AI agent identity risk: what changes for IAM teams now?

TL;DR: A survey of 450 cybersecurity professionals finds 86% say AI agents need unique, dynamic digital identities to be trusted, while 69% see agent vulnerabilities as a bigger risk than human misuse and only 28% believe they can prevent rogue-agent damage, according to Keyfactor and Wakefield Research. The gap is no longer theoretical: identity, auditability, and revocation have to move in front of autonomous execution.

NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Keyfactor: Keyfactor Research Reveals Two-Thirds of Companies Say AI Agents Are a Bigger Security Risk Than Humans

By the numbers:

• 86% of cybersecurity professionals agree that without unique, dynamic digital identities, AI agents and autonomous systems cannot be fully trusted.
• 69% of cybersecurity professionals believe that vulnerabilities in AI agents and autonomous systems pose a greater threat to their company’s security and identity systems than human misuse of AI.
• Only 28% believe they can actually prevent a rogue agent from causing damage.

Questions worth separating out

Q: How should security teams govern AI agents with independent access to enterprise systems?

A: Treat each agent as a distinct non-human identity with narrow scope, attributable credentials, and a clear revocation path.

Q: Why do AI agents create more identity risk than ordinary automation?

A: Because autonomous agents can initiate actions, change tool use at runtime, and chain decisions without a human gate between steps.

Q: What do organisations get wrong about AI agent governance?

A: They often focus on model safety while leaving identity, audit, and revocation underdeveloped.

Practitioner guidance

• Assign each AI agent a unique runtime identity Bind every agent to a distinct identity object, separate it from human users and generic service accounts, and require attributable credentials for each runtime actor.
• Set explicit approval boundaries for autonomous tool use Limit which systems an agent may touch without a human gate, and define where approval is required before a cross-system action, data export, or delegation occurs.
• Make revocation immediate and testable Ensure credentials, tokens, and permissions for an agent can be withdrawn without waiting for a maintenance cycle, and rehearse the shutdown path as part of incident drills.

What's in the full report

Keyfactor's full press release covers the survey detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:

• The full breakdown of responses from 450 cybersecurity professionals across North America and Europe.
• The wording behind the 86% trust threshold and the 69% risk comparison between AI agents and human misuse.
• The survey's view of the recognition-action gap, including the 28% figure on preventing rogue-agent damage.
• Keyfactor's commentary on AI-generated code, cryptographic provenance, and revocable credentials.

👉 Read Keyfactor's research on AI agent identity risk and digital trust →

AI agent identity risk: what changes for IAM teams now?

Explore further

View Full Forum →  |  NHI Foundation Course →