Tines argues employee-built AI workflows need runtime controls
Original title: What Security Teams Can Do To Tame Wild Code
The piece says education, sandboxes, and committees do not govern credentials, data access, or orphaned workflows after they go live.
A Tines commentary describes “wild code” as employee-built apps, agents, and automations that become operational before security owns them. It says risks include excessive permissions, sensitive data in outputs, model requests, or logs, unintended record or permission changes, orphaned access, and weak investigation trails. Education, sandboxes, and steering committees are called insufficient once workflows reach live systems. It urges shared boundaries on data sources, actions, and access before and after deployment. The excerpt does not report a specific incident.
- A workflow can keep running after its creator changes roles or leaves.
- Sandboxes are described as leaving the runtime problem unsolved.
- Committees may miss builds outside engineering, including finance, HR, and operations.
- The quoted speaker is Brad Rumph, field CTO at Tines.
From the original article
6 min read at thehackernews.com
A sales manager builds an AI-assisted workflow to route leads. It connects to customer records, summarizes inbound requests, and posts updates to a shared channel. The workflow saves time, reduces manual work, and soon becomes part of the team’s daily routine.
thehackernews.com
A short excerpt; the article and its images belong to the publisher. Summary, key facts and assessment above are AI-written from the article and can be wrong.