All Resources
In this article:
minus iconplus icon
Share the Article

Sensitive Data Classification Challenges Security Teams Face

March 27, 2024
4
 Min Read
Data Security

Ensuring the security of your data involves more than just pinpointing its location. It's a multifaceted process in which knowing where your data resides is just the initial step. Beyond that, accurate classification plays a pivotal role. Picture it like assembling a puzzle – having all the pieces and knowing their locations is essential, but the real mastery comes from classifying them (knowing which belong to the edge, which make up the sky in the picture, and so on…), seamlessly creating the complete picture for your proper data security and privacy programs.

 

Just last year, the global average cost of a data breach surged to USD 4.45 million, a 15% increase over the previous three years. This highlights the critical need to automatically discover and accurately classify personal and unique identifiers, which can transform into sensitive information when combined with other data points.

This unique capability is what sets Sentra’s approach apart— enabling the detection and proper classification of data that many solutions overlook or mis-classify.

What Is Data Classification and Why Is It Important?

Data classification is the process of organizing and labeling data based on its sensitivity and importance. This involves assigning categories like "confidential," "internal," or "public" to different types of data. It’s further helpful to understand the ‘context’ of data - it’s purpose - such as legal agreements, health information, financial record, source code/IP, etc. With data context you can more precisely understand the data’s sensitivity and accurately classify it (to apply proper policies and related violation alerting, eliminating false positives as well). 

Here's why data classification is crucial in the cloud:

  • Enhanced Security: By understanding the sensitivity of your data, you can implement appropriate security measures. Highly confidential data might require encryption or stricter access controls compared to publicly accessible information.
  • Improved Compliance: Many data privacy regulations require organizations to classify personally identifying data to ensure its proper handling and protection. Classification helps you comply with regulations like GDPR or HIPAA.
  • Reduced Risk of Breaches: Data breaches often stem from targeted attacks on specific types of information. Classification helps identify your most valuable data assets, so you can apply proper controls and minimize the impact of a potential breach.
  • Efficient Management: Knowing what data you have and where it resides allows for better organization and management within the cloud environment. This can streamline processes and optimize storage costs.


Data classification acts as a foundation for effective data security. It helps prioritize your security efforts, ensures compliance, and ultimately protects your valuable data. Securing your data and mitigating privacy risks begins with a data classification solution that prioritizes privacy and security. Addressing various challenges necessitates a deeper understanding of the data, as many issues require additional context.

The end goal is automating processes and making findings actionable - which requires granular, detailed context regarding the data’s usage and purpose, to create confidence in the classification result.

In this article, we will define toxic combinations and explore specific capabilities required from a data classification solution to tackle related data security, compliance, and privacy challenges effectively.

Data Classification Challenges

Challenge 1: Unstructured Data Classification

Unstructured data is information that lacks a predefined format or organization, making it challenging to analyze and extract insights, yet it holds significant value for organizations seeking to leverage diverse data sources for informed decision-making. Examples of unstructured data include customer support chat logs, educational videos, and product photos. Detecting data classes within unstructured data with high accuracy poses a significant challenge, particularly when relying solely on simplistic methods like regular expressions and pattern matching. Unstructured data, by its very nature, lacks a predefined and organized format, making it challenging for conventional classification approaches. Legacy solutions often grapple with the difficulty of accurately discerning data classes, leading to an abundance of false positives and noise.

This highlights the need for more advanced and nuanced techniques in unstructured data classification to enhance accuracy and reduce its inherent complexities. Addressing this challenge requires leveraging sophisticated algorithms and machine learning models capable of understanding the intricate patterns and relationships within unstructured data, thereby improving the precision of data class detection.

In the search for accurate data classification within unstructured data, incorporating technologies that harness machine learning and artificial intelligence is critical. These advanced technologies possess the capability to comprehend the intricacies of context and natural language, thereby significantly enhancing the accuracy of sensitive information identification and classification.

For example, detecting a residential address is challenging because it can appear in multiple shapes and forms, and even a phone number or a GPS coordinate can be easily confused with other numbers without fully understanding the context. However, LLMs can use text-based classification techniques (NLP, keyword matching, etc.) to accurately classify this type of unstructured data. Furthermore, understanding the context surrounding each data asset, whether it be a table or a file, becomes paramount. Whether it pertains to a legal agreement, employee contract, e-commerce transaction, intellectual property, or tax documents, discerning the context aids in determining the nature of the data and guides the implementation of appropriate security measures. This approach not only refines the accuracy of data class detection but also ensures that the sensitivity of the unstructured data is appropriately acknowledged and safeguarded in line with its contextual significance.

Optimal solutions employ machine learning and AI technology that really understand the context and natural language in order to classify and identify sensitive information accurately. Advancements in technologies have expanded beyond text-based classification to image-based classification and audio/speech-based classification, enabling companies and individuals to efficiently and accurately classify sensitive data at scale.

Challenge 2: Customer Data vs Employee Data

Employee data and customer data are the most common data categories stored by companies in the cloud. Identifying customer and employee data is extremely important. For instance, customer data that also contains Personal Identifiable Information (PII) must be stored in compliant production environments and must not travel to lower environments such as data analytics or development.

  1. What is customer data

Customer data is all the data that we store and collect from our customers and users.

  • B2C - Customer data in B2C companies, includes a lot of PII about their end users, all the information they transact with our service.
  • B2B - Customer data in B2B companies includes all the information of the organization itself, such as financial information, technological information, etc., depending on the organization.

This could be very sensitive information about each organization that must remain confidential or otherwise can lead to data breaches, intellectual property theft, reputation damage, etc.

  1. What is employee data?

Employee data includes all the information and knowledge that the employees themselves produce and consume. This could include many types of different information, depending on what team it comes from. 

For instance:
-Tech and intellectual property, source code from the engineering team.

-HR information, from the HR team.
-Legal information from the legal team, source code, and many more.

It is crucial to properly classify employee and customer data, and which data falls under which category, as they must be secured differently. A good data classification solution needs to understand and differentiate the different types of data. Access to customer data should be restricted, while access to employee data depends on the organizational structure of the user’s department. This is important to enforce in every organization.

Challenge 3: Understanding Toxic Combinations

What Is a Toxic Combination?

A toxic combination occurs when seemingly innocuous data classes are combined to increase the sensitivity of the information. On their own, these pieces of information are harmless, but when put together, they become “toxic”. 

The focus here extends beyond individual data pieces; it's about understanding the heightened sensitivity that emerges when these pieces come together. In essence, securing your data is not just about individual elements but understanding how these combinations create new vulnerabilities.

We can divide data findings into three main categories:

  1. Personal Identifiers: Piece of information that can identify a single person - for example, an email address or social security number (SSN), belongs only to one person.
  2. Personal Quasi Identifiers: A quasi identifier is a piece of information that by itself is not enough to identify just one person. For example, a zip code, address, an age, etc. Let’s say Bob - there are many Bobs in the world, but if we also have Bob’s address - there is most likely just one Bob living in this address.
  3. Sensitive Information: Each piece of information that should remain sensitive/private. Such as medical diseases, history, prescriptions, lab results, etc. automotive industry - GPS location. Sensitive data on its own is not sensitive, but the combination of identifiers with sensitive information is very sensitive.
Example of types of data identified

Finding personal identifiers by themselves, such as an email address, does not necessarily mean that the data is highly sensitive. Same with sensitive data such as medical info or financial transactions, that may not be sensitive if they can not be associated with individuals or other identifiable entities.

However, the combination of these different information types, such as personal identifiers and sensitive data together, does mean that the data requires multiple data security and protection controls and therefore it’s crucial that the classification solution will understand that.

Detecting ‘Toxic Data Combinations’ With a Composite Class Identifier

Sentra has introduced a new ‘Composite’ data class identifier to allow customers to easily build bespoke ‘toxic combinations’ classifiers they wish for Sentra to deploy to identify within their data sets.

Data Class Method

Importance of Finding Toxic Combinations

This capability is critical because having sensitive information about individuals can harm the business reputation, or cause them fines, privacy violations, and more. Under certain data privacy and protection requirements, this is even more crucial to discover and be aware of. For example, HIPAA requires protection of patient healthcare data. So, if an individual’s email is combined with his address, and his medical history (which is now associated with his email and address), this combination of information becomes sensitive data.

Challenge 4: Detecting Uncommon Personal Identifiers for Privacy Regulations

There are many different compliance regulations, such as Privacy and Data Protection Acts, which require organizations to secure and protect all personally identifiable information. With sensitive cloud data constantly in flux, there are many unknown data risks arising. This is due to a lack of visibility and an inaccurate data classification solution.Classification solutions must be able to detect uncommon or proprietary personal identifiers. For example, a product serial number that belongs to a specific individual, U.S. Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) might belong to a specific car owner, or GPS location that indicates an individual home address can be used to identify this person in other data sets.

These examples highlight the diverse nature of identifiable information. This diversity requires classification solutions to be versatile and capable of recognizing a wide range of personal identifiers beyond the typical ones.

Organizations are urged to implement classification solutions that both comply with general privacy and data protection regulations and also possess the sophistication to identify and protect against a broad spectrum of personal identifiers, including those that are unconventional or proprietary in nature. This ensures a comprehensive approach to safeguarding sensitive information in accordance with legal and privacy requirements.

Challenge 5Adhering to Data Localization Requirements

Data Localization refers to the practice of storing and processing data within a specific geographic region or jurisdiction. It involves restricting the movement and access to data based on geographic boundaries, and can be motivated by a variety of factors, such as regulatory requirements, data privacy concerns, and national security considerations.

In adherence to the Data Localization requirements, it becomes imperative for classification solutions to understand the specific jurisdictions associated with each of the data subjects that are found in Personal Identifiable Information (PII) they belong to.For example, if we find a document with PII, we need to know if this PII belongs to Indian residents, California residents or German citizens, to name a few. This will then dictate, for example, in which geography this data must be stored and allow the solution to indicate any violations of data privacy and data protection frameworks, such as GDPR, CCPA or DPDPA.

Below is an example of Sentra’s Monthly Data Security Report: GDPR

Data Security Report: GDPR
GDPR report: PII stored by geography

Why Data Localization Is Critical

  1. Adhering to local laws and regulations: Ensure data storage and processing within specific jurisdictions is a crucial aspect for organizations. For instance, certain countries mandate the storage and processing of specific data types, such as personal or financial data, within their borders, compelling organizations to meet these requirements and avoid potential fines or penalties.
  1. Protecting data privacy and security: By storing and processing data within a specific jurisdiction, organizations can have more control over who has access to the data, and can take steps to protect it from unauthorized access or breaches. This approach allows organizations to exert greater control over data access, enabling them to implement measures that safeguard it from unauthorized access or potential breaches.
  2. Supporting national security and sovereignty: Some countries may want to store and process data within their borders. This decision is driven by the desire to have more control over their own data and protect their citizens' information from foreign governments or entities, emphasizing the role of data localization in supporting these strategic objectives.

Conclusion: Sentra’s Data Classification Solution

Sentra provides the granular classification capabilities to discern and accurately classify the formerly difficult to classify data types just mentioned. Through a variety of analysis methods, we address those data types and obscure combinations that are crucial to effective data security.  These combinations too often lead to false positives and disappointment in traditional classification systems.

In review, Sentra’s data classification solution accurately:

  • Classifies Unstructured data by applying advanced AI/ML analysis techniques
  • Discerns Employee from Customer data by analyzing rich business context
  • Identifies Toxic Combinations of sensitive data via advanced data correlation techniques
  • Detects Uncommon Personal Identifiers to comply with stringent privacy regulations
  • Understands PII Jurisdiction to properly map to applicable sovereignty requirements

To learn more, visit Sentra’s data classification use case page or schedule a demo with one of our experts.

<blogcta-big>

Yair brings a wealth of experience in cybersecurity and data product management. In his previous role, Yair led product management at Microsoft and Datadog. With a background as a member of the IDF's Unit 8200 for five years, he possesses over 18 years of expertise in enterprise software, security, data, and cloud computing. Yair has held senior product management positions at Datadog, Digital Asset, and Microsoft Azure Protection.

Romi is the digital marketing manager at Sentra, bringing years of experience in various marketing roles in the cybersecurity field.

Subscribe

Latest Blog Posts

Shiri Nossel
Shiri Nossel
February 5, 2026
5
Min Read
AI and ML

EU AI Act Compliance: What Enterprise AI 'Deployers' Need to Know

EU AI Act Compliance: What Enterprise AI 'Deployers' Need to Know

The EU AI Act isn't just for model builders. If your organization uses third-party AI tools like Microsoft Copilot, ChatGPT, and Claude, you're likely subject to EU AI Act compliance requirements as a "deployer" of AI systems. While many security leaders assume this regulation only applies to companies developing AI systems, the reality is far more expansive.

The stakes are significant. The EU AI Act officially entered into force on August 1, 2024. However, it’s important to note that for Deployers of high-risk AI systems, most obligations will not be fully enforceable until August 2, 2026. Once active, the Act employs a tiered penalty structure: non-compliance with prohibited AI practices can reach up to €35 million or 7% of global revenue, while violations of high-risk obligations (the most likely risk for deployers) can reach up to €15 million or 3% of global revenue., emphasizing the need for early preparation.

For security leaders, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. AI adoption can drive significant competitive advantage, but doing so responsibly requires robust risk management and strong data protection practices. In other words, compliance and safety are not just regulatory hurdles, they’re enablers of trustworthy and effective AI deployment.

Why the Risk-Based Approach Changes Everything for Enterprise AI

The EU AI Act establishes a four-tier risk classification system that fundamentally changes how organizations must think about AI governance. Unlike traditional compliance frameworks that apply blanket requirements, the AI Act's obligations scale based on risk level.

The critical insight for security leaders: classification depends on use case, not the technology itself. A general-purpose AI tool like ChatGPT or Microsoft Copilot starts as "minimal risk" but becomes "high-risk" based on how your organization deploys it. This means the same AI platform can have different compliance obligations across different business units within the same company.

Deployer vs. Developer: Most Enterprises Are "Deployers"

The EU AI Act establishes distinct responsibilities for two main groups: AI system providers (those who develop and place AI systems on the market) and deployers (those who use AI systems within their operations).

Most enterprises today, especially those using third-party tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, or other AI services are deployers. This means they face compliance obligations related to how they use AI, not necessarily how it was built.

Providers bear primary responsibility for:

  • Risk management systems
  • Data governance and documentation
  • Technical transparency and conformity assessments
  • Automated logging capabilities

For security and compliance leaders, this distinction is critical. Vendor due diligence becomes a key control point, ensuring that AI providers can demonstrate compliance before deployment.

However, being a deployer does not eliminate obligations. Deployers must meet several important requirements under the Act, particularly when using high-risk AI systems, as outlined below.

The Hidden High-Risk Scenarios

Security teams must map AI usage across the organization to identify high-risk deployment scenarios that many organizations overlook:

When AI Use Becomes “High-Risk”

Under the EU AI Act, risk classification is based on how AI is used, not which product or vendor provides it. The same tool, whether ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, or any other AI system—can fall into a high-risk category depending entirely on its purpose and context of deployment.

Examples of High-Risk Use Cases:

AI systems are considered high-risk when they are used for purposes such as:

  • Biometric identification or categorization of individuals
  • Operation of critical infrastructure (e.g., energy, water, transportation)
  • Education and vocational training (e.g., grading, admission decisions)
  • Employment and worker management, including access to self-employment
    Access to essential private or public services, including credit scoring and insurance pricing
  • Law enforcement and public safety
    Migration, asylum, and border control
  • Administration of justice or democratic processes

Illustrative Examples

  • Using ChatGPT to draft marketing emails → Not high-risk
  • Using ChatGPT to rank job candidates → High-risk (employment context)
    Using Copilot to summarize code reviews → Not high-risk
    Using Copilot to approve credit applications → High-risk (credit scoring)

In other words, the legal trigger is the use case, not the data type or the brand of tool. Processing sensitive data like PHI (Protected Health Information) may increase compliance obligations under other frameworks (like GDPR or HIPAA), but it doesn’t itself define an AI system as high-risk under the EU AI Act, the function and impact of the system do.

Even seemingly innocuous uses like analyzing customer data for business insights can become high-risk if they influence individual treatment or access to services.

The "shadow high-risk" problem represents a significant blind spot for many organizations. Employees often deploy AI tools for legitimate business purposes without understanding the compliance implications. A marketing team using AI to analyze customer demographics for targeting campaigns may unknowingly create high-risk AI deployments if the analysis influences individual treatment or access to services.

The “Shadow High-Risk” Problem

Many organizations face a growing blind spot: shadow high-risk AI usage. Employees often deploy AI tools for legitimate business tasks without realizing the compliance implications.

For example, an HR team using a custom-prompted ChatGPT to filter or rank job applicants inadvertently creates a high-risk deployment under Annex III of the Act. While simple marketing copy generation remains "limited risk," any AI use that evaluates employees or influences recruitment triggers the full weight of high-risk compliance. Without visibility, such cases can expose organizations to significant fines.

The Eight Critical Deployer Obligations for High-Risk AI Systems

1. AI System Inventory & Classification

Organizations must maintain comprehensive inventories of AI systems documenting vendors, use cases, risk classifications, data flows, system integrations, and current governance maturity. Security teams must implement automated discovery tools to identify shadow AI usage and ensure complete visibility.

2. Data Governance for AI

For high-risk AI systems, deployers who control the input data must ensure that the data is relevant and sufficiently representative for the system’s intended purpose.

This responsibility includes maintaining data quality standards, tracking data lineage, and verifying the statistical properties of datasets used in training and operation, but only where the deployer has control over the input data.

3. Continuous Monitoring

System monitoring represents a critical security function requiring continuous oversight of AI system operation and performance against intended purposes. Organizations must implement real-time monitoring capabilities, automated alert systems for anomalies, and comprehensive performance tracking.

4. Logging & Retention

Organizations must maintain automatically generated logs for minimum six-month periods, with financial institutions facing longer retention requirements. Logs must capture start and end dates/times for each system use, input data and reference database information, and identification of personnel involved in result verification.

5. Workplace Notification

Workplace notification requirements mandate informing employees and representatives before deploying AI systems that monitor or evaluate work performance. This creates change management obligations for security teams implementing AI-powered monitoring tools.

6. Incident Reporting

Serious incident reporting requires immediate notification to both providers and authorities when AI systems directly or indirectly lead to death, serious harm to a person's health, serious and irreversible disruption of critical infrastructure, infringement of fundamental rights obligations, or serious harm to property or the environment. Security teams must establish AI-specific incident response procedures.

7. Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIAs)

Organizations using high-risk AI systems must conduct FRIAs before deployment. FRIAs are mandatory for public bodies, organizations providing public services, and specific use cases like credit scoring or insurance risk assessment. Security teams must integrate FRIA processes with existing privacy impact assessments.

8. Vendor Due Diligence

Organizations must verify AI provider compliance status throughout the supply chain, assess vendor security controls adequacy, negotiate appropriate service level agreements for AI incidents, and establish ongoing monitoring procedures for vendor compliance changes.

Recommended Steps for Security Leaders

Once you’ve identified which AI systems may qualify as high-risk under the EU AI Act, the next step is to establish a practical roadmap for compliance and governance readiness.

While the Act does not prescribe an implementation timeline, organizations should take immediate, proactive measures to prepare for enforcement. The following are Sentra’s recommended best practices for AI governance and security readiness, not legal deadlines.

1. Build an AI System Inventory: Map all AI systems in use, including third-party tools and internal models. Automated discovery can help uncover shadow AI use across departments.

2. Assess Vendor and Partner Compliance: Evaluate each vendor’s EU AI Act readiness, including whether they follow relevant Codes of Practice or maintain clear accountability documentation.

3. Identify High-Risk Use Cases: Map current AI deployments against EU AI Act risk categories to flag high-risk systems for closer governance and oversight.

4. Strengthen AI Data Governance: Implement standards for data quality, lineage, and representativeness (where the deployer controls input data). Align with existing data protection frameworks such as GDPR and ISO 42001.

5. Conduct Fundamental Rights Impact Assessments (FRIA): Integrate FRIAs into your broader risk management and privacy programs to proactively address potential human rights implications.

6. Enhance Monitoring and Incident Response: Deploy continuous monitoring solutions and integrate AI-specific incidents into your SOC playbooks.

7. Update Vendor Contracts and Accountability Structures: Include liability allocation, compliance warranties, and audit rights in contracts with AI vendors to ensure shared accountability.

*Author’s Note:
These steps represent Sentra’s interpretation and recommended framework for AI readiness, not legal requirements under the EU AI Act. Organizations should act as soon as possible, regardless of when they begin their compliance journey.

Critical Deadlines Security Leaders Can't Miss

August 2, 2025: GPAI transparency requirements are already in effect, requiring clear disclosure of AI-generated content, copyright compliance mechanisms, and training data summaries.

August 2, 2026: Full high-risk AI system compliance becomes mandatory, including registration in EU databases, implementation of comprehensive risk management systems, and complete documentation of all compliance measures.

Ongoing enforcement: Prohibited practices enforcement is active immediately with €35 million maximum penalties or 7% of global revenue.

From Compliance Burden to Competitive Advantage

The EU AI Act represents more than a regulatory requirement, it's an opportunity to establish comprehensive AI governance that enables secure, responsible AI adoption at enterprise scale. Security leaders who act proactively will gain competitive advantages through enhanced data protection, improved risk management, and the foundation for trustworthy AI innovation.

Organizations that view EU AI Act compliance as merely a checklist exercise miss the strategic opportunity to build world-class AI governance capabilities. The investment in comprehensive data discovery, automated classification, and continuous monitoring creates lasting organizational value that extends far beyond regulatory requirements. Understanding data security posture management (DSPM) reveals how these capabilities enable faster AI adoption, reduced risk exposure, and enhanced competitive positioning in an AI-driven market.

Organizations that delay implementation face increasing compliance costs, regulatory risks, and competitive disadvantages as AI adoption accelerates across industries. The path forward requires immediate action on AI discovery and classification, strategic technology platform selection, and integration with existing security and compliance programs. Building a data security platform for the AI era demonstrates how leading organizations are establishing the technical foundation for both compliance and innovation.

Ready to transform your AI governance strategy? Understanding your obligations as a deployer is just the beginning, the real opportunity lies in building the data security foundation that enables both compliance and innovation.

Schedule a demonstration to discover how comprehensive data visibility and automated compliance monitoring can turn regulatory requirements into competitive advantages.

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Lior Rapoport
Lior Rapoport
February 4, 2026
4
Min Read

Managing Over-Permissioned Access in Cybersecurity

Managing Over-Permissioned Access in Cybersecurity

In today’s cloud-first, AI-driven world, one of the most persistent and underestimated risks is over-permissioned access. As organizations scale across multiple clouds, SaaS applications, and distributed teams, keeping tight control over who can access which data has become a foundational security challenge.

Over-permissioned access happens when users, applications, or services are allowed to do more than they actually need to perform their jobs. What can look like a small administrative shortcut quickly turns into a major exposure: it expands the attack surface, amplifies the blast radius of any compromised identity, and makes it harder for security teams to maintain compliance and visibility.

What Is Over-Permissioned Access?

Over-permissioned access means granting users, groups, or system components more privileges than they need to perform their tasks. This violates the core security principle of least privilege and creates an environment where a single compromised credential can unlock far more data and systems than intended.

The problem is rarely malicious at the outset. It often stems from:

  • Roles that are defined too broadly
  • Temporary access that is never revoked
  • Fast-moving projects where “just make it work” wins over “configure it correctly”
  • New AI tools that inherit existing over-permissioned access patterns

In this reality, one stolen password, API key, or token can potentially give an attacker a direct path to sensitive data stores, business-critical systems, and regulated information.

Excessive Permissions vs. Excessive Privileges

While often used interchangeably, there is an important distinction. Excessive permissions refer to access rights that exceed what is required for a specific task or role, while excessive privileges describe how those permissions accumulate over time through privilege creep, role changes, or outdated access that is never revoked. Together, they create a widening gap between actual business needs and effective access controls.

Why Are Excessive Permissions So Dangerous?

Excessive permissions are not just a theoretical concern; they have a measurable impact on risk and resilience:

  • Bigger breach impact - Once inside, attackers can move laterally across systems and exfiltrate data from multiple sources using a single over-permissioned identity.

  • Longer detection and recovery - Broad and unnecessary permissions make it harder to understand the true scope of an incident and to respond quickly.

  • Privilege creep over time - Temporary or project-based access becomes permanent, accumulating into a level of access that no longer reflects the user’s actual role.

  • Compliance and audit gaps - When there is no clear link between role, permissions, and data sensitivity, proving least privilege and regulatory alignment becomes difficult.

  • AI-driven data exposure - Employees and services with broad access can unintentionally feed confidential or regulated data into AI tools, creating new and hard-to-detect data leakage paths.

Not all damage stems from attackers - in AI-driven environments, accidental misuse can be just as costly.

Designing for Least Privilege, Not Convenience

The antidote to over-permissioned access is the principle of least privilege: every user, process, and application should receive only the precise permissions needed to perform their specific tasks - nothing more, nothing less.

Implementing least privilege effectively combines several practices:

  • Tight access controls - Use access policies that clearly define who can access what and under which conditions, following least privilege by design.

  • Role-based access control (RBAC) - Assign permissions to roles, not individuals, and ensure roles reflect actual job functions.

  • Continuous reviews, not one-time setup - Access needs evolve. Regular, automated reviews help identify unused permissions and misaligned roles before they turn into incidents.

  • Guardrails for AI access – As AI systems consume more enterprise data, permissions must be evaluated not just for humans, but also for services and automated processes accessing sensitive information.

Least privilege is not a one-off project; it is an ongoing discipline that must evolve alongside the business.

Containing Risk with Network Segmentation

Even with strong access controls, mistakes and misconfigurations will happen. Network segmentation provides an important second line of defense.

By dividing networks into isolated segments with tightly controlled access and monitoring, organizations can:

  • Limit lateral movement when a user or service is over-permissioned
  • Contain the blast radius of a breach to a specific environment or data zone
  • Enforce stricter controls around higher-sensitivity data

Segmentation helps ensure that a localized incident does not automatically become a company-wide crisis.

Securing Data Access with Sentra

As organizations move into 2026, over-permissioned access is intersecting with a new reality: sensitive data is increasingly accessed by both humans and AI-enabled systems. Traditional access management tools alone struggle to answer three fundamental questions at scale:

  • Where does our sensitive data actually live?
  • How is it moving across environments and services?
  • Who - human or machine - can access it right now?

Sentra addresses these challenges with a cloud-native data security platform that takes a data-centric approach to access governance, built for petabyte-scale environments and modern AI adoption.

By discovering and governing sensitive data inside your own environment, Sentra provides deep visibility into where sensitive data lives, how it moves, and which identities can access it.

Through continuous mapping of relationships between identities, permissions, data stores, and sensitive data, Sentra helps security teams identify over-permissioned access and remediate policy drift before it can be exploited.

By enforcing data-driven guardrails and eliminating shadow data and redundant, obsolete, or trivial (ROT) data, organizations can reduce their overall risk exposure and typically lower cloud storage costs by around 20%.

Treat Access Management as a Continuous Practice

Managing over-permissioned access is one of the most critical challenges in modern cybersecurity. As cloud adoption, remote work, and AI integration accelerate, organizations that treat access management as a static, one-time project take on unnecessary risk.

A modern approach combines:

  • Least privilege by default
  • Regular, automated access reviews
  • Network segmentation for containment
  • Data-centric platforms that provide visibility and control at scale

By operationalizing these principles and grounding access decisions in data, organizations can significantly reduce their attack surface and better protect the information that matters most.

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Nikki Ralston
Nikki Ralston
January 27, 2026
4
Min Read

AI Didn’t Create Your Data Risk - It Exposed It

AI Didn’t Create Your Data Risk - It Exposed It

A Practical Maturity Model for AI-Ready Data Security

AI is rapidly reshaping how enterprises create value, but it is also magnifying data risk. Sensitive and regulated data now lives across public clouds, SaaS platforms, collaboration tools, on-prem systems, data lakes, and increasingly, AI copilots and agents.

At the same time, regulatory expectations are rising. Frameworks like GDPR, PCI DSS, HIPAA, SOC 2, ISO 27001, and emerging AI regulations now demand continuous visibility, control, and accountability over where data resides, how it moves, and who - or what - can access it.

Today most organizations cannot confidently answer three foundational questions:

  • Where is our sensitive and regulated data?
  • How does it move across environments, regions, and AI systems?
  • Who (human or AI) can access it, and what are they allowed to do?

This guide presents a three-step maturity model for achieving AI-ready data security using DSPM:

3 Steps to Data Security Maturity
  1. Ensure AI-Ready Compliance through in-environment visibility and data movement analysis
  2. Extend Governance to enforce least privilege, govern AI behavior, and reduce shadow data
  3. Automate Remediation with policy-driven controls and integrations

This phased approach enables organizations to reduce risk, support safe AI adoption, and improve operational efficiency, without increasing headcount.

The Convergence of Data, AI, and Regulation 

Enterprise data estates have reached unprecedented scale. Organizations routinely manage hundreds of terabytes to petabytes of data across cloud infrastructure, SaaS platforms, analytics systems, and collaboration tools. Each new AI initiative introduces additional data access paths, handlers, and risk surfaces.

At the same time, regulators are raising the bar. Compliance now requires more than static inventories or annual audits. Organizations must demonstrate ongoing control over data residency, access, purpose, and increasingly, AI usage.

Traditional approaches struggle in this environment:

  • Infrastructure-centric tools focus on networks and configurations, not data
  • Manual classification and static inventories can’t keep pace with dynamic, AI-driven usage
  • Siloed tools for privacy, security, and governance create inconsistent views of risk

The result is predictable: over-permissioned access, unmanaged shadow data, AI systems interacting with sensitive information without oversight, and audits that are painful to execute and hard to defend.

Step 1: Ensure AI-Ready Compliance 

AI-ready maturity starts with accurate, continuous visibility into sensitive data and how it moves, delivered in a way regulators and internal stakeholders trust.

Outcomes

  • A unified view of sensitive and regulated data across cloud, SaaS, on-prem, and AI systems
  • High-fidelity classification and labeling, context-enhanced and aligned to regulatory and AI usage requirements
  • Continuous insight into how data moves across regions, environments, and AI pipelines

Best Practices

Scan In-Environment
Sensitive data should remain in the organization’s environment. In-environment scanning is easier to defend to privacy teams and regulators while still enabling rich analytics leveraging metadata.

Unify Discovery Across Data Planes
DSPM must cover IaaS, PaaS, data warehouses, collaboration tools, SaaS apps, and emerging AI systems in a single discovery plane.

Prioritize Classification Accuracy
High precision (>95%) is essential. Inaccurate classification undermines automation, AI guardrails, and audit confidence.

Model Data Perimeters and Movement
Go beyond static inventories. Continuously detect when sensitive data crosses boundaries such as regions, environments, or into AI training and inference stores.

What Success Looks Like

Organizations can confidently identify:

  • Where sensitive data exists
  • Which flows violate policy or regulation
  • Which datasets are safe candidates for AI use

Step 2: Extend Governance for People and AI 

With visibility in place, organizations must move from knowing to controlling, governing both human and AI access while shrinking the overall data footprint.

Outcomes

  • Assign ownership to data
  • Least-privilege access at the data level
  • Explicit, enforceable AI data usage policies
  • Reduced attack surface through shadow and ROT data elimination

Governance Focus Areas

Data-Level Least Privilege
Map users, service accounts, and AI agents to the specific data they access. Use real usage patterns, not just roles, to reduce over-permissioning.

AI-Data Governance
Treat AI systems as high-privilege actors:

  • Inventory AI copilots, agents, and knowledge bases
  • Use data labels to control what AI can summarize, expose, or export
  • Restrict AI access by environment and region

Shadow and ROT Data Reduction
Identify redundant, obsolete, and trivial data using similarity and lineage insights. Align cleanup with retention policies and owners, and track both risk and cost reduction.

What Success Looks Like

  • Sensitive data is accessible only to approved identities and AI systems
  • AI behavior is governed by enforceable data policies
  • The data estate is measurably smaller and better controlled

Step 3: Automate Remediation at Scale 

Manual remediation cannot keep up with petabyte-scale environments and continuous AI usage. Mature programs translate policy into automated, auditable action.

Outcomes

  • Automated labeling, access control, and masking
  • AI guardrails enforced at runtime
  • Closed-loop workflows across the security stack

Automation Patterns

Actionable Labeling
Use high-confidence classification to automatically apply and correct sensitivity labels that drive DLP, encryption, retention, and AI usage controls.

Policy-Driven Enforcement

Examples include:

  • Auto-restricting access when regulated data appears in an unapproved region
  • Blocking AI summarization of highly sensitive or regulated data classes
  • Opening tickets and notifying owners automatically

Workflow Integration
Integrate with IAM/CIEM, DLP, ITSM, SIEM/SOAR, and data platforms to ensure findings lead to action, not dashboards.

Benefits

  • Faster remediation and lower MTTR
  • Reduced storage and infrastructure costs (often ~20%)
  • Security teams focus on strategy, not repetitive cleanup

How Sentra and DSPM Can Help

Sentra’s Data Security Platform provides a comprehensive data-centric solution to allow you to achieve best-practice, mature data security. It does so in innovative and unique ways.

Getting Started: A Practical Roadmap 

Organizations don’t need a full re-architecture to begin. Successful programs follow a phased approach:

  1. Establish an AI-Ready Baseline
    Connect key environments and identify immediate violations and AI exposure risks.
  2. Pilot Governance in a High-Value Area
    Apply least privilege and AI controls to a focused dataset or AI use case.
  3. Introduce Automation Gradually
    Start with labeling and alerts, then progress to access revocation and AI blocking as confidence grows.
  4. Measure and Communicate Impact
    Track labeling coverage, violations remediated, storage reduction, and AI risks prevented.

In the AI era, data security maturity means more than deploying a DSPM tool. It means:

  • Seeing sensitive data and how it moves across environments and AI pipelines
  • Governing how both humans and AI interact with that data
  • Automating remediation so security teams can keep pace with growth

By following the three-step maturity model - Ensure AI-Ready Compliance, Extend Governance, Automate Remediation - CISOs can reduce risk, enable AI safely, and create measurable economic value.

Are you responsible for securing Enterprise AI? Schedule a demo

<blogcta-big>

Read More
Expert Data Security Insights Straight to Your Inbox
What Should I Do Now:
1

Get the latest GigaOm DSPM Radar report - see why Sentra was named a Leader and Fast Mover in data security. Download now and stay ahead on securing sensitive data.

2

Sign up for a demo and learn how Sentra’s data security platform can uncover hidden risks, simplify compliance, and safeguard your sensitive data.

3

Follow us on LinkedIn, X (Twitter), and YouTube for actionable expert insights on how to strengthen your data security, build a successful DSPM program, and more!