Intent, and Control: Security Predictions for Enterprise AI in 2026

Enterprise AI is entering a more operational phase. The central questions are no longer about adoption, but about authority: what systems are allowed to do, under whose identity, and within which boundaries.

The security challenges that will define 2026 emerge from structural change. AI systems now act on behalf of organizations, browsers execute tasks autonomously, and behavior can no longer be inferred solely from data access patterns. The following predictions examine how these shifts reshape risk, governance, and control as AI becomes embedded in everyday enterprise workflows.

Prediction 1: Agentic behavior will expand faster than agent security practices

Gartner projects that by the end of 2026, roughly 40% of enterprise applications will embed task-specific AI agents. These will largely appear as embedded components that negotiate APIs, trigger workflows, enrich decisions, or act asynchronously on data with limited human involvement at execution time.

‍

The significance of this shift lies in delegated authority. As software begins to act on behalf of users, roles, or organizational objectives, security controls anchored solely in users, roles, and static permissions will become less effective. What matters instead is whether each agent deployment is bound to a clearly defined purpose, with explicit boundaries around data access, tool usage, and decision scope.

‍

In practice, those boundaries are often implicit or loosely enforced. Over time, they erode through workflow expansion and operational drift. This makes agent behavior harder to audit and constrain. In 2026, agentic security challenges will stem less from novel attacks and more from unclear purpose and weak oversight.

‍

AI-Powered Attack Agents

‍

By 2027, AI agents capable of autonomous research, planning, and code generation will be adopted by malicious actors at scale. These agents will reduce the cost and time required to execute complex attacks.

‍

Expected impacts include:

• Automated discovery and exploitation of vulnerabilities across software, SaaS platforms, and critical infrastructure.
• Self-improving malware that adapts its behavior in real time to evade detection and response.
• AI-powered social engineering campaigns, including deepfake-enabled and context-aware phishing, executed at industrial scale.

‍

Endpoint protection and signature-based defenses will no longer be sufficient. Security programs will need AI-driven detection, behavioral monitoring, and automated response mechanisms that operate at the same speed and adaptability as the attacks themselves.

‍

Agent Adoption Patterns & Security Risks

‍

• Third-party platforms: AI-assisted coding, research, and operational platforms are being adopted rapidly. These centralized platforms create concentrated points of failure if compromised.
• Low-code and automation tools: Organizations increasingly use AI to accelerate internal application development. Misconfigurations and weak guardrails can enable unintended or malicious behavior.
• Homegrown agents: Custom agents provide flexibility and tighter integration with internal workflows. Gaps in intent definition, oversight, and ongoing auditing introduce hard-to-detect security exposure.
• Implication: Organizations will need layered controls: rigorous third-party evaluation, enforced guardrails in low-code environments, and continuous auditing of custom agents operating in production.

Prediction 2: Intent security will emerge as a distinct control layer in AI risk management

‍

As AI agents take on more autonomous, delegated roles inside enterprise systems, security programs will be forced to formalize something that has often remained implicit: what a system is meant to do, and where that mandate ends.

‍

By 2027, intent security will be recognized as a core discipline within AI risk management. Not because data protection becomes less important, but because it becomes insufficient on its own to explain or constrain AI-driven action. Organizations that lack visibility into what their AI systems are trying to accomplish will face major operational and strategic risk.

‍

Several dynamics drive this shift:

• Autonomous decision-making AI agents will make independent decisions in areas like development, operations, research, and logistics, producing outcomes that may align with data controls while conflicting with business intent or regulatory expectations.
• Policy reinterpretation: Agents tend to reinterpret policies rather than violate them. Optimization goals or ambiguous instructions can result in behavior that technically complies with inputs while undermining organizational objectives.
• Post-deployment drift: Through prompt changes, workflow expansion, and new integrations, AI systems evolve over time. Without active controls, they drift from their original purpose, reducing clarity and auditability.
• Runtime oversight: Enterprises will need intent-aware controls that define acceptable objectives, observe behavior in production, and detect when systems operate beyond their mandate.

Intent security does not replace existing controls, but builds on them. It extends the logic of purpose limitation and policy enforcement from static access decisions into dynamic, AI-driven execution. For organizations deploying agentic capabilities at scale, this becomes a prerequisite for control, not an advanced feature.

‍

Prediction 3: Agentic browsers will break fixed identity and session trust models

‍

2025 marked the emergence of AI-native browsers and browser-resident agents, including tools such as Perplexity Comet and OpenAI Atlas. Independent reviews and vendor research have already documented systemic weaknesses: agents executing malicious webpage instructions via indirect prompt injection, falling for scams, and bypassing long-standing browser safeguards designed to protect authenticated sessions.

‍

When agents operate directly inside the browser, the browser stops being a passive rendering environment and becomes an active execution layer. Human intent and agent intent blur inside the same session. This has direct implications for identity security. Single sign-on, session binding, and step-up authentication models work for relatively stable interaction patterns. Agentic browsers introduce autonomous behavior into those flows.

‍

Long-standing protocol assumptions may also begin to erode. Security models that rely on fixed session boundaries, predictable TLS termination points, or stable client behavior become brittle when an agent can relay, reinterpret, or act across encrypted channels on the user’s behalf. 

‍

Prediction 4: Foundation model providers will pivot decisively toward B2B, shifting systemic risk downstream

‍

By 2026, foundation-model revenue growth is expected to be driven primarily by enterprise licensing, embedded APIs, and verticalized B2B deployments, rather than consumer-facing tools. 

‍

As enterprises embed third-party models, even minor model flaws can propagate far beyond their intended scope. Failures no longer remain confined to a single application or team. They cascade across business units, subsidiaries, and regulated domains that were never part of the original threat model.

‍

Traditional security assumptions do not hold. Securing access to a model is insufficient when model integrity, behavioral alignment, and update timing remain outside the enterprise’s control. B2B models introduce structural risks that are already observable in practice: opaque training provenance, undocumented behavioral changes between versions, latent backdoors, and misalignment between stated and actual behavior.

‍

Global regulation accelerates this exposure. The EU AI Act is beginning to exert GDPR-like extraterritorial pressure, joined by parallel regimes in the US, UK, and APAC. Yet accountability for outcomes remains with the deploying organization, even when the model itself is externally provisioned.

‍

Implications for security teams

• Model provenance remains structurally incomplete: Cryptographic signing and emerging AI SBOMs help, but rarely cover training data lineage or post-training intervention. Security teams must plan under conditions of structural uncertainty, not completeness.
• Behavioral validation must happen before production: Third-party model updates are frequently opaque or asynchronous. Post-deployment testing is often too late to prevent impact.
• Supply-chain monitoring replaces “keep it updated”: Enterprises cannot assume timely upgrades, downgrades, or version pinning. Every upstream change must be treated as a potential behavior shift.
• Rollback is a prerequisite, not a mitigation: Alternate models, degraded modes, or manual controls must exist before deployment. If a model cannot be safely replaced, it is not production-ready.
• Vendor governance does not equal compliance: Regulatory accountability remains with the enterprise. Governance must focus on documented risk acceptance, auditability, and kill-switch authority.
• Continuous monitoring must detect drift, not just anomalies: Security teams need visibility into goal drift, emergent behavior, and unexpected actions, especially as models gain agency across workflows.

‍

Prediction 5: AI compliance will operationalize at the state and agency level 

‍

Between 2025 and 2027, AI regulation will shift from policy signaling to operational enforcement, driven less by sweeping federal laws and more by state mandates and agency rulemaking.

‍

The EU AI Act is the clearest anchor. With general application beginning August 2, 2026 (and staged obligations for GPAI and high-risk systems) enterprises must meet transparency requirements across the AI lifecycle. As with GDPR, the Act’s extraterritorial reach means organizations outside the EU will still be captured.

‍

In the U.S., regulatory pressure is fragmenting rather than stalling. States are moving quickly, creating a patchwork that enterprises cannot ignore. Colorado’s SB24-205 mandates risk management and impact assessments for high-risk AI beginning in February 2026. Deepfake and synthetic media laws have proliferated across dozens of states, introducing disclosure and liability requirements that increasingly apply to enterprise AI systems. California’s 2025 Frontier AI policy report further signals that frontier-model regulation is paused, not abandoned.

‍

At the federal level, updated NIST SP 800-63-4 and recent OMB AI guidance are quietly setting baselines for identity, attribution, and governance, treating AI-mediated actions as auditable and accountable.

‍

Implications for security, risk, and compliance teams

• AI inventories become mandatory, not best practice: Organizations will need continuously updated maps of where AI is used, which models are involved, and what risks they introduce.
• Risk classification becomes dynamic: High-risk status will not be fixed at deployment. Model updates, new use cases, or regulatory reinterpretation can reclassify systems post-launch, triggering new obligations.
• Post-market monitoring is a compliance requirement: Detection of drift, misuse, or emergent behavior is a regulatory expectation under both EU and U.S. frameworks.
• State-level enforcement creates extraterritorial impact: Enterprises will be subject to AI obligations through customers, employees, or operations in specific states, even without a single national AI law.
• Identity and auditability move to the center of AI governance: AI-mediated actions will increasingly need attribution, logging, and controls aligned with identity frameworks, not just application logs.

‍

Prediction 6: AI gateways will become the default control plane 

‍

By 2026, most enterprises will rely on an AI gateway layer to centralize routing, policy enforcement, cost controls, and observability across LLMs, agents, and tools. As AI stacks sprawl, gateways become the only practical place to impose consistency.

‍

In practice, the gateway becomes the policy choke point: enforcing agent permissions, content and prompt controls (PII/DLP), cost guardrails, provenance checks, identity mapping, and secrets handling. Vendors are already shipping MCP-aware, identity-first gateways that govern not just model access, but what actions AI systems can take, under which identity, and within what bounds.

‍

This consolidation introduces a structural risk. AI tools are inherently dynamic, but gateways impose rigid, centralized control. Misconfiguration, policy drift, latency, or compromise at this layer can now cascade across every model, agent, and workflow it fronts.

‍

Implications for security and platform teams

• Gateways become Tier-0 assets: AI gateways must be treated like identity providers or cloud control planes. Availability, integrity, and isolation matter as much as policy correctness.
• Single-point-of-failure risk must be designed around, not accepted: Redundancy, segmentation, and scoped policy domains are essential. A “global” gateway without containment boundaries magnifies failure impact.
• Policy rigidity must match system fluidity: Static, overly prescriptive rules will break dynamic AI workflows. Policies need versioning, simulation, and staged rollout, not binary allow/deny gates.
• Action governance matters more than prompt filtering: As agents gain delegated authority, the core risk shifts from what they say to what they can do. Gateways must govern actions, identities, and side effects.
• Observability must include policy impact: Teams need visibility not only into model behavior, but into how gateway decisions shape outcomes, latency, failures, and downstream actions.

‍

Where Security Must Evolve Next

‍

As AI applications and systems assume greater responsibility for execution and decision-making, security must adapt accordingly. Purpose needs to be explicit, behavior observable, and boundaries continuously enforced across agents, browsers, and the workflows they operate within. Organizations that ground their security strategies in these principles will be better equipped to manage the next phase of enterprise AI deployment.