Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

We asked eight security and product leaders who's accountable when an agent ships to production and breaks something. Nobody said the model. Harish Gaggar named the reason. An agent runs on permissions someone approved and configuration someone set. Ron Reiter drew the line in the same place, accountability sits with whoever decided what the agent could actually do. As agents act across more systems, the accountability trail gets harder to follow. Most teams cannot determine which human granted an agent access.

What part of your profession do you hope AI takes over? What should it never touch? Security practitioners and technology leaders landed in the same place: hand off the tedious work, and keep human judgment on anything that affects blast radius. That's the skills reckoning. As AI absorbs the repetitive work, the expertise that decides what an agent is allowed to reach becomes more valuable.

The next big breach won't be a hacker. It'll be an over-permissioned agent. Someone approved an agent action at some point, for a reason that made sense at the time. But access persisted long after a task was performed. Stale permissions without human intervention could turn into exposure. Listen to perspectives from people who see this problem from different roles.