Securing the AI-driven enterprise: a C-Level guide to risk and resilience

The era of Generative AI (Gen AI) is here, and it’s essential for maintaining increased productivity and global competitiveness. To fully harness this potential, your organization must adopt a cascading, multi-model AI approach, interconnecting services across hybrid (cloud and on-premise) environments and diverse data providers.

This reliance on interoperability is only set to deepen. The forthcoming EU Data Act is a catalyst, designed to make vast amounts of industrial and consumer data from connected devices more accessible to automation and AI. While this promises unprecedented innovation, it simultaneously broadens your organization’s data availability and cyber attack surface.

The critical challenge is that this complex, interconnected digital ecosystem can easily slip out of control, especially when core AI functions—such as linking to internal data—can be implemented by end-users without administrative oversight, creating a “next level of shadow AI“.

The New Architecture of Risk

Modern Gen AI models are not simple black boxes; they are sophisticated architectures built for complexity:

AI orchestration and prompt layering: this is the high-level management layer that defines the workflow, linking multiple AI models together and instructing them—via layers of prompts – to execute multi-step tasks using your business data.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): RAG systems are vital, as they allow the Large Language Model (LLM) to reference and generate responses grounded in your private, proprietary data, rather than just its general training data.
Model Context Protocol (MCP): this is an emerging architectural standard that governs how AI agents securely access and interact with external business systems. It provides a structured communication contract, like an HTTP for AI agents, to ensure model interactions are controlled and stay within organizational policy constraints.

The Insider and Outsider Threat: Poisoning the AI Well

The greatest emerging risk stems from both the malicious or negligent insider and the external attacker exploiting the LLM’s deep access to company data.

Consider an LLM agent integrated with a user’s mailbox to summarize and prioritize communications. A seemingly innocuous email—even one hidden in a spam folder—can contain a hidden prompt injection attack.

Crucially, this threat is not limited to internal actors. Any external person, anywhere in the world, can send an email to one of your employees and, by extension, to the AI agent processing that mailbox.

Invisible commands from the outside: attackers can craft a malicious RAG poisoning payload in an email or document attached to it. This payload can include invisible instructions, such as 1-pixel white text on a white background, which is unreadable to the human eye but easily processed and executed by the LLM.
Remote data poisoning: when the LLM processes this external email for context (RAG), it can be tricked into overriding its safety instructions and executing the hidden, malicious command. The external threat actor has effectively remotely manipulated the dataset that the AI agent is using for its internal decision-making. This can lead to data exfiltration or inappropriate actions, making the external threat actor a silent, virtual insider.

This is not theoretical. Incidents like the Samsung Data Leak, where employees accidentally fed confidential corporate code into a public Gen AI service, highlight the severe, real-world consequences.

Business Consequences: When Productivity Becomes Liability

The business risks of LLM manipulation are immediate and impactful:

Unauthorized data exfiltration: the model is tricked into silently extracting and sharing sensitive proprietary information.
Inappropriate business decisions: manipulated outputs skew data summaries or recommendations, leading to flawed strategies, financial losses, and liability. The Air Canada Refund Incident, where a chatbot provided erroneous and binding fare details, serves as a sharp reminder.
Manipulation of LLM output: The model can be coerced into generating misleading, insecure, or reputation-damaging content, as seen in the Chevrolet AI Chatbot Exploit where the bot was tricked into agreeing to an exploitative sale price.

Securing the AI Foundation: Guidance for the C-Suite

An effective security strategy for the AI enterprise is built on three pillars: Policy, Technology, and Governance.

Mandate clear governance: you must ensure that you have a formal AI policy and acceptable asset use policy in place. Critically, these policies must be adopted, accepted, and enforced by your entire workforce using automated tools. Non-compliance in the C-suite itself is a documented risk, so leadership buy-in is paramount. These policies must align with established standards like ISO/IEC 42001 (AI Management) and regulations like the EU AI Act.
Enforce technical guardrails: Implement robust, technical guardrails that control AI behavior. This includes using AI security and prompt validation tools. A core measure is a comprehensive strategy for robust filtering, validation, and sanitization of LLM input data to block malicious injections like invisible text attacks. This is guided by standards like the NIST AI risk management framework and the EU NIS2 directive.
Approve and monitor tools: List and approve the appropriate toolsets that are vetted to securely support your business growth. Introduce continuous monitoring and incident response capabilities to detect and contain threats related to data leakage and model manipulation.

The integration of AI is a necessity, and the EU Data Act will propel its use further. Securing this interconnected intelligence is not a security-only function; it is a strategic imperative for sustained competitive advantage.

Contact 3 Hazel Tree Partners for a detailed assessment and tailored guidance to secure your AI strategy and ensure compliance with the emerging regulatory landscape.

References: