Skip to content
← Blog
AI SecurityCybersecurityGovernance

The Enterprise AI Security Threat Model

FUNCSHUN·

Every team rolling AI into production inherits a new attack surface — one that doesn't look like the firewalls and endpoints security teams are used to. The risks live inside the model, the data that trains it, and the agents acting on its behalf. Here's the map we use with clients to make those risks visible, and the controls that keep them contained.

01Map the surface

Ten threat vectors, one trust core.

Select any node — on the diagram or in the legend below — to see how the attack works, what it costs the business, and the control we put in front of it.

Attack vector

Crafted inputs smuggle hidden instructions past the model's guardrails.

Risk impact

The model leaks data or takes actions it was never meant to perform.

Mitigation

Input isolation, strict instruction boundaries, and allow-listed actions.

Hover or tap any threat to trace its attack vector, business risk, and the control that contains it.

Why a model — not a checklist

Traditional security tooling assumes a perimeter: something to sit behind, patch, and monitor. AI systems break that assumption. A model can be coaxed into leaking data with nothing more than a cleverly worded prompt. An agent with too much autonomy can call a production API no one signed off on. The training pipeline itself becomes a target.

A threat model beats a checklist because it forces you to ask three questions of every part of your AI stack: how could this be attacked, what does it cost us if it is, and what control stops it. The interactive map above pairs each of the ten vectors with exactly those three answers.

The three layers of AI risk

The ten vectors group into three layers. Reading them this way makes it obvious where a given control belongs.

  • The model & its inputs — prompt injection, data poisoning, model inversion, and drift. These attack what the model knows and how it behaves.
  • Data & access — sensitive-data leakage and credential or API-key theft. These attack what the model can reach.
  • Agents & governance — unauthorized tool invocation, supply-chain risk, excessive autonomy, and compliance gaps. These attack what the model is allowed to do.

Where most enterprises are exposed

In our assessments, the gaps cluster on the agent and governance layer. Teams ship a capable model, wire it to internal tools to make it useful, and never define the boundary of what those tools are allowed to do on the model's say-so. That single omission turns vectors 6 through 10 — tool invocation, supply chain, autonomy, and compliance — from theoretical into live.

The fix is rarely a new product. It's allow-listing the actions an agent can take, scoping and rotating the keys it holds, keeping a human in the loop on consequential decisions, and logging everything for audit. Boring controls, applied deliberately — which is exactly what a threat model gives you the structure to do.

Get started

Mapping AI risk for your stack?

Book a 15-minute strategy call with a senior FUNCSHUN engineer. We'll walk your AI deployment against this exact model and show you where the live gaps are — no obligation.

15-minute call · senior engineer · no obligation

Newsletter

Want this in your inbox?

One short, practical note a month on cybersecurity, compliance, and managed IT for South Florida businesses. No spam, unsubscribe any time.

No spam, unsubscribe any time.