403
Sorry!!
Error! We're sorry, but the page you were looking for doesn't exist.
New Cequence & EMA Research: 94% Of Enterprises Trust Their AI Agents Aren't Over-Provisioned. Only 33% Actually Enforce It.
(MENAFN- Mid-East Info) Survey of IT and Security Leaders Reveals Standing Permissions and Delayed Authorization Checks, Not Just Identity Gaps, Are Driving Agentic AI Risk
Dubai, UAE. - September, 2026 - Nearly every enterprise believes its AI agents are properly scoped. Only a third have actually made sure of it. Today, new research from Cequence Security, the leader in application, API, and agentic AI protection, and Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) found that 94% of enterprise IT and security leaders are confident their AI agents do not have more access than they need, yet only 33% actually provision agents with least-privilege access. The remaining two-thirds run on broad standing permissions that are reviewed periodically, rarely reviewed, or never reviewed at all. The full report, Agents Without Guardrails: The Agentic AI Governance Gap in the Enterprise, is available for download at . That gap between confidence and practice is already showing up in production, not a theoretical risk, but as incidents enterprises are living with right now. Among the organizations surveyed:
Dubai, UAE. - September, 2026 - Nearly every enterprise believes its AI agents are properly scoped. Only a third have actually made sure of it. Today, new research from Cequence Security, the leader in application, API, and agentic AI protection, and Enterprise Management Associates (EMA) found that 94% of enterprise IT and security leaders are confident their AI agents do not have more access than they need, yet only 33% actually provision agents with least-privilege access. The remaining two-thirds run on broad standing permissions that are reviewed periodically, rarely reviewed, or never reviewed at all. The full report, Agents Without Guardrails: The Agentic AI Governance Gap in the Enterprise, is available for download at . That gap between confidence and practice is already showing up in production, not a theoretical risk, but as incidents enterprises are living with right now. Among the organizations surveyed:
-
65% have experienced an AI agent take an action outside its intended scope, including 29% with measurable business impact, including data exposure, financial loss, operational disruption, or reputational damage. Another 36% caught a near-miss before it caused damage.
Only 32% can detect and contain an out-of-scope agent action within minutes through automated means; 55% need hours and manual steps to respond.
In approximately 4% of organizations surveyed, the first sign of trouble came from a customer or outside partner, not an internal system.
Legal Disclaimer:
MENAFN provides the
information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any
responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos,
licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information
contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues
related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.

Comments
No comment