For a long time, security teams have been dealing with the same problem: a constant stream of security alerts, but not enough context.

Missing details like user behavior, asset importance, or related activity, means there’s a heavy reliance on analysts to work out what actually matters.

This doesn’t just slow teams down; it puts real pressure on teams and limits how much they can realistically review or understand.

Agentic AI changes this dynamic.

Instead of looking at alerts in isolation, these systems can piece activity together, understand what’s happening in context, and in some cases take action on their own.

Often, issues are resolved before they ever need to be escalated. That removes a lot of the manual effort that’s shaped security operations for years.

But while a clear improvement, it doesn’t remove risk—it shifts it.

As systems improve, scrutiny declines

A useful comparison is aviation. As systems become more reliable, people naturally step back. Not because they’re careless, but because constantly double-checking something that’s almost always right starts to feel unnecessary. Over time, trust stops being something you actively think about and becomes something you assume.

The same thing is starting to happen in cybersecurity. As these systems prove themselves, teams spend less time questioning individual decisions. The environment feels calmer, and the lack of issues reinforces that sense of control. The real risk isn’t frequent failure, it’s that when something does go wrong, it’s less likely to be challenged.

Alert fatigue comes from having to pay attention to too much, too quickly. What follows is something different: a gradual drop in attention, where growing confidence in the system weakens the instinct to double-check.

A model built on two interdependent layers

The structure of security operations starts to shift as well. Instead of everything hinging on human decision-making, you end up with two connected layers. People set the intent – defining policy, access and boundaries – while agents interpret it and act on it, often much faster than any person could.

Both layers can be influenced. Traditional attacks aimed at people don’t go away, but there’s now another surface to think about: the data, prompts, and workflows that shape agent behavior. If those inputs are manipulated, the system can still produce actions that look valid, because they follow its internal logic.

At the same time, the distance between decision and execution increases. Human operators aren’t as involved in the moment an action happens, which makes it harder to spot when something isn’t quite right. In practice, each layer ends up relying on the other for validation.

When that assumption holds, the system works efficiently. When that works, everything runs smoothly. When it doesn’t, the gap between them can be hard to see in real time.

How risk scales in an agentic environment

Risk doesn’t just increase in this kind of environment, it spreads differently. Each agent has its own identity, permissions, and decision-making logic, and they’re often connected. Actions taken in one part of the system can trigger responses elsewhere, creating chains of automated behavior.

That means a single bad input or flawed decision doesn’t stay contained. It can move quickly across systems without anyone stepping in. The issue isn’t just speed, it’s how connected everything is. Small mistakes can have much bigger consequences because they’re carried through multiple layers of automation.

Why identity and access need to change

How agents are set up today adds another layer of risk. In many cases, they’re treated as extensions of the user, with the same credentials and access. It’s convenient, but it also widens the blast radius if something goes wrong.

A more resilient approach is to treat agents as their own entities. Give them distinct identities, limit what they can do to specific tasks, and make sure their actions can be tracked and reversed if needed, without affecting everything else.

It’s less about efficiency and more about putting the right foundations in place for systems that are increasingly acting on their own.

Maintaining control as reliance increases

One of the trickier aspects is that failure doesn’t always look like failure. Fewer alerts and faster resolutions can make it feel like risk has gone down, when in reality oversight may just be less active.

Staying in control comes down to how these systems are designed and used. High-impact actions still need some form of verification, even if most routine work doesn’t. It also matters that teams can see not just what an agent did, but how it arrived there—what inputs it used and how it interpreted them.

The ability to step in is just as important. If stopping or overriding an automated process is slow or awkward, it probably won’t happen in time when something goes wrong. That kind of intervention needs to be simple enough to use under pressure.

More broadly, the role of the security professional shifts. It’s not just about spotting obvious problems anymore, but recognizing when something that looks fine might still need a second look.

A quieter, more concentrated risk

Agentic AI will do a lot to reduce alert fatigue, which has weighed on security teams for years. The trade-off is that risk becomes less visible and more concentrated in the space between what people intend and what machines actually do.

In systems that work correctly most of the time, the real challenge isn’t constant failure. It’s what happens when something does go wrong and whether the usual signals that would catch it are still there.

We've reviewed, rated, and ranked the best firewall software.

This article was produced as part of TechRadar Pro Perspectives, our channel to feature the best and brightest minds in the technology industry today.

The views expressed here are those of the author and are not necessarily those of TechRadarPro or Future plc. If you are interested in contributing find out more here: https://www.techradar.com/pro/perspectives-how-to-submit

Chief Technology Officer, MetaCompliance.