![Main article image](


alt="Article illustration 1"
loading="lazy">

) AI agents have slipped into the enterprise with unnerving ease. They reset passwords. File tickets. Touch CRM and ERP. Craft emails. Call internal APIs. Some are stitched into critical workflows with a few clicks in an LLM orchestration UI. Others are homegrown, wired into CI/CD or observability stacks to “self-heal” infrastructure. And in too many cases, they're doing all of this with hard-coded credentials, broad permissions, and almost no independent accountability. This is not a minor footnote in security architecture. It is a structural shift: the rise of agentic identities—autonomous, adaptive software entities that behave like users, operate like microservices, and move at machine speed. The Zero Trust story doesn’t end with people and traditional services; it now has to govern a new class of actor that is both powerful and opaque.

If your Zero Trust model doesn’t explicitly account for AI agents, you are trusting something you cannot see, cannot audit, and cannot reliably constrain.

This sponsored piece from Token Security surfaces a hard truth: “never trust, always verify” has to go autonomous.

From Human Users to Agentic Identities

Security teams have done this dance before:

  • First, identity meant people: employees, contractors, partners.
  • Then came machine identities: service accounts, containers, APIs, workloads.
  • Now: AI agents—LLM-driven, policy-guided, tool-using systems that route, summarize, decide, and execute.

The difference is not just implementation detail; it’s behavioral:

  • They are adaptive: Agents change their behavior based on prompts, context, and continuous learning.
  • They are composable: One agent calls another, chains tools, and crosses system boundaries you didn’t explicitly map.
  • They are fast: When something goes wrong—prompt injection, misconfiguration, abused integration—the blast radius unfolds in seconds, not weeks.

In many organizations today, these agents:

  • Share credentials across environments.
  • Run with privileges far beyond their intended function.
  • Are treated as “features” of a platform rather than identities with lifecycle, policy, and owners.

For a Zero Trust-era CISO, that’s indefensible.

Zero Trust for AI Agents: What It Really Means

Zero Trust’s core premise—assume breach, verify every access, continuously evaluate context—maps cleanly onto AI agents, but only if we’re willing to model them explicitly. A practical Zero Trust posture for agentic AI should include:

1. Unique, Auditable Identities

Every agent needs a distinct identity, visible to your IAM, your logs, and your SIEM:

  • No anonymous tokens.
  • No shared “automation” accounts buried in YAML.
  • Every action traceable: which agent, which version, triggered by what input, on whose behalf.

For developers, that implies:

  • Registering agents like microservices in your IdP / identity fabric.
  • Issuing per-agent credentials (OIDC, mTLS, scoped keys) with strong rotation policies.

2. Hard Least-Privilege, Not Vibes-Based Access

If an AI helpdesk agent only needs read access to ticket metadata and scoped password reset flows, it should not:

  • Read HR comp data.
  • Write arbitrary records to core databases.
  • Access unbounded email or storage scopes because “it might be useful.”

Least-privilege for agents is not theoretical hygiene; it’s how you contain prompt injection, jailbreaks, tool misuse, and accidental overreach.

3. Dynamic, Context-Aware Control

Static role bindings age poorly in an environment where:

  • Agents gain new tools.
  • Workflows are recomposed weekly.
  • Models are retrained or swapped.

You need:

  • Policies that factor in context: user intent, data classification, target system, time, environment.
  • Real-time evaluation: Is this action consistent with the agent’s purpose and historical behavior?

Think of it as adaptive authorization for non-human actors.

4. Continuous Monitoring Like They’re Privileged Users

“Autonomous” does not mean “unsupervised.” Your telemetry should treat agent activity as high-sensitivity by default:

  • Alert on novel system access, sudden data exfiltration patterns, or unusual tool sequences.
  • Baseline each agent’s normal behavior and flag deviations.
  • Preserve end-to-end traces that link: initiating human (if any) → agent → tools → data.

If you can’t reconstruct what an AI agent did last Tuesday, you’re not in a Zero Trust world—you’re in a faith-based one.

The Real Threat: Excessive Agency

Token Security’s most useful framing is “Excessive Agency”: giving AI agents more power than their trust model, design, or oversight justifies. A few concrete patterns your teams will recognize:

  • A support copilot with broad internal access receives a malicious prompt via a ticket and starts leaking snippets of sensitive config data in its replies.
  • A DevOps automation agent with overbroad cloud permissions misinterprets an instruction and tears down production resources.
  • A finance workflow agent, granted write access “for flexibility,” initiates high-value transfers after a subtle prompt injection.

These are not sci-fi scenarios. They’re direct consequences of:

  • Over-privileged API keys.
  • Lack of scoped tokens or approvals for destructive actions.
  • Missing guardrails between the language model’s intent and the systems it can touch.

AI doesn’t need malicious intent to cause damage; it just needs permission and ambiguity.

Guardrails That Don’t Break Velocity

Security cannot win this era by being the team of "no"—builders will route around them. The strategic move is to make safe patterns easier than unsafe ones. Several controls stand out as both practical and high-leverage:

Scoped, Short-Lived Credentials

  • Use time-bound tokens with narrow scopes (per-agent, per-task, per-resource).
  • Automate issuance via your identity fabric and secret management.
  • If a token is leaked through a prompt transcript or mis-logged, its damage window is tiny.

Tiered Trust for Actions

Not all operations are equal:

  • Low-risk: read-only queries, internal summaries → fully automated.
  • Medium-risk: targeted writes, workflow changes → require policy checks, possibly soft approvals.
  • High-risk: deleting data, moving money, changing auth settings → demand human-in-the-loop, MFA, or multi-party approval.

For developers, this looks like building an action catalog with attached risk levels and enforcement hooks, rather than handing the model a raw admin client.

Hard Access Boundaries

  • Segment what each agent can call: per-namespace, per-tenant, per-dataset.
  • Use API gateways, service meshes, and policy engines (OPA, Cedar, custom PDPs) as chokepoints.

An AI orchestrator should not be able to “discover” a forgotten internal admin API just because it’s on the same VPC.

Human Ownership and Accountability

Every agent must:

  • Have a named owner.
  • Have a clearly defined purpose and scope.
  • Undergo review when its tools, prompts, or integrations change.

That’s governance 101, applied to non-human actors.

Why This Matters Now

The Token Security perspective is, of course, also a product pitch: a platform to bring Zero Trust discipline to agentic AI. But the underlying diagnosis is sound and urgent. For CISOs, staff engineers, and platform teams, the implications are clear:

  • Agent governance has to be first-class in your IAM and security architecture, not a bolt-on to “AI initiatives.”
  • Observability for AI agents (who acted, why, with what data, via which tools) must be as mature as for microservices.
  • Security reviews for AI systems should focus less on the model in isolation and more on the end-to-end action surface: prompts → policies → tools → side effects.

The organizations that get this right will be able to:

  • Ship AI-assisted workflows aggressively without gambling on blind trust.
  • Prove to regulators, customers, and boards that agentic automation is controlled, auditable, and revocable.
  • Turn Zero Trust from a compliance checkbox into a genuine design constraint for autonomous systems.

And the ones that don’t? They’ll eventually learn the hard way that in a world of autonomous agents, the absence of explicit identity and control is itself a critical vulnerability.

AI doesn’t break Zero Trust. It stress-tests whether you ever truly implemented it.