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
April 27, 2026
4
Min Read

Sentra Q2 2026 Product Updates: Data Security in the Age of AI

Sentra Q2 2026 Product Updates: Data Security in the Age of AI

Every quarter I get asked some version of the same question: "What's the biggest shift you're seeing in enterprise data security right now?" My answer hasn't changed in the past year, but the urgency behind it keeps growing.

AI is no longer a side project. Copilots, agents, and LLM-powered apps are spinning up across Microsoft 365, AWS, Databricks, Azure, and beyond; often faster than security teams can track. At the same time, most large enterprises still have critical regulated data living on file shares and databases in their own data centers, largely invisible to cloud-first tools. And the DLP stacks organizations spent years building? They're only as smart as the labels and context they can see, which, for most companies, isn't very much.

These aren't new problems. But they've collided in a way that makes 2026 a genuinely pivotal year for data security. Read this post (or watch the on-demand webinar) for a walk through of what we shipped in Q2 and where we're taking Sentra for the rest of the year.

The Three Problems We Kept Hearing

Before I walk through our Q2 updates, it's worth naming the friction points that drove them. Across our customer conversations, three questions kept coming up without clean answers:

"What AI assets do we actually have, and what data do they touch?" Organizations know they're deploying copilots and agents. They often have no unified view of what those assets are connected to.

"We have critical data on-prem that never moved to the cloud. What do we do about it?" Almost every large enterprise we work with still has regulated data sitting in data centers. Historically, the choices were. 1) ignore it, 2) try to move it to the cloud just to scan it, which is usually a non-starter for compliance and operations.

"Our DLP stack isn't working the way it should. Is that a classification problem?" Almost always, yes. Enforcement agents, whether it's Microsoft Purview, Google DLP, SASE, CASB, or endpoint DLP, are only as good as the labels and context they see. If data isn't classified accurately and consistently, policies either never trigger or they trigger constantly and generate noise.

These three problems shaped our Q2 investments directly.

Q2 Update #1: AI Security - Turning AI Chaos Into a Governable Surface

The real risk with enterprise AI isn't the models themselves. It's that no one has a clean answer to three basic questions: What AI assets do we have? What data do they touch? And are they using that data in a way that would pass an audit?

In Q2, we took the first concrete step toward answering all three.

Unified AI Asset Inventory. We now give you a single view of your agents, models, and endpoints - with owners and environments - instead of having them scattered across different consoles. If you're running Copilot in M365, SageMaker models on AWS, and custom agents on Bedrock or Azure, they all show up in one place.

Data Lineage Into AI. For each agent, we map which knowledge bases and data stores it relies on and roll up the sensitive data classes and business context to the AI asset level. This is the part that matters most. Until now, people thought about data security in terms of how employees accessed files and permissions. With GenAI, data flows much faster through agents, so understanding the data at rest, and which AI assets touch it, is the critical control point.

Govern Data Use in AI. Once you have that lineage, you can start making real policy decisions. These are the data classes we're comfortable using for copilots and agents; these are the ones that must never be touched. We flag high-risk agents, those with access to regulated data or broad permissions, before they roll out, not after something leaks.

This is the first step toward our broader 2026 AI readiness vision: treating AI assets the same way we treat any other sensitive data store, with inventory, lineage, posture assessment, and policy enforcement. The goal is that when your organization wants to move faster with GenAI, Sentra gives you the map, the policies, and the evidence you need to say yes - safely.

Q2 Update #2: On-Prem & Hybrid Coverage - Securing the Data That Never Moved to the Cloud

Almost every large enterprise we work with still has critical regulated data on file shares and databases in their own data centers. It's often the riskiest and least visible part of the estate.

In Q2, we introduced local on-premise scanners that run inside your environment, scan file shares and data stores where they live, and send us only the metadata and classifications, not the sensitive data itself. You get the same AI-powered discovery, classification, sensitivity mapping, and posture analytics you're used to in cloud and SaaS. Your data never leaves your data center.

"How realistic is full coverage?" - very realistic. We essentially took the technology we built for our cloud scanners and packaged it for any private data center or on-premise environment. We ship lightweight local scanners, support all types of SMB and NFS file shares, and cover databases including MySQL, Oracle, Postgres, and more. Sentra also connects to your Active Directory to map access levels across identities, file shares, and databases.

All of that feeds into a single map across on-prem, cloud, and SaaS, so security teams can finally reason about all their sensitive data everywhere, instead of managing separate point solutions for each island. And critically, this isn't a POC exercise. We focused on easy, secure deployment; lightweight collectors, quick rollout, and alignment with enterprise network and security requirements. This is something you can actually put into production.

Q2 Update #3: Automatic Labeling & Tagging - Making Your Existing DLP Stack Actually Smart

Most organizations aren't looking to rip and replace their DLP stack. The real pain is that enforcement is flying blind. DLP, SSE, CASB, and endpoint tools are like muscles without a brain. They can be powerful, but only if the underlying classification is accurate and consistent.

Sentra's role is to be the data security and classification brain that makes those existing tools actually smart.

In Q2, we doubled down on cross-platform auto-labeling. Automatically applying Microsoft Purview Information Protection (MPIP) labels in M365 and Google sensitivity labels in Google Drive, based on our high-accuracy discovery and classification. Those labels then become the control plane for everything downstream; email DLP, endpoint and web proxies, SaaS DLP, and even AI and Copilot controls that decide which data can be surfaced in responses.

Instead of authoring hundreds of brittle regex rules, you're keying policies off rich business context; HR compensation documents, customer financial statements, high-sensitivity intellectual property. The result is fewer false positives, better enforcement, and a classification foundation that scales.

Strategically, this is how we move from DSPM-plus-alerts to cloud-native DLP and automated remediation at scale. Sentra discovers and understands the data, stamps it with the right labels, and your existing enforcement stack, plus our own remediation, ensures data is only used, shared, and accessed in ways that match its true sensitivity.

Classification Is Still the Core of Everything

One thing I want to leave you with, because I don't think it gets said enough: classification is the foundation that makes all of this work. It's still where we invest the most at Sentra, and with advances in AI, we're making our capabilities more ambitious and more automatic.

We're building classifiers that are specific to each organization's proprietary data. Sentra learns your specific environment, and for every piece of data found, whether it's a file, a column, or a table, we know what it is and what its business context means. Beyond that, we're evolving our sensitivity scoring engine so security teams can bring their own definitions of what's sensitive, and our engine automatically translates that using AI into rules that ensure every piece of data gets the right label.

The goal is to make the effort of classifying and labeling data as easy as describing it to another human being. And to remove the manual research and validation work that doesn't scale in the AI era.

The Bottom Line

The challenge of enterprise data security in 2026 isn't a lack of tools. It's that the tools organizations have - DLP, CASB, SSE, endpoint controls - are only as effective as the data intelligence feeding them. At the same time, AI is creating an entirely new attack surface that most security teams can't see clearly yet. And on-premise data, the part of the estate that never moved to the cloud, remains the riskiest and least visible.

Sentra is building toward a single platform that addresses all three: a data-first security platform that discovers your critical data, understands its context, and drives the controls in your existing tools and in ours, so data stays safe, compliant, and usable for the business.

We'll see you next quarter with more updates. In the meantime, reach out if you have questions or schedule a demo if you want to go deeper on any of this.

Read More
Team Sentra
Team Sentra
April 24, 2026
3
Min Read
AI and ML

Patchwork AI Security vs. Purpose-Built Protection: Thoughts on Cyera’s Ryft Acquisition

Patchwork AI Security vs. Purpose-Built Protection: Thoughts on Cyera’s Ryft Acquisition

Yesterday’s news that Cyera is acquiring Ryft, a two-year-old startup building automated data lakes for AI agents, is the latest sign of how fast the agentic AI security market is moving. It’s also Cyera’s fourth acquisition in five years, on the heels of Trail Security and Otterize, a clear signal that the company is trying to buy its way into new narratives as quickly as they emerge.

For security and data leaders, the question isn’t “Is agentic AI important?” It absolutely is. The question is: What’s the real cost of stitching together yet another acquisition into an already complex platform?

The hidden cost of rapid, piecemeal integrations

On paper, adding Ryft gives Cyera a new story around “agentic AI security.” In practice, it creates a familiar set of integration problems:

  • Multiple architectures to reconcile
    Trail Security, Otterize, and now Ryft were all built as independent products with their own data models, UX patterns, and engineering roadmaps. Four acquisitions in five years means customers are effectively buying an integration project that’s still in progress, not a single, mature platform.

  • Gaps, overlaps, and inconsistent controls
    Every acquired module has its own blind spots and strengths. Until they’re truly unified, you get overlapping coverage in some areas, gaps in others, and policy engines that don’t behave consistently across cloud, SaaS, and on-prem.

  • Slower time-to-value for AI initiatives
    AI programs move quickly; integrations do not. Each acquisition has to be wired into discovery, classification, policy, reporting, access control, and remediation workflows before it delivers real value. That’s measured in quarters and years, not weeks.

  • Operational drag on security teams
    When you tie together multiple acquired engines, you often see scan-based coverage, noisy false positives, and limited self-serve reporting that still depends on the vendor’s team to interpret results. That’s the opposite of what already stretched security teams need as they take on AI data risk.

The Ryft deal fits this pattern. It’s a high-priced bet on an early-stage team with a small set of digital-native customers, not a proven, enterprise-scale AI data security engine. That’s fine as a venture bet. It’s more problematic when packaged as an answer for Fortune 500 AI governance.

Why agentic AI security can’t be bolted on

Agentic AI changes the risk profile of enterprise data:

  • Agents traverse structured and unstructured data across cloud, SaaS, and on-prem.
  • They act on behalf of identities, often chaining tools and APIs in ways that are hard to predict.
  • The blast radius of a misconfiguration or over-permissioned identity grows dramatically once agents are in the loop.

Trying to solve that by bolting an AI data lake acquisition onto a legacy, scan-based DSPM engine is risky. You’re adding another moving part on top of a system that already struggles with:

  • Point-in-time scans instead of real-time, continuous coverage
  • High false positives without strong prioritization
  • Shallow support for hybrid and on-prem environments
  • Vendor-controlled workflows instead of customer-controlled, self-serve reporting

If the underlying platform can’t continuously understand where sensitive data lives, which identities can touch it, and how that access is used, then adding an “AI data lake” on the side doesn’t fix the fundamentals. It just adds another place for risk to hide.

A different path: Sentra’s purpose-built, real-time platform

At Sentra, we took a different approach from day one: build a single, in-place, real-time data security platform, not a patchwork of stitched-together acquisitions.

A few principles guide the way we think about AI and data security:

  • One unified architecture
    Sentra is a purpose-built, unified platform, not an assortment of logos held together by integration roadmaps. There’s one architecture, one data model, one roadmap, and one team focused entirely on DSPM and AI data security, rather than a set of acquired point products that still need to be woven together.

  • Proven for real AI workloads today
    Our platform is already securing real AI workloads in production environments, rather than depending on the future maturation of a seed-stage acquisition. AI data security for us is not a sidecar story. It's built into how we discover, classify, govern, and remediate risk across your estate.

  • Higher-precision signal, not more noise
    Sentra delivers higher classification precision (4.9 vs. 4.7 stars on Gartner) and couples that with workflows your team controls, not processes that require vendor intervention every time you need a new report or policy tweak.

  • Complete coverage for complex environments
    Modern enterprises aren’t cloud-only. Sentra provides full coverage across IaaS, PaaS, SaaS, and on-premises from a single platform, built for hybrid and legacy-heavy environments as much as for cloud-native stacks.

In other words, while some vendors are racing to acquire their way into the next AI buzzword, Sentra is focused on delivering trustworthy, real-time, identity-aware data security that you can put in front of a CISO and a data platform owner today.

What to ask your vendors now

If you’re evaluating Cyera (or any vendor riding the latest AI acquisition wave), a few concrete questions can cut through the noise:

  1. How many acquisitions have you done in the last five years, and which parts of my deployment depend on those integrations actually working?
  2. What’s fully integrated and running in production today vs. what’s still on the roadmap?
  3. Are my AI and non-AI data risks handled by the same platform, policies, and reporting, or by separate acquired modules?
  4. Do you provide continuous coverage and identity-aware controls across cloud, SaaS, and on-prem, or am I still relying on periodic scans and partial visibility?

The AI security market doesn’t need more logos; it needs fewer moving parts, better signals, and real-time control over how data is used by humans and agents alike.

That’s the standard Sentra is building for and the lens through which we view every new acquisition announcement in this space.

Read More
Ron Reiter
Ron Reiter
April 24, 2026
3
Min Read
Data Security

Sentra Now Supports Solidworks 3D CAD Files – Protecting the Digital Blueprint in the Age of AI

Sentra Now Supports Solidworks 3D CAD Files – Protecting the Digital Blueprint in the Age of AI

Walk into any advanced manufacturing, aerospace, defense, or industrial design shop and you’re just as likely to see Solidworks as you are AutoCAD. The models, assemblies, and drawings built in Solidworks are the digital blueprints for everything from turbine blades and medical devices to satellites and weapons systems.

Earlier this year we announced native support for AutoCAD DWG files, making an entire class of previously opaque CAD data visible to security and compliance teams for the first time. Now we’re extending that same deep visibility to Solidworks 3D CAD files, so you can protect the IP and regulated technical data hiding inside your .sldprt, .sldasm, and related content—without slowing engineering down.

And as AI accelerates design cycles, that visibility is no longer optional.

AI is Supercharging Design – and Expanding the Blast Radius

Design teams are pushing faster than ever:

  • Generative design tools propose entire families of parts and assemblies.
  • Copilots summarize requirements, suggest changes, and draft documentation off CAD models.
  • PLM-integrated agents automatically create downstream artifacts—quotes, NC programs, service manuals—based on 3D designs.
  • RAG-style internal assistants answer questions using a mix of project docs, CAD files, and simulation outputs.

All of this is powerful. It also multiplies the ways sensitive CAD data can leak:

  • Entire assemblies uploaded to unmanaged AI tools “just to explore options.”
  • Export-controlled models referenced in prompts and ending up in long‑lived AI data lakes.
  • Supplier and customer CAD shared into external copilots with little visibility into who—or what agent—can access it.
  • Rich metadata from CAD (usernames, project codes, server paths, partner names) silently turned into reconnaissance material.

If you don’t understand what’s inside your CAD, where it lives, and which identities and AI agents can reach it, AI doesn’t just speed up design—it speeds up IP disclosure, compliance failures, and supply‑chain exposure.

CAD Has Been a Blind Spot for Security

Most traditional DSPM and DLP tools still treat specialized engineering formats as a big binary blob: “probably sensitive, treat with caution.” That may have been acceptable when CAD lived on a handful of on‑prem engineering servers.

It’s not acceptable when:

  • Decades of CAD history have been lifted and shifted into S3, Azure Blob, or SharePoint.
  • ITAR/EAR “technical data” now lives side‑by‑side with everyday project files in cloud object stores.
  • Those same repositories feed downstream systems—PLM, MES, AI assistants—where traditional security tools have little or no visibility.

We built native DWG parsing into Sentra to break that stalemate, making CAD content as transparent to security teams as a Word document. Solidworks 3D CAD support is the next logical step.

What’s Really Inside a Solidworks 3D CAD File?

Like DWG, a Solidworks file is far more than geometry. It’s a container for rich metadata, text, and structural context that describes both what you’re building and how it fits into regulated programs and commercial IP. Our Solidworks support is designed to surface that security‑relevant context—without requiring CAD tools, manual exports, or data movement.

Similar to what we do for DWG, Sentra can extract and analyze key elements, including:

  • Document properties
    Authors, “last saved by,” creation and modification timestamps, total editing time, and revision counters—signals that help you understand who is touching sensitive designs and when.

  • Custom properties and configuration metadata
    Project IDs, part and assembly numbers, revision codes, program names, business units, and export‑control or classification markings encoded as custom properties or notes.

  • Text content and annotations
    Notes, callouts, PMI, and embedded text that often contain material specifications, tolerances, customer names, contract IDs, and phrases like “COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL,” “EXPORT CONTROLLED,” or ITAR statements.

  • Assembly structure and component names
    Which parts roll up into which assemblies, and how those components are named—critical when you need to understand which physical systems a given sensitive model belongs to.

  • File dependencies and paths
    References to drawings, configurations, libraries, and external resources that routinely expose server names, share paths, usernames, and department structures—goldmine context for attackers, but also for incident response and insider‑risk investigations.

For organizations operating under ITAR and EAR, this is where truly export‑controlled technical data actually lives—not in the folder name, but in the title blocks, annotations, and metadata attached to models and drawings.

Turning Solidworks Models into Actionable Security Signals

By parsing Solidworks 3D CAD files in place, inside your own cloud accounts or VPCs, Sentra can now treat them as first‑class citizens in your data security program—just like we do for DWG and other specialized formats.

That unlocks concrete use cases, such as:

  • Finding export‑controlled or highly sensitive designs in cloud storage
    Automatically surface Solidworks files whose metadata, annotations, or custom properties contain ITAR statements, ECCN codes, proprietary markings, or customer‑confidential labels—so you can focus remediation on the drawings and models that are actually regulated.

  • Mapping who (and what) can access critical designs
    Combine CAD‑aware classification with Sentra’s DSPM and DAG capabilities to answer:
    Where are our most sensitive Solidworks assemblies stored, and which identities, service principals, and AI agents can currently reach them?

  • Monitoring AI and collaboration workflows for IP exposure
    Track when Solidworks files that contain regulated or high‑value IP are moved into AI data lakes, shared via collaboration platforms, or accessed by non‑human identities—so DDR policies can flag, quarantine, or route for review before they turn into public incidents.

  • Building a defensible audit trail for CAD‑resident technical data
    Maintain an inventory of Solidworks files that contain export‑control markings or IP‑critical content, tie each file to its exact storage location and access controls, and surface any out‑of‑policy placements—so when auditors ask “Where is your technical data?”, you can answer with data, not slideware.

Closing the Gap Between “Stored” and “Understood” for 3D CAD

As workloads like EDA, PLM, simulation, and AI‑assisted design move deeper into the cloud, the number of specialized formats in your environment explodes. Most tools still only truly understand emails, office documents, and a narrow slice of structured data.

The reality is simple: you cannot secure data you don’t understand. Understanding means being able to answer, at scale, not just “Where is this file?” but “What is inside this file, how sensitive is it, and how is AI amplifying its risk?”

For organizations whose crown‑jewel IP and export‑controlled technical data live in Solidworks 3D CAD, that’s the gap Sentra is now closing.

If you want to see what’s actually hiding inside your own Solidworks models and assemblies, the easiest next step is to run a focused assessment: pick a few representative buckets or repositories, let Sentra scan those CAD files in place, and review the inventory of regulated and high‑value designs that surfaces.

Chances are, once you’ve seen that map—and how it connects to your AI initiatives—you’ll never look at “just another CAD file” the same way again.

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.