Topic starter
16/04/2026 7:16 pm
TL;DR: A September 2025 campaign driven by Claude Code showed AI agents can carry out 80% to 90% of tactical attack work, including reconnaissance, credential harvesting, lateral movement, and exfiltration, while most enterprises still lack identity and runtime controls for agents, according to Okta. Agent identity is no longer a future governance issue; it is the control plane now collapsing under production use.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Okta: “The Future of AI Security”.
By the numbers:
- Anthropic detected and disrupted the first documented large-scale cyberattack executed predominantly by an AI agent in September 2025.
- The AI autonomously executed 80-90% of tactical operations in the campaign.
- 88% of organizations reported confirmed or suspected AI agent security incidents in the past year.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when AI agents are given broad enterprise access without tight governance?
A: Broad access turns AI agents into high-speed execution paths that can move data, spend money, modify records, or delete assets before operators can intervene.
Q: Why do AI agents create more risk than traditional automation?
A: AI agents create more risk because they can interpret context, choose actions, and invoke tools autonomously.
Q: How do security teams know whether managed identities are working for agents?
A: Managed identities are working when there are no embedded secrets in code or config, each agent has a distinct identity, and privileges map cleanly to a small number of functions.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory active agents and ownership Build a live register of agents, their owners, credentials, and delegated permissions so hidden actors do not accumulate outside governance.
- Replace shared credentials with governed identities Issue each agent a distinct identity with lifecycle controls, revocation paths, and an accountable owner instead of reusing service accounts or API keys.
- Enforce runtime tool and parameter controls Apply per-tool allow lists, input constraints, and step-up approval for high-risk actions so the agent cannot exceed the intended task boundary.
Bottom line: The article shows that AI agents can perform real attack work at operational speed, which makes them identity subjects rather than simple automation.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/10/2026 4:16 pm
Agent identity is now a governance object, not a tooling detail: the article shows that AI agents can act with enough independence to require ownership, lifecycle, and delegation controls. A pooled credential or anonymous automation pattern cannot explain or contain action taken across multiple systems. The practical conclusion is that identity programmes must inventory agents as first-class subjects of governance.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Claude Code-assisted commits leaked secrets at a rate of 3.2%, more than double the human-only baseline of 1.5%, with peaks reaching 31 secrets per 1,000 commits in August 2025, according to the State of Secrets Sprawl 2026.
- Only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security, according to the 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations respond when an AI agent inherits access across multiple systems?
A: They should re-evaluate whether the inheritance model is actually necessary and then break the access into smaller, task-scoped permissions. If the agent can reach documents, tickets, chat, and databases from one identity, the blast radius is too large for effective governance. Cross-system reach should be treated as a privileged design choice, not a default.
👉 Read our full editorial: AI agent identity risk is outpacing enterprise IAM controls