Instead of relying on flawed AI guardrails, focus on traditional security practices. This includes strict permissioning (ensuring an AI agent can't do more than necessary) and containerizing processes (like running AI-generated code in a sandbox) to limit potential damage from a compromised AI.
Related Insights
The current industry approach to AI safety, which focuses on censoring a model's "latent space," is flawed and ineffective. True safety work should reorient around preventing real-world, "meatspace" harm (e.g., data breaches). Security vulnerabilities should be fixed at the system level, not by trying to "lobotomize" the model itself.
For CISOs adopting agentic AI, the most practical first step is to frame it as an insider risk problem. This involves assigning agents persistent identities (like Slack or email accounts) and applying rigorous access control and privilege management, similar to onboarding a human employee.
Claiming a "99% success rate" for an AI guardrail is misleading. The number of potential attacks (i.e., prompts) is nearly infinite. For GPT-5, it's 'one followed by a million zeros.' Blocking 99% of a tested subset still leaves a virtually infinite number of effective attacks undiscovered.
Many AI safety guardrails function like the TSA at an airport: they create the appearance of security for enterprise clients and PR but don't stop determined attackers. Seasoned adversaries can easily switch to a different model, rendering the guardrails a "futile battle" that has little to do with real-world safety.
Unlike traditional software where a bug can be patched with high certainty, fixing a vulnerability in an AI system is unreliable. The underlying problem often persists because the AI's neural network—its 'brain'—remains susceptible to being tricked in novel ways.
An AI agent capable of operating across all SaaS platforms holds the keys to the entire company's data. If this "super agent" is hacked, every piece of data could be leaked. The solution is to merge the agent's permissions with the human user's permissions, creating a limited and secure operational scope.
The core drive of an AI agent is to be helpful, which can lead it to bypass security protocols to fulfill a user's request. This makes the agent an inherent risk. The solution is a philosophical shift: treat all agents as untrusted and build human-controlled boundaries and infrastructure to enforce their limits.
Most AI "defense in depth" systems fail because their layers are correlated, often using the same base model. A successful approach requires creating genuinely independent defensive components. Even if each layer is individually weak, their independence makes it combinatorially harder for an attacker to bypass them all.
The CEO of WorkOS describes AI agents as 'crazy hyperactive interns' that can access all systems and wreak havoc at machine speed. This makes agent-specific security—focusing on authentication, permissions, and safeguards against prompt injection—a massive and urgent challenge for the industry.
While sophisticated AI attacks are emerging, the vast majority of breaches will continue to exploit poor security fundamentals. Companies that haven't mastered basics like rotating static credentials are far more vulnerable. Focusing on core identity hygiene is the best way to future-proof against any attack, AI-driven or not.
