This post is also available in:
עברית (Hebrew)
As artificial intelligence tools become part of everyday work, many organizations are discovering a new and largely invisible risk. Employees are increasingly using AI systems to summarize documents, write code, design content, or analyze data—often without approval from IT or security teams. While the intent is usually efficiency, this practice, known as “shadow AI”, is creating blind spots that traditional cybersecurity controls were never designed to cover.
The core problem is not AI itself, but how easily it bypasses existing governance. Unlike traditional shadow IT, which might involve an unauthorized app or cloud service, shadow AI directly processes information. Employees may paste internal documents into public chatbots, connect open-source models to customer databases, or enable AI features inside familiar SaaS tools using personal accounts. These actions rarely trigger procurement reviews or security assessments, yet they expose sensitive data to external systems beyond organizational control.
According to Paloalto Networks, addressing the issue starts with visibility and policy rather than outright bans. Organizations are beginning to treat AI tools as data processors that must be governed like any other system touching sensitive information. Clear rules around what data can be shared with AI models, which tools are approved, and how outputs can be used are essential. Just as important is giving employees sanctioned alternatives that meet their productivity needs, reducing the incentive to go outside approved channels.
More mature approaches include monitoring browser and API usage to detect unsanctioned AI activity, standardizing how AI integrations are built, and requiring logging and audit trails for AI-generated outputs. Training also plays a key role. Many users simply do not realize that prompts, metadata, or uploaded files may be stored or reused by third-party models.
The risks of shadow AI are broader than data leaks. Unapproved tools can violate regulatory requirements, introduce unsecured APIs, and expand the attack surface in ways security teams cannot see. Outputs generated by unvetted models may also be biased, inaccurate, or manipulated, with no accountability if decisions are later questioned.
From a defense and homeland security perspective, the implications are even more serious. Government agencies, defense contractors, and critical infrastructure operators increasingly rely on AI for analysis and planning. If personnel use external AI tools informally, sensitive operational details, internal terminology, or system information could be exposed without triggering alarms. In these environments, shadow AI is not just an IT issue—it is a national security concern.
As AI adoption accelerates, organizations are learning that control does not come from blocking innovation, but from integrating it safely. Shadow AI highlights a simple reality: if governance lags behind technology, risk fills the gap.
