The Persistence Problem: Why Agentic AI Demands a New Security Paradigm
- Ramkumar Sundarakalatharan
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
The Industry Is Solving the Wrong AI Threats
The industry is focused on blocking the wrong failures.
While most AI security efforts concentrate on filtering toxic outputs and preventing obvious misuse, a far more dangerous class of risk is quietly emerging: instruction persistence.
During a recent enterprise AI safety evaluation, we observed how a single, seemingly legitimate interaction could introduce instructions that persisted across time, shaping behaviour well beyond the original request. No exploit. No malware. No obvious policy violation.
Just a helpful system following instructions too well.
This is not a prompt injection problem.
It is a failure of authority, continuity, and trust.
Prefer a 2 Minute Video instead of reading?
This Was Not a Typical AI Security Review
Zerberus Technologies was engaged to evaluate the cybersecurity safety posture of a frontier enterprise LLM, embedded into real operational workflows.
The scope was deliberate:
No jailbreak theatrics
No content moderation benchmarks
No hypothetical red-team theatre
Instead, we assessed Autonomous Agent Integrity, focusing on how the system reasoned, validated authority, and maintained trust boundaries over time.
What we discovered reshaped how we think about Semantic Security in production AI systems.
The Stateless Fallacy in Enterprise AI Security
Most AI security tooling is built on a flawed assumption:that risk can be evaluated one turn at a time.
This is what we call the Stateless Fallacy.
Enterprise AI systems are not single-turn chatbots. They are stateful, agentic systems operating across sessions, tools, and time. Risk no longer lives in a single prompt, it lives between turns, where context compounds and authority silently accumulates.
This is where Stateful Vulnerabilities emerge.
The Discovery: When One Interaction Becomes a Control Channel
During evaluation, we identified a pattern where:
externally sourced instructions entered through a legitimate interaction,
those instructions were treated as trusted intent,
and were reinforced across subsequent turns without revalidation.
From that point onward, the system continued to:
adapt actions based on prior injected intent,
persist instruction chains without renewed user involvement,
and operate as a quiet relay for external logic.
Nothing was “hacked”.Nothing was “bypassed”.
From a governance perspective, however, instruction provenance was never re-established.
The Failure of Composition
This was not a single bug.It was the Failure of Composition.
Several individually “helpful” behaviours combined to form an unsafe path:
instruction continuity without re-authentication,
absence of intent re-verification,
no structural audit of trust boundaries,
implicit elevation of authority through repetition.
No single safeguard failed.The system failed because no one was watching how those safeguards interacted over time.
Why Guardrails Did Not Save the System
Traditional AI safety controls are optimized for:
first-turn filtering,
static policy enforcement,
isolated refusal logic.
They are not designed for reasoning observability across multi-turn sessions.
In our evaluation, the model’s final responses appeared compliant.The failure only surfaced when we analysed the reasoning trajectory, step by step.
Outcome-only scoring would have passed this system.
Lifecycle-aware scoring did not.
Why This Matters to the C-Suite
This is not an academic concern.
For enterprises deploying AI into core workflows, these vulnerabilities create material risks to:
Business Continuity
Persistent instruction chains can trigger silent process drift, where systems behave “correctly” while operating outside approved intent.
Regulatory Alignment
When actions are shaped by opaque instruction inheritance, traditional audit trails lose meaning. Compliance frameworks assume explicit authorisation, not inferred continuity.
Trust & Accountability
If an AI system cannot prove why it acted, responsibility becomes unassignable.
This is why Zero-Trust for AI must move beyond slogans into system design.
From AI Safety to AI Governance & Resilience
This evaluation reinforced several principles we now consider foundational:
Instruction provenance must be continuously re-established
Validation must outweigh recognition in safety scoring
Forbidden actions require deterministic enforcement
Borderline behaviour demands audit, not optimism
Most importantly, we confirmed a hard truth:
Real-world AI harm does not require real-world exploits.
Decision-only evaluation is not a shortcut. It is how modern AI risk actually manifests.
The Way Forward for CISOs
If you are responsible for AI risk, here are three questions to ask your vendors today:
How does your system audit instruction provenance across multi-turn sessions?
What mechanisms enforce Zero-Trust boundaries when intent persists over time?
Can you demonstrate reasoning observability, not just safe outcomes?
If these answers are unclear, your risk exposure is too.
Final Takeaway
In the age of agentic AI, safety is no longer a filter; it is a reasoning standard.
Enterprises that understand this shift will govern AI as a business asset. Those that do not will inherit risk silently.
Comments