Practice 02 · AI Governance

Govern AI before it governs your risk.

Saying no to AI is no longer realistic. Securing it end to end is. Agentic systems don't just extend what AI can do — they extend what an attacker can reach. We run a six-step programme that takes AI from ungoverned sprawl to an auditable, controlled estate.

Why now

AI adoption is outpacing AI security readiness.

Adoption outruns protection

AI reaches production faster than governance, review or control can be established around it.

Agentic AI expands the surface

MCP and multi-agent systems multiply attack vectors — agents call tools, pass context and act autonomously.

No visibility, no oversight

Shadow AI tools and unmonitored agent usage operate entirely outside the security function's view.

Full-stack exposure

Risk spans code, models, agents and APIs at once. No single-layer control is sufficient.

Legacy controls miss it

Traditional tooling cannot detect AI-native or agent-driven threat behaviour.

Compliance is tightening

DPDP, ISO/IEC 42001 and the NIST AI RMF are all moving from guidance toward expectation.

The programme

Six steps to secure AI applications and agents.

Each step is a delivery stage with its own controls, tooling and exit criteria — not a slide. We run them in sequence or join you at whichever stage you've reached.

01

Discover Your AI Footprint

You cannot govern what you cannot see. Step one is a complete, living inventory of every model, agent, notebook and MCP server in the estate — including the ones nobody told you about.

What this stage includes
Centralised AI and agent inventory across teams and platforms
Shadow AI detection to surface unapproved GenAI projects
AI supply chain vetting for third-party models and components
Cross-platform coverage — Databricks, SageMaker, Azure AI Foundry
Named ownership and accountability for every AI asset
Governance baseline established before controls are chosen
Questions we ask
  • What AI apps, models, agents, notebooks and MCP servers are actually in use?
  • Is shadow AI or an agentic project running without oversight?
  • Are third-party models, libraries or agents introducing inherited risk?
02

Establish AI Security Posture

AI and agentic systems sprawl across cloud, MLOps and AgentOps platforms, usually without unified oversight. Misconfiguration and excessive permission are the norm, not the exception.

What this stage includes
AI-SPM: continuous scanning for misconfiguration and open endpoints
Least-privilege access to models, agents and datasets by role
Detection of privilege escalation across cloud and agent frameworks
Unified posture dashboard correlating model, agent and platform data
Automated policy enforcement blocking non-compliant deployments
Environment-aware controls from development through production
Questions we ask
  • Is AI infrastructure securely configured and continuously monitored?
  • Can we detect unauthorised access or misuse across systems?
  • Do policy guardrails actually prevent risky deployments?
03

Red Team Models and Agents

Models and agents can be manipulated through adversarial input, prompt injection and behavioural drift. Without structured testing, unsafe systems reach production and act autonomously.

What this stage includes
Adversarial testing for prompt injection and manipulative input
MCP vulnerability and malicious tool-call simulation
Automated detection of inversion risk, leakage and unsafe output
Testing enforced as a gate in the MLOps promotion pipeline
Vendor and open-source agent review before integration
Documented risk-acceptance criteria for production systems
Questions we ask
  • Do we know the real risk level of our deployed models and agents?
  • Are we routinely testing for prompt injection and data leakage?
  • Are third-party models and agent frameworks reviewed before use?
04

Enforce Runtime Guardrails

Prompt injection, jailbreaking and tool misuse happen after deployment, where pre-production testing cannot reach. Agentic systems using MCP make independent calls and pass context between models.

What this stage includes
Live monitoring of production prompts, outputs and agent actions
Jailbreak and policy-bypass detection before harmful response
Dynamic allow and block rules for safety and compliance
Supply chain integrity monitoring for libraries, models and agents
Full telemetry and audit logging for post-incident review
Controls spanning API, MCP and multi-agent communication
Questions we ask
  • Are AI and agent systems monitored continuously in production?
  • Can we detect and stop injection or jailbreak attempts in real time?
  • Do runtime defences extend across APIs, MCP and multi-agent interaction?
05

Prevent AI Data Leakage

PII, PHI and credentials surface in prompts, logs and outputs without anyone intending it. Multi-agent systems exchanging data dynamically multiply the exposure, and traditional DLP lacks the context to read AI-generated language.

What this stage includes
AI-native DLP scanning prompts and outputs in real time
Context-aware detection tuned for natural language
Automated block, mask and redact with stakeholder alerting
Policy alignment to DPDP, GDPR, HIPAA and PCI obligations
Data-handling rules enforced across agent communication
Full audit trail for compliance and incident response
Questions we ask
  • Can we detect and block sensitive data in AI prompts and outputs?
  • Are DLP policies aligned to our privacy and compliance obligations?
  • Do agents and MCP communications enforce data-handling rules?
06

Operationalise AI Governance

Governance fails when it stays a policy document. Models, agents and datasets change continuously, and agents can act across systems or trigger external actions that quietly violate policy.

What this stage includes
Live catalogue of AI assets, ownership, dependency and risk status
Automated compliance monitoring with incident workflow triggers
Findings correlated across model, infrastructure and runtime tooling
Real-time stakeholder notification with full incident context
SLA tracking for response timelines and remediation progress
Continuous audit readiness rather than point-in-time evidence
Questions we ask
  • Are AI and agent activities governed by consistent, enforced policy?
  • Can we track compliance across models, data, APIs and agent workflows?
  • Are findings mapped to NIST, OWASP, MITRE and ISO 42001?

Threat model

Twelve AI threat categories we test and control for.

Every category is mapped to OWASP LLM Top 10, OWASP Agentic Threats and MITRE ATLAS, so findings arrive in language your auditors and your board already accept.

01

Prompt Injection

LLM01, LLM07, LLM08 · T1, T2 · AML.T0051
02

Supply Chain Exploits

LLM03 · T13, T14 · AML.T0010
03

Data & Model Poisoning

LLM04 · T1, T6, T7 · AML.T0020
04

Data Exfiltration

LLM02, LLM07 · T12, T13 · AML.T0054
05

Agent Memory Poisoning

LLM04, LLM05 · T1, T6, T7 · AML.T0080
06

Agentic Tool Misuse

LLM06, LLM07 · T2 · AML.T0053
07

Agent Communication Poisoning

LLM05, LLM08 · T12 · AML.T0080
08

Intent Breaking & Goal Manipulation

LLM06 · T6, T7 · AML.T0080
09

Privilege Compromise

LLM03 · T3 · AML.T0053
10

Improper Output Handling

LLM05 · T2, T12 · AML.T0051
11

Unexpected RCE & Code Attacks

LLM04 · T11 · AML.T0069
12

Insecure Connections & MCP

LLM08 · T12, T13 · AML.T0070

Standards alignment

Mapped to the frameworks your auditors use.

We don't invent a proprietary maturity model. Findings map to published frameworks so evidence transfers directly into audit, board reporting and regulatory response.

See the full framework mapping

OWASP Top 10 for LLM (2025)

  • LLM01 Prompt Injection
  • LLM02 Sensitive Info Disclosure
  • LLM03 Supply Chain
  • LLM04 Data & Model Poisoning
  • LLM05 Improper Output Handling
  • LLM06 Excessive Agency
  • LLM07 System Prompt Leakage
  • LLM08 Vector & Embedding Weaknesses
  • LLM09 Misinformation
  • LLM10 Unbounded Consumption

OWASP Agentic Threats

  • T1 Agent Memory Poisoning
  • T2 Tool Misuse
  • T3 Privilege Compromise
  • T6 Intent Breaking
  • T7 Misaligned Behaviours
  • T11 Unexpected RCE
  • T12 Agent Communication Poisoning
  • T13 Rogue Agents
  • T14 Human Attacks on MAS
  • T15 Human Manipulation

MITRE ATLAS

  • AML.T0010 AI Supply Chain
  • AML.T0020 Poison Training Data
  • AML.T0051 Prompt Injection
  • AML.T0053 Agent Tool Invocation
  • AML.T0054 Data/Model Extraction
  • AML.T0069 Malicious Code via AI
  • AML.T0080 Agent Context Poisoning
  • AML.T0081 Modify Agent Config
  • AML.T0084 Discover Agent Config
  • AML.T0086 Exfiltrate via Agent

NIST AI RMF

  • Gov 1.6 AI System Inventory
  • Gov 4.3 AI Testing & Incident Sharing
  • Gov 6.1 Third-Party Risk
  • Meas 2.4 Runtime Monitoring
  • Meas 2.5 Validity & Generalisation
  • Meas 2.6 Safety & Risk Tolerance
  • Mg 1.2 Risk-Based Prioritisation
  • Mg 1.3 Response Planning
  • Mg 3.1 Third-Party Monitoring
  • Mg 3.2 Pre-Trained Model Monitoring

Engagement

Start where you are.

01
DISCOVER

AI Discovery Sprint

A time-boxed inventory of models, agents and shadow AI, with an owner assigned to every asset found.

02
ASSESS

AI Risk Assessment

Posture review and red-team testing against the twelve categories, scored and prioritised.

03
IMPLEMENT

Guardrail Deployment

Runtime controls, AI-native DLP and policy enforcement deployed into your environment.

04
OPERATE

Managed AI Governance

Continuous monitoring, compliance correlation and audit-ready reporting run by our team.

Explore further

Related practices.

Find out what's already running.

Most teams are surprised by their first AI inventory. A discovery sprint is the fastest way to see the real estate — and the fastest way to stop guessing.

Book a workshop →