Five Ways Shadow AI Threatens Your Organization
Written by 
Sonya Moisset
0 mins read
Embracing new AI technologies reveals a hidden, yet increasingly prevalent, risk silently growing within many organizations: Shadow AI. This refers to the unapproved or unmonitored use of AI tools by employees, often adopted with good intentions but without the necessary oversight. Understanding these concealed threats is critical for protecting your organization's integrity, finances, and reputation. Here are five ways shadow AI may threaten your organization.
1. Data security and privacy breaches
One of the most immediate and tangible risks of shadow AI is the potential for data security and privacy breaches. Employees, often unknowingly, feed confidential information—like sensitive customer data, financial records, or even proprietary source code—into public AI models. The danger is clear: this input data can become a permanent part of third-party training datasets, leading to persistent exposure of your company's most valuable assets.
Beyond this, shadow AI systems typically lack the fundamental security controls we rely on, such as proper encryption, access controls, and crucial security monitoring. This lack of vetting also leaves them vulnerable to sophisticated attacks like prompt injection, which can allow malicious actors to extract sensitive information from your internal systems.
REAL-WORLD IMPACT:
In 2023, Samsung banned employee use of generative AI tools after engineers inadvertently leaked proprietary code by sharing it with ChatGPT, which became part of the training data.
2. Model integrity and reliability failures
Beyond data security, unvetted AI tools introduce significant operational risks by undermining the integrity and reliability of the insights they generate. For instance, models can be inherently biased, leading to discriminatory or unfair outputs, which is particularly concerning in sensitive areas like HR or financial applications.
There's also the widespread phenomenon of AI hallucinations, where models generate plausible but factually incorrect outputs that can unfortunately influence critical business decisions if not properly scrutinized. Without proper validation, these unapproved models often produce unreliable results, impacting decision-making across the board.
Unmonitored models can also suffer from "model drift," where their performance degrades over time without anyone realizing it, slowly eroding their accuracy. Coupled with an increased vulnerability to data poisoning and adversarial attacks, the outputs from shadow AI simply cannot be trusted
AI CODE SECURITY
Buyer's Guide for Generative AI Code Security
Learn how to secure your AI-generated code with Snyk's Buyer's Guide for Generative AI Code Security.
3. Compliance violations and legal exposure
The invisible nature of shadow AI creates a significant headache for legal and compliance teams. It introduces numerous compliance violations and serious legal exposure because proper data handling protocols are simply bypassed. For example, the improper handling of sensitive data can easily lead to breaches of stringent data protection regulations like GDPR, CCPA, and HIPAA.
Additionally, organizations become unable to meet the crucial documentation and transparency requirements demanded by emerging, AI-specific regulations. Without proper oversight, there are no audit trails, making compliance verification virtually impossible. This blind spot also raises concerns about potential intellectual property infringement from AI-generated outputs, especially if the AI was trained on copyrighted material or if its outputs resemble existing works.
4. Security vulnerabilities in the AI Supply Chain
The OWASP Foundation identifies numerous AI-specific security risks that shadow AI amplifies:
Risk | How shadow AI makes it worse | Example scenario |
Prompt Injection | Lack of input validation/sanitization; direct user interaction with raw external models; processing unvetted external content | The employee pastes a crafted prompt containing malicious instructions into a public GenAI tool, causing previous conversation data to leak and containing sensitive internal information. |
Sensitive Information Disclosure | Direct input of sensitive data into unvetted tools; lack of data masking/filtering; models potentially trained on or absorbing sensitive info | A marketing employee prompts a public GenAI tool with "Summarize our Q3 customer churn analysis based on this data: [pastes sensitive customer list and metrics]," risking exposure. |
Supply Chain Vulnerabilities | Use unvetted third-party libraries, pre-trained models from untrusted sources, or unassessed APIs without security review or SBOM tracking | A custom shadow AI application relies on an open source library downloaded from PyPI with an undisclosed backdoor or vulnerability. |
Data and Model Poisoning | Use unvetted open source models; fine-tuning on compromised datasets without integrity checks; RAG systems accessing unverified internal/external knowledge bases | A team downloads a pre-trained model from an untrusted source for a shadow project. The model was subtly poisoned to misclassify certain financial transactions as non-fraudulent. |
Improper Output Handling | There is no output filtering or validation; outputs are directly copied/pasted or fed into other systems without scrutiny. Lack of a zero-trust approach to modeling outputs | A developer uses a shadow AI coding assistant that generates code containing a vulnerability. The developer incorporates this code directly into an application without review, creating a security hole. |
Excessive Agency | Use of agentic AI tools without oversight; lack of human-in-the-loop controls for critical actions; poorly defined or overly broad permissions for shadow AI integrations | A team experiments with an unsanctioned autonomous AI agent for inventory management. Due to a misconfiguration or flawed logic, the agent autonomously places massive, incorrect orders with suppliers. |
System Prompt Leakage | Direct interaction with models where prompts might be extractable via injection; lack of controls separating system instructions from user input/output; sensitive info embedded directly in prompts | An attacker uses prompt injection techniques on a shadow AI tool to trick it into revealing its system prompt, containing confidential filtering criteria or API keys for internal integrations. |
Vector and Embedding Weaknesses | Use of unvetted RAG systems connecting to internal data; insecure storage of embeddings for shadow projects; lack of access controls on shadow vector databases; failure to validate retrieved data | A shadow RAG system connects a public LLM to an unsecured internal document repository. An attacker exploits embedding weaknesses to extract sensitive information via embedding inversion or manipulates retrieval via poisoned data. |
Misinformation | Overreliance on unvetted shadow AI tools without critical assessment or fact-checking; lack of awareness/training on AI limitations and hallucination risks; absence of human oversight | A junior analyst uses a shadow AI tool to generate a complex financial report and submits it without thorough verification, unaware that the AI hallucinated key figures, leading to poor strategic decisions. |
Unbounded Consumption | Unmonitored usage of shadow AI tools/APIs; lack of rate limiting, input validation, or resource controls on shadow deployments or external tool usage; use of personal/unmanaged accounts for resource-intensive tasks | An employee experimenting with a shadow AI model inadvertently (or maliciously) provides inputs that trigger complex computations, consuming excessive cloud resources on a personal account later expensed to the company, or crashing a shared resource. |
5. Governance and visibility gaps
Perhaps most concerning is the fundamental lack of insight that shadow AI creates. When it comes to shadow AI, you simply don't know what you don't know. This translates into critical governance and visibility gaps that leave your organization exposed. There's no clear picture of which AI models are being used, where they are, by whom, or for what purposes.
This lack of oversight means there's an absence of monitoring for performance issues, biases, or security anomalies. Crucial logs of interactions, outputs, and access events are often missing, making it impossible to audit usage or investigate incidents effectively.
Ultimately, your security teams are left unable to conduct necessary security assessments on these unknown systems, creating a massive, unmanaged attack surface. Considering the global average cost of a data breach in 2024 is estimated at $4.88 million, shadow AI significantly increases breach risk while making detection and response far more difficult, potentially amplifying these costs dramatically.
ROI PERSPECTIVE:
The global average cost of a data breach in 2024 is $4.88 million. Shadow AI significantly increases breach risk while making detection and response more difficult, potentially amplifying these costs.
Understanding these pervasive threats is the first step toward effective mitigation. By proactively identifying, managing, and governing AI usage across your organization, you can transform the hidden dangers of shadow AI into a controllable asset, protecting your business from unforeseen risks.
Want to unmask Shadow AI's hidden enterprise risks, from data leaks and compliance woes to security gaps? Learn more about Shadow AI and how to implement effective governance strategies.
Own AI security with Snyk
Explore how Snyk’s helps secure your development teams’ AI-generated code while giving security teams complete visibility and controls.