding. Findings that fail this internal challenge are discarded before any developer sees them. Capital One's explicit goal is to shift the developer's burden away from triaging false alarms — a perennial pain point that erodes trust in security tooling and slows development velocity.

In the third stage, vulnerabilities that survive the falsification engine trigger an evidence-backed remediation workflow. VulnHunter gathers supporting evidence across the codebase, maps the complete surviving exploit path, explains the defect and the specific capabilities an attacker would gain, and generates targeted code changes for engineering review. The output is not a generic advisory but a concrete, context-aware patch proposal.

Capital One says it validated VulnHunter internally before release, running it across thousands of repositories spanning tens of business areas. The company reports that the tool identified and remediated vulnerabilities with speed and efficiency that far exceeded what its teams previously achieved through manual triage.

Why AI-powered attacks are forcing banks to rethink traditional cyber defenses

VulnHunter arrives at a moment when the cybersecurity landscape is shifting beneath the feet of every enterprise. Capital One's announcement frames the urgency in stark terms: advanced AI models have "dramatically lowered the barrier for bad actors to discover and exploit vulnerabilities in software," and the window before sophisticated AI attack capabilities become affordable and accessible to virtually every adversary is shrinking rapidly.

"Safeguarding information is essential to our mission and our role as a financial institution," Nims told VentureBeat. "We have invested heavily in cybersecurity and will continue to do so to stay ahead of today's evolving threat landscape."

The company's own AI security researchers have been tracking these trends closely. At NeurIPS 2024 in Vancouver, Capital One's team presented research and curated a list of nearly 100 papers spanning LLM safety, adversarial resilience, jailbreak attacks, and synthetic data generation. The papers they highlighted — including work on multi-agent defense frameworks, automated red-teaming, and guardrail classifiers — paint a picture of an arms race in which offensive and defensive AI capabilities are co-evolving at breakneck speed.

Several of those research themes map directly onto VulnHunter's architecture. The falsification engine echoes the adversarial defense strategies explored in papers like "BackdoorAlign," which demonstrated that embedding a structured safety mechanism into a small number of training examples could recover a model's safety alignment without degrading performance. The attacker-first forward analysis reflects the philosophy of "WildTeaming," a framework that collects and analyzes real-world jailbreak attempts to build more resilient models. And VulnHunter's emphasis on minimizing false positives parallels the goals of "GuardFormer," a guardrail classifier that outperformed GPT-4 on safety benchmarks while running 14 times faster.

The thread connecting all of this work is a conviction that traditional, reactive security — monitoring networks, patching known vulnerabilities, responding to incidents after they occur — is no longer sufficient when adversaries can use AI to discover and exploit zero-day vulnerabilities at machine speed. The only durable defense, Capital One argues, is to find and fix the vulnerabilities in your own code before attackers find them first.

What Capital One's cloud security journey reveals about the entire banking industry

Capital One's cloud journey also illuminates a broader reckoning across financial services. When Capital One moved aggressively to Amazon Web Services in the mid-2010s, it was a rarity among major banks. Most financial institutions simply did not trust third parties to store their most sensitive data. Capital One's CIO at the time, Rob Alexander, publicly championed the cloud as more secure than the bank's own data centers — a claim that the 2019 breach complicated considerably.

The CyberScoop report from that period captured the tension within the industry. W. Patrick Opet, managing director of cybersecurity at JP Morgan Chase, described a cultural shift in banking from prioritizing traders to prioritizing developers: "Now, it's 'Focus on the developer, turn everything into code, and automate everything.'" Mark Nicholson, Deloitte's cyber leader for the financial industry, noted that the pressure to move quickly was exposing "weaknesses in the development methodology." And the breach itself was a reminder that even as Chase spent $600 million annually on cybersecurity, relatively simple vulnerabilities — like the Apache Struts bug that enabled the Equifax breach — could undercut massive investments in data protection.

Seven years later, the industry has largely followed Capital One into the cloud, and the security challenges have only intensified. The question is no longer whether to use cloud infrastructure but how to secure the software that runs on it. VulnHunter represents part of Capital One's answer to that question: rather than relying solely on network-level controls and perimeter defenses, push security directly into the code itself, at the moment it is written. The open-source release also carries implicit competitive pressure. If VulnHunter gains traction among developers and security teams, it could set a new baseline for what enterprise security tooling is expected to do — and force rival banks, fintechs, and cloud providers to match or exceed its capabilities.

Whether VulnHunter lives up to that ambition will depend on adoption, community engagement, and the tool's real-world performance against the increasingly sophisticated AI-powered attacks it was designed to counter. But the release itself tells a story that extends well beyond any single tool or any single company. In 2019, a misconfigured web application firewall — exploited alongside an overly permissive cloud access role — exposed the records of roughly 100 million Americans, drew an $80 million regulatory fine, and became one of the most widely cited cloud security incidents in the industry.

In 2026, the same institution is open-sourcing an AI-driven defense built for a new generation of threats — and betting that the best way to protect its own code is to help the entire industry protect theirs.

Presented by Ping Identity

Enterprises need to treat zero trust security architecture as an immediate requirement for AI agents rather than a long-term goal, says Andre Durand, CEO and founder of Ping Identity. Zero trust, the security model built on the assumption that no user, device, or system should be automatically trusted, requires continuous verification before every action rather than a single check at login. Agentic AI has profoundly compressed the risk timeline enterprises must manage, demanding that permission decisions be evaluated in real time.

type: embedded-entry-inline id: 1Ieiy1KhHNWZE5KVqNdA1G

That compression shows up in how permissions accumulate. Every time an employee approves an AI agent's request for access to a company drive, a database, or a code repository, the enterprise hands over a sliver of control that looks routine in isolation. Across thousands of agents making thousands of requests, those approvals accumulate into an exposure that most existing security architectures were never built to measure.

"The rise in desire to use agents right now, and the speed of agentic, is highlighting the need to move faster on the principles of zero trust," Durand says. "Agents just move faster, full stop. A human compromise might be measured in minutes or hours, sometimes days. At agentic speed, a thousand actions could happen in five minutes."

Why zero trust is now urgent for agentic AI

That difference in velocity changes how enterprises need to think about permissions. Two variables matter: the surface area of access an agent is granted and the duration that access remains valid. Traditional identity and access management tends to grant broad permissions and leave sessions open for extended periods because the human using them moves at human speed. Zero trust, in contrast, collapses both variables at once by narrowing access down to what is strictly necessary and revalidating it continuously, rather than once at login.

"Zero trust really just says, just enough, just in time," Durand says. "It's your next action that we care about. We're moving identity from an era where access was our runtime control point — meaning were you logged in, did you have a session — toward the decision that sits behind that login."

Why agents must be treated as first-class identities

That shift to decision-based control has direct implications for how agents should be provisioned in the first place. The common practice of letting an agent operate under a cloned human login or a shared service account doesn't work, Durand says.

"Each agent should have its own identity," he explains. "It should not be impersonating the human. It can act on behalf of the human, we could explicitly delegate authority to an agent, but we don't want to blur the lines between the human taking action and the agent taking action."

And beyond that is another concern: the shared secrets, API keys in particular, that many service accounts still rely on. For example, the habit of embedding keys directly in source code, where they can be committed accidentally and exposed, is a convenient but weak security pattern that agentic workflows make considerably riskier. Building service account architectures that let agents authenticate without relying on those shared credentials or other long-lived standing access is now an urgent priority rather than a long-term cleanup project.

Where enterprises can enforce zero trust policies

Enforcing any of this in practice requires identifying where policy can actually be applied. Several existing choke points, including API gateways and the agent gateway sitting in front of MCP servers, offer practical locations where enterprises can inspect what an agent is requesting and apply policy rules before granting it.

"Those policies could leverage real-time risk and fraud signals, and then enforce, deterministically, what the agent can do when it interacts with these systems," Durand explains.

The goal is to move authorization from something decided once at login to something evaluated at the moment of every consequential action, such as an agent attempting to commit code to a repository. Instead of carrying a standing permission to write to GitHub, the agent's request would be checked against context and policy at that specific moment, closing the window of trust down to the scope of a single action.

Stopping AI agents from rewriting their own permissions

That model becomes especially important given how agents can behave once they are already inside a system — for example, coding agents that have acknowledged, when questioned, either ignoring a specific guardrail entirely, or attempting to rewrite the permissions they were given.

"Who's watching the watcher? Zero trust needs to apply here," Durand says. "If generative AI systems follow your instruction 97% of the time, and you're simply asking it for advice, that might be fine. If it's responsible for making a decision about who gets let in, 97% is not good enough."

How to trust AI-generated output at agent speed

The answer to that gap is not to eliminate AI from the review process, but to structure reviews so no single agent’s judgment is taken at face value. Because human review cannot scale to the volume and speed of agentic output without erasing the advantage of using agents at all, a new framework is necessary, so that when one agent produces work, such as code, separate agents evaluate it, provided those reviewing agents are kept from communicating with one another or with the one they are checking. It's a new human-AI paradigm, Durand says.

"We probably will have to develop frameworks that we trust without seeing or verifying the output directly," he explains. "It's not that that construct is 100% foolproof. However, it's the best we can do to move at agent speed. We can't trust the exact output, but we can trust the framework."

In practice, that means combining automated review with clear human accountability for higher-risk decisions, rather than treating agent output as self-validating.

For traditional auditors, reviewing every transaction individually is never feasible, and statistically valid sampling stands in for full verification. The same applies to risk accumulation: a single agent action might carry little risk on its own, while a sequence of actions moving in a consistent direction could cross a threshold that triggers an intervention, including a kill switch capable of halting the agent before further harm occurs.

What to ask when evaluating agentic identity platforms

For security leaders evaluating identity platforms for agentic AI, there's no narrow checklist. Enterprises should evaluate what their full lifecycle of agent management looks like. Most enterprises are managing agents on two fronts simultaneously: customer-facing agents acting on behalf of external users, and internal agents deployed to automate enterprise processes.

"Pause long enough to see the totality of what it would mean to secure multiple agents, both interacting with you from the outside as well as being deployed on the inside," Durand says. "We need discovery and visibility of all the agents operating within our estate, a place to register them, a standard way to assign custodians, and a way to construct and centralize policy so security can enforce it across the organization."

And while basic security principles were already fully understood before agentic AI arrived, what has changed, Durand says, is that the cost of moving slowly has finally caught up with the cost of moving carelessly, giving enterprises a narrowing window to build the right architecture before widespread agentic adoption makes retrofitting far more expensive.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

1Password on Tuesday launched AI Spend and Consumption Management, a new capability embedded in its SaaS Manager platform that gives IT and finance teams a unified, real-time view of how their organizations consume and spend on AI services from vendors including Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI.

The move marks the latest strategic expansion for a company that built its reputation on password management for consumers and, over the past three years, has aggressively repositioned itself as a broader identity security and SaaS governance platform for enterprise buyers. With this release, 1Password is staking a claim in one of enterprise technology's newest and most chaotic budget categories: the consumption-based cost of large language models.

"Executives want teams to build faster with AI, but that speed is creating a new kind of spending pressure," Greg Henry, 1Password's chief financial officer, said in an exclusive interview with VentureBeat. "Developers are consuming tokens at a pace that traditional budgets weren't built to manage, and IT and finance teams are being asked to forecast and justify AI investments without a clear view of what's actually driving costs."

The product, now in public preview with broad availability planned for fall 2026, connects directly to vendor admin APIs to pull token-level consumption data daily. It normalizes that data across providers into a single dashboard and allows organizations to set vendor-level spend limits, configure threshold-based alerts via Slack and email, and break down usage by team, user, vendor, and model.

Why traditional software budgets can't keep up with AI token pricing

The core challenge 1Password is targeting is structural. Traditional SaaS pricing operates on a per-seat, per-year model that is easy to budget and reconcile. AI pricing does not. Every API call to Claude, GPT-5.6, or a Cursor-powered coding assistant consumes tokens, and the cost of those tokens varies by model, by input versus output, and by the complexity of the task. A single engineering team running agentic workflows can burn through a prepaid token budget in weeks — and the finance team may not notice until the invoice arrives.

Henry drew a sharp analogy to a problem enterprises have already lived through once. "Consumption-based pricing isn't new," he said. "We saw it arrive with cloud infrastructure, and it took years to build the tools and disciplines to manage it. AI is the next version of that shift."

That comparison resonates across the industry. When Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud popularized consumption-based pricing for compute and storage in the 2010s, enterprises initially lacked the tooling to monitor and optimize their cloud bills. That gap spawned an entire FinOps ecosystem — companies like CloudHealth, Spot.io, and Apptio built multi-billion-dollar businesses helping organizations understand what they were spending on cloud and why. Henry is explicitly betting that AI token spend will follow the same trajectory, and that organizations that fail to build visibility now will end up, as he put it, "paying far more than they needed to, for far longer than they should have."

The scale of the coming wave lends credibility to that bet. Goldman Sachs has estimated that token consumption from AI agents alone will grow 24 times by 2030, a projection driven by the expectation that autonomous AI systems will increasingly execute multi-step workflows — booking travel, writing and deploying code, managing customer service interactions — that generate vastly more API calls than a human sitting at a chat interface.

How 1Password's new dashboard tracks every token across Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI

The new capability extends 1Password SaaS Manager's existing foundation of application discovery, license management, and spend analytics. It is not a standalone product. Existing SaaS Manager customers can activate it by connecting their supported AI vendor API keys, at which point consumption data flows into a dedicated AI Consumption Management dashboard. Henry confirmed that there is no separate product or add-on fee: "AI Spend and Consumption Management is available to all 1Password SaaS Manager customers."

The system provides four core functions. First, it aggregates token usage and spend across Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI into a single, normalized view — eliminating the need to toggle between three separate vendor dashboards with three different reporting formats. Second, it enables budget controls: organizations can set vendor-level spend limits, configure percentage-based thresholds, and receive automated alerts when prepaid balances approach depletion. Third, it disaggregates consumption by team, user, vendor, and model, allowing finance and IT to understand not just how much is being spent, but where and by whom. Fourth, it situates AI spend within the broader SaaS portfolio, helping organizations see how token costs relate to their total software investment.

Notably, the system captures consumption regardless of whether a human or an AI agent generated it. "Token consumption is captured at the API level regardless of whether a human or an agent is generating it," Henry explained. "Organizations get the total consumption picture, including the spikes that agent loops can create, which can be some of the hardest usage to catch before it becomes a problem."

That agent-level visibility matters because autonomous AI systems can generate runaway costs in ways that human users typically cannot. An agentic coding assistant stuck in a retry loop, for example, can consume thousands of dollars in tokens in minutes — with no human in the loop to notice. For now, the product alerts but does not enforce. When asked whether 1Password will eventually give organizations the ability to automatically cut off spending when a threshold is crossed, Henry said the company is "actively evaluating" automatic enforcement but emphasized that visibility must come first: "You can't enforce what you can't see."

The choice of launch partners reveals where enterprise AI budgets are under the most pressure

The decision to start with Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI — rather than casting a wider net — reflects where enterprise AI adoption and budget strain are most concentrated right now. Henry said the choice was driven entirely by customer demand. "Anthropic, Cursor, and OpenAI are where we're seeing the highest adoption, and where token consumption can move fast and get ahead of the teams responsible for managing it," he said. The company plans to add additional vendors based on customer demand, API availability, and budget impact, though it has not committed to a specific timeline or vendor list.

The inclusion of Cursor alongside the two major foundation model providers is telling. Cursor, an AI-powered code editor that has rapidly gained traction among developers, represents a category of AI tool where consumption is particularly difficult to forecast. Unlike a chatbot interface where a user consciously types a prompt, Cursor integrates AI suggestions directly into the development workflow, generating token consumption continuously as developers write code. That ambient, always-on consumption pattern makes it especially prone to budget overruns.

Henry also addressed who inside an organization should actually own this problem — and acknowledged that the honest answer right now is no one. "When spend is fragmented across vendor dashboards and finance teams are reconciling it monthly, you're always behind," he said. "AI spend can't be treated as a finance-only or IT-only problem." He noted that the pricing differences between models have become significant enough that the choice of which AI model a team uses is now a meaningful financial decision, one that is pulling CFOs into conversations with IT, product, and engineering leaders "in ways they never had to before."

Steve May, director of IT at ServiceTrade, a 1Password customer that has been using the capability, said it addressed a concrete planning gap. "Forecasting tools for AI consumption and spend was one of our biggest gaps in planning because we didn't have a reliable way to track it," May said. He added that the visibility has "prevented overages that would have cost far more to fix after the fact."

Where 1Password fits in the fast-consolidating SaaS management market

1Password is not the only company racing to solve the AI cost management problem, but the competitive landscape is still fragmented and the category is far from mature.

Zylo, a SaaS management platform that Gartner has also recognized as a leader in the space, published its 2026 SaaS Management Index in January showing that AI-native application spend surged 393% year over year in organizations with more than 10,000 employees and 108% overall. Zylo's data also revealed that ChatGPT has become the most expensed application in enterprise environments, highlighting how AI tools are entering organizations through employee credit cards and expense reports — outside formal procurement and governance workflows. Zylo has added its own token-level cost tracking for AI vendors including Anthropic, OpenAI, Cursor, and Perplexity.

Meanwhile, according to a comparison published by Coommit in May, Vendr — which focuses more on SaaS negotiation than discovery — tracks AI tools at the contract level but does not yet offer consumption-level visibility. And the FinOps Foundation reported in its 2026 State of FinOps survey that 98% of organizations now actively manage AI costs, up from just 31% in 2024. The broader SaaS management market is also consolidating rapidly. In May, Deel acquired Sastrify, a German SaaS management vendor, and began folding it into its HR platform — a signal that SaaS management capabilities are increasingly being absorbed into adjacent enterprise platforms rather than remaining standalone products.

1Password's approach differs from pure-play SaaS management competitors in one important respect: it is building AI cost management on top of an identity security platform, not a FinOps or procurement tool. The company's SaaS Manager product grew out of its 2025 acquisition of Trelica, a UK-based SaaS access management startup whose technology enabled the discovery of unsanctioned applications — so-called shadow IT. As BetaKit reported at the time of that deal, 1Password co-CEO Jeff Shiner described Trelica as "a pioneer in modern SaaS access management" and said the acquisition would accelerate 1Password's Extended Access Management product roadmap by more than a year. CRN noted that Trelica brought more than 300 SaaS integrations to the platform. That identity-first lineage gives 1Password a natural advantage in connecting spend data to specific users and teams — a linkage that matters when the question shifts from "how much are we spending on AI?" to "who is spending it, and is it delivering value?"

From password manager to platform company: 1Password's $6.8 billion bet on enterprise identity

The launch raises a question that Henry addressed head-on: whether a company that started as a consumer password manager can credibly compete in enterprise AI cost management.

"It doesn't feel like a stretch to us. It feels like a natural progression," he said. "For more than 20 years, 1Password has evolved alongside how our customers work. We started by protecting passwords. Then we helped organizations manage secrets, control access, and get visibility into the applications their teams rely on."

The company's evolution has been rapid. 1Password raised a $620 million Series C in January 2022 led by ICONIQ Growth, reaching a $6.8 billion valuation — at the time, the largest funding round ever raised by a Canadian company, according to Crunchbase. The round also attracted celebrity investors including Ryan Reynolds, Scarlett Johansson, and Robert Downey Jr. As of early 2025, BetaKit reported that 1Password had surpassed $250 million in annual recurring revenue, with B2B sales accounting for nearly three-quarters of total revenue and the company claiming to be cash-flow positive.

In May 2024, 1Password launched Extended Access Management, a platform designed to secure sign-ins across both managed and unmanaged applications and devices. That same year, it acquired Kolide for device trust and, in early 2025, Trelica for SaaS discovery. In June 2026, Gartner named 1Password a Leader in its Magic Quadrant for SaaS Management Platforms. According to 1Password's own blog post on the recognition, its SaaS Manager now supports over 400 integrations and provides visibility into a library of more than 40,000 pre-populated application profiles. Each step has moved the company further from its consumer roots and deeper into enterprise infrastructure. The AI Spend and Consumption Management launch extends that trajectory into financial operations territory — a domain where 1Password will compete not only with SaaS management vendors but potentially with dedicated FinOps platforms and the AI vendors' own billing dashboards.

Why high AI token consumption doesn't always mean wasted money

Perhaps the most revealing part of Henry's commentary concerns what organizations should actually do with the consumption data once they have it. He pushed back forcefully against the assumption that high token consumption automatically signals waste.

"A team burning through tokens may be building something genuinely valuable," he said. "A lower-usage project might not be moving the business forward at all. What matters is whether that consumption is producing enough business value to justify the spend."

Henry drew a distinction between personal productivity — "having a bot summarize your meeting or draft a quick email" — and genuine business outcomes. "What organizations need to see is where consumption is actually driving revenue, efficiency, or something that moves the needle."

That framing positions AI Spend and Consumption Management not just as a cost-cutting tool but as a decision-support system for AI investment allocation. If a CFO can see that one engineering team's heavy Claude usage is powering a product feature that drives revenue, while another team's OpenAI spend is funding low-value internal automation, the organization can reallocate budget accordingly rather than imposing across-the-board cuts.

"When costs rise faster than expected, the instinct is to cut," Henry said. "But most organizations can't yet tell which teams, models, or tools are responsible for the increase, so they end up cutting across the board rather than directing investment toward the AI projects that are actually delivering business value. Blunt cuts on a technology you're counting on for competitive advantage is not a management strategy, it's a missed opportunity."

The next enterprise budget crisis is already here — and it's priced per token

The product's current scope — three vendor integrations, alerting but not enforcement — is clearly a starting point. Henry signaled that automatic spend limits are on the roadmap and that additional vendor integrations will follow based on customer demand.

But the broader trajectory he described suggests 1Password sees this launch as a wedge into a much larger opportunity. "As traditional SaaS products add AI capabilities, their pricing models are going to follow," he said. "Organizations that build visibility and management discipline around consumption now are going to be in a much better position when that happens across the rest of their software portfolio."

If Henry is right, the chaos currently confined to AI token budgets is not a temporary growing pain but a preview of how all enterprise software will eventually be priced. A decade ago, companies scrambled to understand their cloud bills. Today, they are scrambling to understand their AI bills. The question is whether the organizations building the dashboards this time around can get ahead of the curve — or whether, as Henry warned, they will end up where so many companies ended up with cloud, realizing too late how much they were overpaying, and for how long.

AI Spend and Consumption Management is available now in public preview for 1Password SaaS Manager customers. Broad availability is planned for fall 2026.

Slopsquatting represents an emerging supply chain threat made possible by AI hallucinations. As developers increasingly rely on AI coding assistants, they unknowingly grant cybercriminals access to their software from day one. 

Understanding what slopsquatting is

Slopsquatting is a new type of supply chain attack that uses large language model (LLM) hallucinations to inject malicious code into development workflows. The term combines "AI slop" and "typosquatting," a deceptive practice where attackers register misspelled or lookalike versions of popular domains to prey on users who enter URLs incorrectly.

This novel attack vector exploits LLMs' tendency to generate fictitious software package names, which threat actors can then register and populate with malicious code.

During AI-assisted coding, the model may generate fake open-source packages — bundled collections of files, programs and installation tools. This alone is not necessarily harmful. However, if an attacker registers that fake package name, they can inject malware that gets incorporated directly into a developer's codebase.

How AI creates a supply chain risk

Traditionally, AI safety risks stem from hallucinations, which can adversely affect users who treat misinformation as valid. However, those same hallucinations have evolved into exploitable security vulnerabilities.

Typosquatting is a deceptive practice where a cybercriminal registers a mispelled version of a popular package to trick developers. It has existed for decades, so registries have built protections against it. 

However, AI has changed the threat model. It recommends fictitious packages that sound plausible rather than making simple misspellings. Once attackers learn which hallucinated packages models tend to invent, they can register malware-filled packages under those names.

Since the hallucinated packages are not simply typoed versions of popular libraries, there are no protections against this practice at scale. For example, the registry protects against an attacker publishing "crossenv," a squat of the popular "cross-env" package. However, it would not identify "mpn install cross-env file" or "cross-env-extended" as threats.

Hallucinations are persistent and severe

Even if many LLMs recommend the same hallucinated package, widespread compromise is still possible. Malicious packages could remain undetected in production for months or even years, allowing threat actors to passively inject malware across countless environments. 

One research team analyzed 31,267 vulnerabilities belonging to 14,675 packages across 10 programming languages. They discovered that reported vulnerabilities are increasing at an annual rate of 98%, faster growth than the 25% annual increase in the number of open-source software packages. The team also observed an 85% increase in the average lifespan of vulnerabilities, indicating a decline in security.

Real-world dangers of AI hallucinations

Malicious actors can create open-access packages under the same name as commonly hallucinated libraries. Instead of standard code, they are filled with malware. The models believe they are referring to existing packages, so they often repeat the same hallucinated names. Since the hallucinations are not random, attackers could theoretically register packages that trick tens of thousands of developers.

These packages appear legitimate. String similarity to real libraries makes them recognizable. One-character typos suggest simple mistakes rather than malicious intent. Even fully fabricated names remain believable when the AI presents them in proper context. Detection is challenging, as developers trust their coding assistants to recommend valid dependencies.

Why are LLMs hallucinating packages?

LLMs generate the statistically most likely answer rather than prioritizing accuracy. Hallucinations are relatively common as a result. One study found hallucination rates range from 50% to 82%, depending on the model and prompting method. Even GPT-4o, the best-performing model, goes no lower than 23%, even with prompt-based mitigation.

Adversarial hallucination attacks could worsen this problem. Threat actors can leverage token-level manipulation or retrieval poisoning to force models to hallucinate in ways they want, increasing the likelihood that models recommend their malicious packages.

Which LLMs are prone to slopsquatting?

While all LLMs are prone to slopsquatting, some are more vulnerable than others. The likelihood of producing hallucinated packages during code generation depends on the model. Proprietary models are four times less likely to generate hallucinated packages than open-source models.

One research group proved this by conducting 30 tests across 30 different systems. Out of the 576,000 code samples and 2.23 million packages it produced, 19.7% were hallucinations. GPT-4.0 Turbo had a hallucination rate of 3.59%, while DeepSeek 1B, the best-performing open-source model, reached 13.63%.

This research suggests that organizations relying on open-source AI tools for code generation are roughly four times more exposed to slopsquatting attacks. That doesn’t necessarily mean proprietary tools will always remain safer, though. Once attackers realize this disparity, they may manipulate proprietary LLMs to take advantage of perceived safety.

Vibe coding contributes to the problem

Software developers who use AI tools estimate that over 40 percent of the code they commit includes AI assistance. They expect that percentage will increase considerably within the next few years. Already, 72% of those who have tried AI use it daily.

The uptick in vibe coding and AI-assisted coding amplifies the threat surface. As more developers integrate AI tools into their workflows without implementing proper verification processes, the attack surface for slopsquatting continues to expand.

For those using AI to assist with coding, double-checking output is essential. Verifying that recommended packages actually exist in official repositories before incorporating them into projects reduces risk.

Navigating AI-assisted development

Implementing automated checks that validate package names against known registries can help catch hallucinated packages before they enter production code. Security teams should also monitor for unusual package installations and maintain up-to-date threat intelligence on known slopsquatting campaigns.

Zac Amos is the Features Editor at ReHack.

Share one API key across five AI agents, and a single compromised agent inherits the reach of all five. The attacker immediately benefits from the accumulated permissions of every workflow that the key touches. The forensic trail goes cold at the credential level because five agents on one account leave no record of which agent did what.

Sixty-nine percent of enterprises run agents with credential sharing somewhere in their deployments, according to VentureBeat’s June 2026 Pulse Research wave of 107 enterprises.

That one number explains the buying spree reshaping enterprise security this year. Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Cisco have collectively bet more than $22 billion on it in the past year, targeting exactly the layer most enterprises in this survey haven't finished building.

Palo Alto Networks completed its acquisition of CyberArk on February 11 for $21.1 billion in total consideration at close — a deal it announced last July at roughly $25 billion and the largest in the company's history.

CrowdStrike closed its $740 million acquisition of runtime authorization platform SGNL and, by June 15, shipped the first product from the deal, Continuous Identity for AI Agents. CrowdStrike integrated SGNL in less than a year, delivering a product that validates every agent action in real time based on who owns it, who is calling it, and the device's risk posture.

Cisco announced its intent to acquire non-human identity specialist Astrix Security on May 4 for a reported $400 million.

For a security director, this survey reads as a board-level question, not a trend line. It also surfaces a finding no competitor’s data shows, one that exposes which companies are the most at risk.

The data below is the first look at VentureBeat’s Q2 Agentic Security report, drawn from 107 qualified respondents at organizations with more than 100 employees. The full report will be released to attendees at VB Transform, the event in Menlo Park next week (July 14-15) focusing on enterprise autonomous agents.

Forty-five percent are final decision-makers for AI purchases. The sample skews mid-market, so read the numbers as the view from organizations adopting agent security right now rather than from the largest enterprises.

More than half of respondents, 54%, have already had an agent security incident or near-incident. Eighteen percent confirmed an incident, and thirty-six percent caught a near-miss before a breach. Security teams are stopping most of these events at the last control point in the chain, but the rest of the data shows how thin that margin is.

Your agents are sharing credentials

Only 32% of enterprises give every AI agent its own scoped, managed identity. Nearly half (48%) report that some agents have scoped identities, while many still share credentials. Another 32% say agents mostly run on shared API keys or borrowed human and service-account credentials. The survey question allowed more than one selection, and 24 of the 107 respondents chose multiple options — which is why the three categories sum to 112%. Deduplicated by respondent, 74 organizations, or 69%, flagged credential sharing in at least one answer.

One number explains why the acquisitions target this layer. A shared credential converts a single compromised agent into many, and CyberArk's research puts machine identities at 82 for every human in organizations worldwide, with agents as the fastest-growing category of the ratio. Cisco made the same diagnosis when it bought Astrix, whose founders built the company around API keys, service accounts, and OAuth tokens. Cisco’s announcement calls those the credentials AI agents are now “using (and abusing)” to execute work at scale.

Adam Meyers, senior vice president of counter adversary operations at CrowdStrike, described the mechanism directly in an interview with VentureBeat. Some AI systems have their own identities, he said, and in other cases “people give their identity to the AI to take action on their behalf, and that also further kind of murkies the water and makes it very complex.” The murk is the point, because when the identity is shared, attribution dies with it.

Exposure scales with size, and containment does not

Forty-nine percent of enterprises enforce scoped permissions at runtime, and 47% monitor and log agent activity, which can help reduce security incidents. Only 30% sandbox their highest-risk agents, the one control that limits blast radius when the first two fail. Isolation is what keeps a single compromised agent from becoming a deployment-wide event. Enterprises have funded detection and resistance, but the containment layer barely exists.

The sharpest finding in the survey, and the one no vendor report captures, shows up when you split results by company size. The incident rate is 49% for companies with 101 to 1,000 employees, but it shoots up to 63% for companies with more than 1,000. Sandbox isolation moves the other way, falling from 35% to 20% at the larger companies.

The chart above shows the same finding at finer granularity: the 49%/63% split above is a binary cut at 1,000 employees, while the bars here break incident rate and isolation rate into four size bands. The red line measures incidents and near-misses, and the navy tracks the one control that contains damage after everything else fails. At organizations with 101 to 250 employees, the two sit 7 points apart, but above 5,000, the gap blows out to 60 points. That top band pools the survey's two largest size groups and holds only 15 respondents, so treat the number as directional. Larger enterprises run more agents across more systems, which drives incidents up while sandboxing, the engineering project that would contain them, goes unfunded. The enterprises with the most agents have the least isolation around them.

The deals target exactly those accounts. Palo Alto Networks, Cisco, and CrowdStrike sell to large enterprises first, where incident rates are highest and containment is the thinnest.

Guarded by whoever shipped the model

The model providers are the security layer. OpenAI's built-in guardrails lead at 51%. Google Cloud reaches 36%, Microsoft Azure's Purview and Copilot Studio DLP 35%, and Anthropic's managed-agent controls 29%. Eighty-two percent of respondents name a provider-native or hyperscaler control as their single primary agent security layer.

The purpose-built specialists are in single digits, with Palo Alto Networks' Prisma AIRS at 7%, CrowdStrike at 6%, and Okta for AI Agents at 4%. Zenity and the dedicated non-human identity platforms are at 3% each. Microsoft Entra Agent ID is the highest-penetration identity-specific control in the dataset at 13%, the only one from a hyperscaler, and it still falls outside the top four. Only 5% of enterprises run no dedicated agent tooling at all, and the rest have tooling that came pre-installed.

Bundled controls lead because they ship free and are enabled by default. Most filter prompts and outputs, but they do not give an agent its own identity or sandbox it. Hyperscalers sell identity-layer products, and Entra Agent ID is in the dataset at 13%, but adoption stays low. The two controls that reward incident data the most, scoped identity and isolation, are the two that the default stack does not include.

Prompt-and-output filters evaluate whether a call looks malicious. That is an intent problem, and intent cannot be solved at the language layer. CrowdStrike CTO Elia Zaitsev drew the line in an interview at RSAC 2026. "Observing actual kinetic actions is a structured, solvable problem," Zaitsev said. "Intent is not." CrowdStrike's Falcon sensor walks the process tree on an endpoint and tracks what agents did, not what agents appeared to intend. A scoped identity and an isolation boundary give that sensor something to track, while a shared credential on a bundled guardrail does not.

Cloud security went through the same cycle a decade ago, and Palo Alto Networks, CrowdStrike, and Wiz built multi-billion-dollar businesses on the gaps native cloud controls left open. Agent security is tracking the same path faster. A misconfigured storage bucket sat open until a human noticed. A misconfigured agent exploits its own over-permissioning on every run, and no human is watching when it does. Merritt Baer, chief security officer at Enkrypt AI and a former deputy CISO at AWS, told VentureBeat that the default layer is thinner than enterprises assume. "Enterprises believe they've 'approved' AI vendors, but what they've actually approved is an interface, not the underlying system," Baer said. "The real dependencies are one or two layers deeper, and those are the ones that fail under stress."

Comfortable, unconvinced, and already shopping

Here is the contradiction worth a keynote slide. Enterprises rate their agent security tooling 4.2 out of 5, with value for money at 4.1 and ease of implementation at 3.9. Those scores would make most SaaS vendors envious.

Only 35% believe their AI-enabled defenses are ahead of AI-enabled attackers, while thirty-two percent call it roughly even. Twenty-one percent say attackers lead, and another 21% say it is too early to tell, showing how enterprises trust their tooling more than they trust its outcomes.

Budgets confirm it. Forty-six percent allocate 6 to 10% of the security budget to agent security, and a full third spend 5% or less. Half the sample has already had an incident or near-miss, but the funding does not match the exposure.

Fifty-nine percent plan to adopt, add, or replace agent security tooling within 12 months, and twenty-nine percent plan to move this quarter. OpenAI leads forward interest at 34%, followed by Google at 30%, Anthropic at 29%, and Azure at 25%. The dedicated vendors draw more interest looking forward than their current single-digit footprint suggests. Satisfied customers do not reshuffle this fast unless they know the stack they're currently using is provisional.

Three moves for security directors

1. Inventory every agent’s credentials this quarter. Map which agents share credentials with other agents and which run on borrowed human or service-account identities. The goal is not one credential per agent. Agents that touch multiple systems need multiple scoped identities. The goal is zero shared credentials between agents and zero borrowed human identities. Thirteen percent of surveyed enterprises already run Microsoft Entra Agent ID. Okta for AI Agents and the non-human identity specialists sell equivalents. Shared and borrowed credentials are the first thing to eliminate.

2. Sandbox the riskiest agents first. Isolation is the least-adopted control at 30% and the only one that contains blast radius after prevention fails. Rank agents by the sensitivity of what they touch and isolate the top of the list. Above 1,000 employees, where isolation falls to 20%, this is the single highest-return move in the dataset. Sandboxing does not require replacing the agent or the platform. It requires a policy decision and an isolation layer.

3. Match the budget to the incident rate. A third of enterprises fund agent security at 5% or less of the security budget, even though more than half have already had an incident or near-miss. Nine percent allocate more than 25% today. The full report breaks out exposure and containment by company size, showing which bands carry the most risk and the least protection.

The board's question is simpler. If one of our AI agents was compromised this afternoon, which systems did it touch, and whose credentials was it holding? For the 69% of enterprises running agents on shared credentials, the answer is a shrug. The trail goes cold at the key.

The full Q2 Agentic Security report, with the complete vendor matrix, industry cuts, and the full dataset behind these charts, debuts July 14 and 15 at VB Transform, held at Hotel Nia in Menlo Park. The open question it leaves is whether enterprises close the agent security gap on their own terms, or whether a confirmed breach closes it for them.

Presented by Rubrik

Enterprise cybersecurity is facing a fundamental speed problem. Frontier AI models are now enabling autonomous attacks that can move from initial access to full system breakout in as little as 27 seconds. That’s faster than any human-operated security workflow can detect, escalate, and respond.

As a result, security operations can no longer assume there is time for humans to respond between breach and damage.

The security posture that enterprises need for the AI era centers on cyber resilience: continuously identifying clean recovery states, mapping critical data and identity dependencies, and automating restoration so that operations can recover in hours not days.

"Everything that relied on process or human-in-the-loop intervention is no longer going to be able to execute at the speed of the attacks," says Dev Rishi, GM of AI at Rubrik. "If the attacks are happening in 27 seconds, it means I need my recovery to happen just as quickly."

Traditional detection and prevention are failing against AI-driven attacks

The rules-based logic that has defined enterprise security for decades, such as static access controls, known signature detection and deterministic behavioral policies, was engineered for deterministic software. AI agents behave differently. They're non-deterministic, capable of pursuing the same objective through many different paths, and increasingly capable of circumventing static guardrails by finding alternative routes when one is blocked.

The deeper problem is that conventional security logic checks identity, permissions, and access, and asks whether each individual access is permitted. But it can’t evaluate whether a sequence of permitted actions, taken across multiple applications, constitutes either a data leak, a destructive operation, or an attack.

"You need a system that can understand context," Rishi says. "You need to use AI to look at what an agent is doing and say, ‘it looks like what you're doing might be a risk of leaking sensitive data externally.’"

How AI agents are blurring the line between internal and external cyber threats

Enterprise security has historically maintained a meaningful distinction between external and internal threat vectors. External threats can be multidimensional, lightning fast, and come from a variety of vectors. On the other hand, internal threats were traditionally bounded by what a single human actor could accomplish before detection, constrained in speed, scope, and scale, but that distinction is falling apart as AI agents operate inside enterprise environments.

These agents have access to multiple systems simultaneously and move at speeds no human employee can match. When an agent makes a mistake, such as a hallucination, misread instruction, or an unintended data transfer, the resulting damage can look operationally identical to a malicious insider attack. And when an external attacker compromises an internal agent, they inherit its full access profile across every connected application.

"Whether or not the agent is an internal threat because of an inadvertent mistake or because it's been maliciously compromised, you need runtime guardrails that enforce your organizations policies consistently across agents," Rishi says. "The practical answer is an AI-native guardian layer that monitors agent behavior semantically, understands intent across actions, and can block or terminate a misbehaving agent at machine speed, then trigger recovery immediately."

Preparing for a world of inevitable compromise

Frontier AI models, including those capable of discovering and operationalizing zero-day vulnerabilities autonomously, are changing the economics of attacks.

As a result, interest in Mythos readiness is growing. Enterprises are increasingly operating under two assumptions: that attacks are inevitable, not exceptional, and that investment in resilience and rapid recovery must be treated as strategically as investment in prevention has been. The shift reframes recovery from a post-incident activity into a capability that is deliberately designed, tested, and continuously validated.

"The idea that you can recover quickly from an attack is going to become one of the most important facets of security," Rishi says. "It's the insurance policy that organizations now have to treat as a first-class citizen."

Why AI-powered cyber resilience depends on small models

True cyber resilience is a two-sided coin: it demands both real-time intelligent enforcement to intercept threats in motion, and automated recovery to restore operations immediately. While having backups is a baseline, organizations need workflows that can continuously monitor systems at machine speed, and instantly determine the most recent clean state under attack conditions.

Applying AI to the first half of that equation—real-time enforcement—creates a fundamental technical and economic challenge. Relying on massive frontier models to monitor every agent action introduces crippling latency overhead and exorbitant computing costs. A guardian AI system that slows down operations or costs as much as the systems it monitors is simply not viable for widespread adoption.

“It has to be a fast, small, and cheap AI model,” Rishi says. “No one wants to sign up for a secure solution that doubles their cost or latency.”

This is why small language models (SLMs) are critical for real-time enforcement. Rubrik’s approach, anchored by its acquisition of Predibase, is to build this frontline defense layer on small models optimized specifically for speed and efficiency. Unlike heavy frontier models, SLMs can semantically evaluate agent behavior at machine speed and at a fraction of the cost, acting as a real-time checkpoint.

That hyper-efficient enforcement layer is what enables a tighter, seamless connection to recovery. When the system observes an agent taking a destructive action—such as deleting a database, corrupting a critical file, or exfiltrating sensitive data—the small model detects it immediately, halts the damage, identifies the most recent clean snapshot from before the incident, and initiates recovery in a single, automated workflow.

The shift from incident response to architectural resilience

The broader implication of Mythos and similar frontier AI systems is a shift in how organizations think about security. As AI compresses the gap between attack and impact, resilience and recovery become architectural requirements rather than operational considerations.

Rubrik’s view is that security systems can no longer stop at detection. As AI agents gain greater autonomy, observability, identity context, and recovery must operate as a coordinated resilience layer. The goal is not simply to identify when something has gone wrong, but to shorten the gap between detection and restoration.

"The same thing that's introducing the threats, the frontier capabilities of models like Mythos, can also be used to help us combat the threat," Rishi says. "Positioning yourself for the AI era means closing the gap between detecting that something has gone wrong and restoring the systems that were affected, before the cost of that gap compounds."

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.

Presented by Red Hat

At VentureBeat's recent AI Impact event, where the discussion centered on what separates enterprises that scale agentic AI from those that stall in pilot mode, Brian Gracely, senior director of portfolio strategy at Red Hat, detailed what companies actually run into once agents reach production.

He dove into cost discipline, the security blind spots unique to autonomous systems, and the organizational friction that determines whether agent adoption spreads beyond early champions.

Enterprises are overestimating how far behind they are on AI agents

Many enterprise leaders, especially those following industry keynotes and AI announcements, worry that they’re already falling dangerously behind competitors deploying agents at scale. But according to Gracely, much of that anxiety reflects a misconception about how quickly organizations learn once they begin building. Teams often move up the learning curve far faster than they expect.

That rapid progress creates a different challenge, however. As agent usage expands, AI costs rise just as quickly, turning cost management from an engineering concern into a recurring boardroom discussion.

Agentic AI usage is orders of magnitude higher than during the chatbot era, making AI costs a growing concern for enterprises. At the same time, organizations are becoming increasingly aware of their dependence on a small number of model providers. According to Gracely, that combination is driving many enterprises to explore alternatives that give them greater control over costs and infrastructure.

"The two or three top providers are already telling the market that they're losing money, and they're trying to go public to make up those gaps," he explained. "At some point, the dependency on that means you're either going to buy at a very high-cost level, or you're going to figure out alternatives to control what you're doing."

Right-sizing AI models is the fastest lever for cutting agent costs

The biggest cost issue is that enterprises overspend by defaulting to the most capable model available regardless of task complexity.

"If I'm simply trying to resolve an insurance claim, I don't need to know about the history of Western civilization in my model, I don't need to know World Cup soccer scores," Gracely said.

Semantic routing is the mechanism many companies use to make that judgment automatically, classifying requests and sending each to a model sized for the task without requiring users to choose, while infrastructure techniques like caching repetitive queries cut how often a request needs to reach GPU compute at all. Together, he said, these tools remove the assumption that efficiency and innovation pull in opposite directions.

"There's a lot you can do at a GPU infrastructure level, and quite a bit you can do in terms of flexibility of models," he explained. "Those give excellent choices in terms of the levers you're trying to pull, whether you need efficiency or you need innovation. That shouldn't be a binary choice."

The financial discipline needed for token spend is similar to the FinOps practices that took years to mature in order to take control of cloud compute spending. Those underlying frameworks will transfer even as the vocabulary changes, Gracely said, especially as organizations push for internal education on model selection so teams stop defaulting to the most prominent option for tasks that don't need it.

"The same way we first had to teach the financial people what an EC2 instance is and what an S3 bucket is, you're going to have to start explaining tokens to them," he said. "We don't always need a Rolls-Royce. We don't always need caviar, because we're trying to do basic types of things."

Patch speed is now critical as AI tools find vulnerabilities faster

AI-powered vulnerability discovery is forcing enterprises to rethink how quickly they can identify, validate and deploy patches. Long-established patch management cycles may no longer be fast enough in an environment where AI can uncover — and attackers can exploit — new vulnerabilities much more quickly.

"Most companies are probably going to have a window of somewhere between seven and 14 days to stay ahead," he said. "There are groups, Red Hat included, that are going to build patches for these, but the embargo window is going to be short."

AI is also changing what defenders need to look for. Rather than simply uncovering isolated critical flaws, AI security tools can identify combinations of seemingly minor vulnerabilities that become dangerous only when chained together. As both software complexity and vulnerability discovery accelerate, Gracely argued that the ability to rapidly manage and update software is becoming a strategic capability rather than simply an operational one.

Subject matter experts and compliance teams decide whether agents scale

In the end, organizational adoption comes down to the need for deep, sustained involvement from the subject matter experts whose knowledge the agent is meant to encode, which makes earning their buy-in a prerequisite rather than an afterthought.

"You have to think about the incentives, what you do for people who participate in this work so they don't feel threatened that it's going to take away their job, and how you incentivize people in the long run to cooperate with that innovation," he said.

Sponsored articles are content produced by a company that is either paying for the post or has a business relationship with VentureBeat, and they’re always clearly marked. For more information, contact sales@venturebeat.com.