All Resources
In this article:
minus iconplus icon
Share the Blog

Safeguarding Data Integrity and Privacy in the Age of AI-Powered Large Language Models (LLMs)

November 3, 2025
4
Min Read
Data Security

In the burgeoning realm of artificial intelligence (AI), Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative tools, enabling the development of applications that revolutionize customer experiences and streamline business operations. These sophisticated models, trained on massive volumes of text data, can generate human-quality text, translate languages, write creative content, and answer complex questions.

Unfortunately, the rapid adoption of LLMs - coupled with their extensive data consumption - has introduced critical challenges around data integrity, privacy, and access control during both training and inference. As organizations operationalize LLMs at scale in 2025, addressing these risks has become essential to responsible AI adoption.

What’s Changed in LLM Security in 2025

LLM security in 2025 looks fundamentally different from earlier adoption phases. While initial concerns focused primarily on prompt injection and output moderation, today’s risk profile is dominated by data exposure, identity misuse, and over-privileged AI systems.

Several shifts now define the modern LLM security landscape:

  • Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has become the default architecture, dynamically connecting LLMs to internal data stores and increasing the risk of sensitive data exposure at inference time.
  • Fine-tuning and continual training on proprietary data are now common, expanding the blast radius of data leakage or poisoning incidents.
  • Agentic AI and tool-calling capabilities introduce new attack surfaces, where excessive permissions can enable unintended actions across cloud services and SaaS platforms.
  • Multi-model and hybrid AI environments complicate data governance, access control, and visibility across LLM workflows.

As a result, securing LLMs in 2025 requires more than static policies or point-in-time reviews. Organizations must adopt continuous data discovery, least-privilege access enforcement, and real-time monitoring to protect sensitive data throughout the LLM lifecycle.

Challenges: Navigating the Risks of LLM Training

Against this backdrop, the training of LLMs often involves the use of vast datasets containing sensitive information such as personally identifiable information (PII), intellectual property, and financial records. This concentration of valuable data presents a compelling target for malicious actors seeking to exploit vulnerabilities and gain unauthorized access.

One of the primary challenges is preventing data leakage or public disclosure. LLMs can inadvertently disclose sensitive information if not properly configured or protected. This disclosure can occur through various means, such as unauthorized access to training data, vulnerabilities in the LLM itself, or improper handling of user inputs.

Another critical concern is avoiding overly permissive configurations. LLMs can be configured to allow users to provide inputs that may contain sensitive information. If these inputs are not adequately filtered or sanitized, they can be incorporated into the LLM's training data, potentially leading to the disclosure of sensitive information.

Finally, organizations must be mindful of the potential for bias or error in LLM training data. Biased or erroneous data can lead to biased or erroneous outputs from the LLM, which can have detrimental consequences for individuals and organizations.

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications

The OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications identifies and prioritizes critical vulnerabilities that can arise in LLM applications. Among these, LLM03 Training Data Poisoning, LLM06 Sensitive Information Disclosure, LLM08 Excessive Agency, and LLM10 Model Theft pose significant risks that cybersecurity professionals must address. Let's dive into these:

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications

LLM03: Training Data Poisoning

LLM03 addresses the vulnerability of LLMs to training data poisoning, a malicious attack where carefully crafted data is injected into the training dataset to manipulate the model's behavior. This can lead to biased or erroneous outputs, undermining the model's reliability and trustworthiness.

The consequences of LLM03 can be severe. Poisoned models can generate biased or discriminatory content, perpetuating societal prejudices and causing harm to individuals or groups. Moreover, erroneous outputs can lead to flawed decision-making, resulting in financial losses, operational disruptions, or even safety hazards.


LLM06: Sensitive Information Disclosure

LLM06 highlights the vulnerability of LLMs to inadvertently disclosing sensitive information present in their training data. This can occur when the model is prompted to generate text or code that includes personally identifiable information (PII), trade secrets, or other confidential data.

The potential consequences of LLM06 are far-reaching. Data breaches can lead to financial losses, reputational damage, and regulatory penalties. Moreover, the disclosure of sensitive information can have severe implications for individuals, potentially compromising their privacy and security.

LLM08: Excessive Agency

LLM08 focuses on the risk of LLMs exhibiting excessive agency, meaning they may perform actions beyond their intended scope or generate outputs that cause harm or offense. This can manifest in various ways, such as the model generating discriminatory or biased content, engaging in unauthorized financial transactions, or even spreading misinformation.

Excessive agency poses a significant threat to organizations and society as a whole. Supply chain compromises and excessive permissions to AI-powered apps can erode trust, damage reputations, and even lead to legal or regulatory repercussions. Moreover, the spread of harmful or offensive content can have detrimental social impacts.

LLM10: Model Theft

LLM10 highlights the risk of model theft, where an adversary gains unauthorized access to a trained LLM or its underlying intellectual property. This can enable the adversary to replicate the model's capabilities for malicious purposes, such as generating misleading content, impersonating legitimate users, or conducting cyberattacks.

Model theft poses significant threats to organizations. The loss of intellectual property can lead to financial losses and competitive disadvantages. Moreover, stolen models can be used to spread misinformation, manipulate markets, or launch targeted attacks on individuals or organizations.

Recommendations: Adopting Responsible Data Protection Practices

To mitigate the risks associated with LLM training data, organizations must adopt a comprehensive approach to data protection. This approach should encompass data hygiene, policy enforcement, access controls, and continuous monitoring.

Data hygiene is essential for ensuring the integrity and privacy of LLM training data. Organizations should implement stringent data cleaning and sanitization procedures to remove sensitive information and identify potential biases or errors.

Policy enforcement is crucial for establishing clear guidelines for the handling of LLM training data. These policies should outline acceptable data sources, permissible data types, and restrictions on data access and usage.

Access controls should be implemented to restrict access to LLM training data to authorized personnel and identities only, including third party apps that may connect. This can be achieved through role-based access control (RBAC), zero-trust IAM, and multi-factor authentication (MFA) mechanisms.

Continuous monitoring is essential for detecting and responding to potential threats and vulnerabilities. Organizations should implement real-time monitoring tools to identify suspicious activity and take timely action to prevent data breaches.

Solutions: Leveraging Technology to Safeguard Data

In the rush to innovate, developers must remain keenly aware of the inherent risks involved with training LLMs if they wish to deliver responsible, effective AI that does not jeopardize their customer's data.  Specifically, it is a foremost duty to protect the integrity and privacy of LLM training data sets, which often contain sensitive information.

Preventing data leakage or public disclosure, avoiding overly permissive configurations, and negating bias or error that can contaminate such models should be top priorities.

Technological solutions play a pivotal role in safeguarding data integrity and privacy during LLM training. Data security posture management (DSPM) solutions can automate data security processes, enabling organizations to maintain a comprehensive data protection posture.

DSPM solutions provide a range of capabilities, including data discovery, data classification, data access governance (DAG), and data detection and response (DDR). These capabilities help organizations identify sensitive data, enforce access controls, detect data breaches, and respond to security incidents.

Cloud-native DSPM solutions offer enhanced agility and scalability, enabling organizations to adapt to evolving data security needs and protect data across diverse cloud environments.

Sentra: Automating LLM Data Security Processes

Having to worry about securing yet another threat vector should give overburdened security teams pause. But help is available.

Sentra has developed a data privacy and posture management solution that can automatically secure LLM training data in support of rapid AI application development.

The solution works in tandem with AWS SageMaker, GCP Vertex AI, or other AI IDEs to support secure data usage within ML training activities.  The solution combines key capabilities including DSPM, DAG, and DDR to deliver comprehensive data security and privacy.

Its cloud-native design discovers all of your data and ensures good data hygiene and security posture via policy enforcement, least privilege access to sensitive data, and monitoring and near real-time alerting to suspicious identity (user/app/machine) activity, such as data exfiltration, to thwart attacks or malicious behavior early. The solution frees developers to innovate quickly and for organizations to operate with agility to best meet requirements, with confidence that their customer data and proprietary information will remain protected.

LLMs are now also built into Sentra’s classification engine and data security platform to provide unprecedented classification accuracy for unstructured data. Learn more about Large Language Models (LLMs) here.

Conclusion: Securing the Future of AI with Data Privacy

AI holds immense potential to transform our world, but its development and deployment must be accompanied by a steadfast commitment to data integrity and privacy. Protecting the integrity and privacy of data in LLMs is essential for building responsible and ethical AI applications. By implementing data protection best practices, organizations can mitigate the risks associated with data leakage, unauthorized access, and bias. Sentra's DSPM solution provides a comprehensive approach to data security and privacy, enabling organizations to develop and deploy LLMs with speed and confidence.

If you want to learn more about Sentra's Data Security Platform and how LLMs are now integrated into our classification engine to deliver unmatched accuracy for unstructured data, request a demo today.

<blogcta-big>

David Stuart is Senior Director of Product Marketing for Sentra, a leading cloud-native data security platform provider, where he is responsible for product and launch planning, content creation, and analyst relations. Dave is a 20+ year security industry veteran having held product and marketing management positions at industry luminary companies such as Symantec, Sourcefire, Cisco, Tenable, and ZeroFox. Dave holds a BSEE/CS from University of Illinois, and an MBA from Northwestern Kellogg Graduate School of Management.

Subscribe

Latest Blog Posts

Yair Cohen
Yair Cohen
February 11, 2026
4
Min Read

DSPM vs DLP vs DDR: How to Architect a Data‑First Stack That Actually Stops Exfiltration

DSPM vs DLP vs DDR: How to Architect a Data‑First Stack That Actually Stops Exfiltration

Many security stacks look impressive at first glance. There is a DLP agent on every endpoint, a CASB or SSE proxy watching SaaS traffic, EDR and SIEM for hosts and logs, and perhaps a handful of identity and access governance tools. Yet when a serious incident is investigated, it often turns out that sensitive data moved through a path nobody was really watching, or that multiple tools saw fragments of the story but never connected them.

The common thread is that most stacks were built around infrastructure, not data. They understand networks, workloads, and log lines, but they don’t share a single, consistent understanding of:

  • What your sensitive data is
  • Where it actually lives
  • Who and what can access it
  • How it moves across cloud, SaaS, and AI systems

To move beyond that, security leaders are converging on a data‑first architecture that brings together four capabilities: DSPM (Data Security Posture Management), DLP (Data Loss Prevention), DAG (Data Access Governance), and DDR (Data Detection & Response) in a unified model.

Clarifying the Roles

At the heart of this architecture is DSPM. DSPM is your data‑at‑rest intelligence layer. It continuously discovers data across clouds, SaaS, on‑prem, and AI pipelines, classifies it, and maps its posture; configurations, locations, access paths, and regulatory obligations. Instead of a static inventory, you get a living view of where sensitive data resides and how risky it is.

DLP sits at the edges of the system. Its job is to enforce policy on data in motion and in use: emails leaving the organization, files uploaded to the web, documents synced to endpoints, content copied into SaaS apps, or responses generated by AI tools. DLP decides whether to block, encrypt, quarantine, or simply log based on policies and the context it receives.

DAG bridges the gap between “what” and “who.” It’s responsible for least‑privilege access; understanding which human and machine identities can access which datasets, whether they really need that access, and what toxic combinations exist when sensitive data is exposed to broad groups or powerful service accounts.

DDR closes the loop. It monitors access to and movement of sensitive data in real time, looking for unusual or risky behavior: anomalous downloads, mass exports, unusual cross‑region copies, suspicious AI usage. When something looks wrong, DDR triggers detections, enriches them with data context, and kicks off remediation workflows.

When these four functions work together, you get a stack that doesn’t just warn you about potential issues; it actively reduces your exposure and stops exfiltration in motion.

Why “DSPM vs DLP” Is the Wrong Framing

It’s tempting to think of DSPM and DLP as competing answers to the same problem. In reality, they address different parts of the lifecycle. DSPM shows you what’s at risk and where; DLP controls how that risk can materialize as data moves.

Trying to use DLP as a discovery and classification engine is what leads to the noise and blind spots described in the previous section. Conversely, running DSPM without any enforcement at the edges leaves you with excellent visibility but too little control over where data can go.

DSPM and DAG reduce your attack surface; DLP and DDR reduce your blast radius. DSPM and DAG shrink the pool of exposed data and over‑privileged identities. DLP and DDR watch the edges and intervene when data starts to move in risky ways.

A Unified, Data‑First Reference Architecture

In a data‑first architecture, DSPM sits at the center, connected API‑first into cloud accounts, SaaS platforms, data warehouses, on‑prem file systems, and AI infrastructure. It continuously updates an inventory of data assets, understands which are sensitive or regulated, and applies labels and context that other tools can use.

On top of that, DAG analyzes which users, groups, service principals, and AI agents can access each dataset. Over‑privileged access is identified and remediated, sometimes automatically: by tightening IAM roles, restricting sharing, or revoking legacy permissions. The result is a significant reduction in the number of places where a single identity can cause significant damage.

DLP then reads the labels and access context from DSPM and DAG instead of inferring everything from scratch. Email and endpoint DLP, cloud DLP via SSE/CASB, and even platform‑native solutions like Purview DLP all begin enforcing on the same sensitivity definitions and labels. Policies become more straightforward: “Block Highly Confidential outside the tenant,” “Encrypt PHI sent to external partners,” “Require justification for Customer‑Identifiable data leaving a certain region.”

DDR runs alongside this, monitoring how labeled data actually moves. It can see when a typically quiet user suddenly downloads thousands of PHI records, when a service account starts copying IP into a new data store, or when an AI tool begins interacting with a dataset marked off‑limits. Because DDR is fed by DSPM’s inventory and DAG’s access graph, detections are both higher fidelity and easier to interpret.

From there, integration points into SIEM, SOAR, IAM/CIEM, ITSM, and AI gateways allow you to orchestrate end‑to‑end responses: open tickets, notify owners, roll back risky changes, block certain actions, or update policies.

Where Sentra Fits

Sentra’s product vision aligns directly with this data‑first model. Rather than treating DSPM, DAG, DDR, and DLP intelligence as separate products, Sentra brings them together into a single, cloud‑native data security platform.

That means you get:

  • DSPM that discovers and classifies data across cloud, SaaS, on‑prem, and AI
  • DAG that maps and rationalizes access to that data
  • DDR that monitors sensitive data in motion and detects threats
  • Integrations that feed this intelligence into DLP, SSE/CASB, Purview, EDR, and other controls

In other words, Sentra is positioned as the brain of the data‑first stack, giving DLP and the rest of your security stack the insight they need to actually stop exfiltration, not just report on it afterward.

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Ward Balcerzak
Ward Balcerzak
February 11, 2026
3
Min Read

Best Data Classification Tools in 2026: Compare Leading Platforms for Cloud, SaaS, and AI

Best Data Classification Tools in 2026: Compare Leading Platforms for Cloud, SaaS, and AI

As organizations navigate the complexities of cloud environments and AI adoption, the need for robust data classification has never been more critical. With sensitive data sprawling across IaaS, PaaS, SaaS platforms, and on-premise systems, enterprises require tools that can discover, classify, and govern data at scale while maintaining compliance with evolving regulations. The best data classification tools not only identify where sensitive information resides but also provide context around data movement, access controls, and potential exposure risks. This guide examines the leading solutions available today, helping you understand which platforms deliver the accuracy, automation, and integration capabilities necessary to secure your data estate.

Key Consideration What to Look For
Classification Accuracy AI-powered classification engines that distinguish real sensitive data from mock or test data to minimize false positives
Platform Coverage Unified visibility across cloud, SaaS, and on-premises environments without moving or copying data
Data Movement Tracking Ability to monitor how sensitive assets move between regions, environments, and AI pipelines
Integration Depth Native integrations with major platforms such as Microsoft Purview, Snowflake, and Azure to enable automated remediation

What Are Data Classification Tools?

Data classification tools are specialized platforms designed to automatically discover, categorize, and label sensitive information across an organization's entire data landscape. These solutions scan structured and unstructured data, from databases and file shares to cloud storage and SaaS applications, to identify content such as personally identifiable information (PII), financial records, intellectual property, and regulated data subject to compliance frameworks like GDPR, HIPAA, or CCPA.

Effective data classification tools leverage machine learning algorithms, pattern matching, metadata analysis, and contextual awareness to tag data accurately. Beyond simple discovery, these platforms correlate classification results with access controls, data lineage, and risk indicators, enabling security teams to identify "toxic combinations" where highly sensitive data sits behind overly permissive access settings. This contextual intelligence transforms raw classification data into actionable security insights, helping organizations prevent data breaches, meet compliance obligations, and establish the governance guardrails necessary for secure AI adoption.

Top Data Classification Tools

Sentra

Sentra is a cloud-native data security platform specifically designed for AI-ready data governance. Unlike legacy classification tools built for static environments, Sentra discovers and governs sensitive data at petabyte scale inside your own environment, ensuring data never leaves your control.

What Users Like:

  • Classification accuracy and contextual risk insights consistently praised in January 2026 reviews
  • Speed and precision of classification engine described as unmatched
  • DataTreks capability creates interactive maps tracking data movement, duplication, and transformation
  • Distinguishes between real sensitive data and mock data to prevent false positives

Key Capabilities:

  • Unified visibility across IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and on-premise file shares without moving data
  • Deep Microsoft integration leveraging Purview Information Protection with 95%+ accuracy
  • Identifies toxic combinations by correlating data sensitivity with access controls
  • Tracks data movement to detect when sensitive assets flow into AI pipelines
  • Eliminates shadow and ROT data, typically reducing cloud storage costs by ~20%

BigID

BigID uses AI-powered discovery to automatically identify sensitive or regulated information, continuously monitoring data risks with a strong focus on privacy compliance and mapping personal data across organizations.

What Users Like:

  • Exceptional data classification capabilities highlighted in January 2026 reviews
  • Comprehensive data-discovery features for privacy, protection, and governance
  • Broad source connectivity across diverse data environments

Varonis

Varonis specializes in unstructured data classification across file servers, email, and cloud content, providing strong access monitoring and insider threat detection.

What Users Like:

  • Detailed file access analysis and real-time protection
  • Actionable insights and automated risk visualization

Considerations:

  • Learning curve when dealing with comprehensive capabilities

Microsoft Purview

Microsoft Purview delivers exceptional integration for organizations invested in the Microsoft ecosystem, automatically classifying and labeling data across SharePoint, OneDrive, and Microsoft 365 with customizable sensitivity labels and comprehensive compliance reporting.

Nightfall AI

Nightfall AI stands out for real-time detection capabilities across modern SaaS and generative AI applications, using advanced machine learning to prevent data exfiltration and secret sprawl in dynamic environments.

Other Notable Solutions

Forcepoint takes a behavior-based approach, combining context and user intent analysis to classify and protect data across cloud, network, and endpoints, though its comprehensive feature set requires substantial tuning and comes with a steeper learning curve.

Google Cloud DLP excels for teams pursuing cloud-first strategies within Google's environment, offering machine-learning content inspection that scales seamlessly but may be less comprehensive across broader SaaS portfolios.

Atlan functions as a collaborative data workspace emphasizing metadata management, automated tagging, and lineage analysis, seamlessly connecting with modern data stacks like Snowflake, BigQuery, and dbt.

Collibra Data Intelligence Cloud employs self-learning algorithms to uncover, tag, and govern both structured and unstructured data across multi-cloud environments, offering detailed reporting suited to enterprises requiring holistic data discovery with strict compliance oversight.

Informatica leverages AI to profile and classify data while providing end-to-end lineage visualization and analytics, ideal for large, distributed ecosystems demanding scalable data quality and governance.

Evaluation Criteria for Data Classification Tools

Selecting the right data classification tool requires careful assessment across several critical dimensions:

Classification Accuracy

The engine must reliably distinguish between genuine sensitive data and mock or test data to prevent false positives that create alert fatigue and waste security resources. Advanced solutions employ multiple techniques including pattern matching, proximity analysis, validation algorithms, and exact data matching to improve precision.

Platform Coverage

The best solutions scan IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and on-premise file shares without moving data from its original location, using metadata collection and in-environment scanning to maintain data sovereignty while delivering centralized governance. This architectural approach proves especially critical for organizations subject to strict data residency requirements.

Automation and Integration

Look for tools that automatically tag and label data based on classification results, integrate with native platform controls (such as Microsoft Purview labels or Snowflake masking policies), and trigger remediation workflows without manual intervention. The depth of integration with your existing technology stack determines how seamlessly classification insights translate into enforceable security policies.

Data Movement Tracking

Modern tools must monitor how sensitive assets flow between regions, migrate across environments (production to development), and feed into AI systems. This dynamic visibility enables security teams to detect risky data transfers before they result in compliance violations or unauthorized exposure.

Scalability and Performance

Evaluate whether the solution can handle your data volume without degrading scan performance or requiring excessive infrastructure resources. Consider the platform's ability to identify toxic combinations, correlating high-sensitivity data with overly permissive access controls to surface the most critical risks requiring immediate remediation.

Best Free Data Classification Tools

For organizations seeking to implement data classification without immediate budget allocation, two notable free options merit consideration:

Imperva Classifier: Data Classification Tool is available as a free download (requiring only email submission for installation access) and supports multiple operating systems including Windows, Mac, and Linux. It features over 250 built-in search rules for enterprise databases such as Oracle, Microsoft SQL, SAP Sybase, IBM DB2, and MySQL, making it a practical choice for quickly identifying sensitive data at risk across common database platforms.

Apache Atlas represents a robust open-source alternative originally developed for the Hadoop ecosystem. This enterprise-grade solution offers comprehensive metadata management with dedicated data classification capabilities, allowing organizations to tag and categorize data assets while supporting governance, compliance, and data lineage tracking needs.

While free tools offer genuine value, they typically require more in-house expertise for customization and maintenance, may lack advanced AI-powered classification engines, and often provide limited support for modern cloud and SaaS environments. For enterprises with complex, distributed data estates or strict compliance requirements, investing in a commercial solution often proves more cost-effective when factoring in total cost of ownership.

Making the Right Choice for Your Organization

Selecting among the best data classification tools requires aligning platform capabilities with your specific organizational context, data architecture, and security objectives. User reviews from January 2026 provide valuable insights into real-world performance across leading platforms.

When evaluating solutions, prioritize running proof-of-concept deployments against representative samples of your actual data estate. This hands-on testing reveals how well each platform handles your specific data types, integration requirements, and performance expectations. Develop a scoring framework that weights evaluation criteria according to your priorities, whether that's classification accuracy, automation capabilities, platform coverage, or integration depth with existing systems.

Consider your organization's trajectory alongside current needs. If AI adoption is accelerating, ensure your chosen platform can discover AI copilots, map their knowledge base access, and enforce granular behavioral guardrails on sensitive data. For organizations with complex multi-cloud environments, unified visibility without data movement becomes non-negotiable. Enterprises subject to strict compliance regimes should prioritize platforms with proven regulatory alignment and automated policy enforcement.

The data classification landscape in 2026 offers diverse solutions, from free and open-source options suitable for organizations with strong technical teams to comprehensive commercial platforms designed for petabyte-scale, AI-driven environments. By carefully evaluating your requirements against the strengths of leading platforms, you can select a solution that not only secures your current data estate but also enables confident adoption of AI technologies that drive competitive advantage.

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Yair Cohen
Yair Cohen
February 5, 2026
3
Min Read

OpenClaw (MoltBot): The AI Agent Security Crisis Enterprises Must Address Now

OpenClaw (MoltBot): The AI Agent Security Crisis Enterprises Must Address Now

OpenClaw, previously known as MoltBot, isn't just another cybersecurity story - it's a wake-up call for every organization. With over 150,000 GitHub stars and more than 300,000 users in just two months, OpenClaw’s popularity signals a huge change: autonomous AI agents are spreading quickly and dramatically broadening the attack surface in businesses. This is far beyond the risks of a typical ChatGPT plugin or a staff member pasting data into a chatbot. These agents live on user machines and servers with shell-level access, file system privileges, live memory control, and broad integration abilities, usually outside IT or security’s purview.

Older perimeter and endpoint security tools weren’t built to find or control agents that can learn, store information, and act independently in all kinds of environments. As organizations face this shadow AI risk, the need for real-time, data-level visibility becomes critical. Enter Data Security Posture Management (DSPM): a way for enterprises to understand, monitor, and respond to the unique threats that OpenClaw and its next-generation kin pose.

What makes OpenClaw different - and uniquely dangerous - for security teams?

OpenClaw runs by setting up a local HTTP server and agent gateway on endpoints. It provides shell access, automates browsers, and links with over 50 messaging platforms. But what really sets it apart is how it combines these features with persistent memory. That means agents can remember actions and data far better than any script or bot before. Palo Alto Networks calls this the 'lethal trifecta': direct access to private data, exposure to untrusted content, communication outside the organization, and persistent memory.

This risk isn't hypothetical. OpenClaw’s skill ecosystem functions like an unguarded software supply chain. Any third-party 'skill' a user adds to an agent can run with full privileges, opening doors to vulnerabilities that original developers can’t foresee. While earlier concerns focused on employees leaking information to public chatbots, tools like OpenClaw operate quietly at system level, often without IT noticing.

From theory to reality: OpenClaw exploitation is active and widespread

This threat is already real. OpenClaw’s design has exposed thousands of organizations to actual attacks. For instance, CVE-2026-25253 is a severe remote code execution flaw caused by a WebSocket validation error, with a CVSS score of 8.8. It lets attackers compromise an agent with a single click (critical OpenClaw vulnerability).

Attackers wasted no time. The ClawHavoc malware campaign, for example, spread over 341 malicious 'skills’, using OpenClaw’s official marketplace to push info-stealers and RATs directly into vulnerable environments. Over 21,000 exposed OpenClaw instances have turned up on the public internet, often protected by nothing stronger than a weak password, or no authentication at all. Researchers even found plaintext password storage in the code. The risk is both immediate and persistent.

The shadow AI dimension: why you’re likely exposed

One of the trickiest parts of OpenClaw and MoltBot is how easily they run outside official oversight. Research shows that more than 22% of enterprise customers have found MoltBot operating without IT approval. Agents connect with personal messaging apps, making it easy for employees to use them on devices IT doesn’t manage, creating blind spots in endpoint management.

This reflects a bigger shift: 68% of employees now access free AI tools using personal accounts, and 57% still paste sensitive data into these services. The risks tied to shadow AI keep rising, and so does the cost of breaches: incidents involving unsanctioned AI tools now average $670,000 higher than those without. No wonder experts at Palo Alto, Straiker, Google Cloud, and Intruder strongly advise enterprises to block or at least closely watch OpenClaw deployments.

Why classic security tools are defenseless - and why DSPM is essential

Despite many advances in endpoint, identity, and network defense, these tools fall short against AI agents such as OpenClaw. Agents often run code with system privileges and communicate independently, sometimes over encrypted or unfamiliar channels. This blinds existing security tools to what internal agent 'skills' are doing or what data they touch and process. The attack surface now includes prompt injection through emails and documents, poisoning of agent memory, delayed attacks, and natural language input that bypasses static scans.

The missing link is visibility: understanding what data any AI agent - sanctioned or shadow - can access, process, or send out. Data Security Posture Management (DSPM) responds to this by mapping what data AI agents can reach, tracing sensitive data to and from agents everywhere they run. Newer DSPM features such as real-time risk scoring, shadow AI discovery, and detailed flow tracking help organizations see and control risks from AI agents at the data layer (Sentra DSPM for AI agent security).

Immediate enterprise action plan: detection, mapping, and control

Security teams need to move quickly. Start by scanning for OpenClaw, MoltBot, and other shadow AI agents across endpoints, networks, and SaaS apps. Once you know where agents are, check which sensitive data they can access by using DSPM tools with AI agent awareness, such as those from Sentra (Sentra’s AI asset discovery). Treat unauthorized installations as active security incidents: reset credentials, investigate activity, and prevent agents from running on your systems following expert recommendations.

For long-term defense, add continuous shadow AI tracking to your operations. Let DSPM keep your data inventory current, trace possible leaks, and set the right controls for every workflow involving AI. Sentra gives you a single place to find all agent activity, see your actual AI data exposure, and take fast, business-aware action.

Conclusion

OpenClaw is simply the first sign of what will soon be a string of AI agent-driven security problems for enterprises. As companies use AI more to boost productivity and automate work, the chance of unsanctioned agents acting with growing privileges and integrations will continue to rise. Gartner expects that by 2028, one in four cyber incidents will stem from AI agent misuse - and attacks have already started to appear in the news.

Success with AI is no longer about whether you use agents like OpenClaw; it’s about controlling how far they reach and what they can do. Old-school defenses can’t keep up with how quickly shadow AI spreads. Only data-focused security, with total AI agent discovery, risk mapping, and ongoing monitoring, can provide the clarity and controls needed for this new world. Sentra's DSPM platform offers precisely that. Take the first steps now: identify your shadow AI risks, map out where your data can go, and make AI agent security a top priority.

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Expert Data Security Insights Straight to Your Inbox
What Should I Do Now:
1

Get the latest GigaOm DSPM Radar report - see why Sentra was named a Leader and Fast Mover in data security. Download now and stay ahead on securing sensitive data.

2

Sign up for a demo and learn how Sentra’s data security platform can uncover hidden risks, simplify compliance, and safeguard your sensitive data.

3

Follow us on LinkedIn, X (Twitter), and YouTube for actionable expert insights on how to strengthen your data security, build a successful DSPM program, and more!

Before you go...

Get the Gartner Customers' Choice for DSPM Report

Read why 98% of users recommend Sentra.

White Gartner Peer Insights Customers' Choice 2025 badge with laurel leaves inside a speech bubble.