Why New Security Risks Can’t Be Solved by Old Protections
Consider just how much data AI touches. Last year alone, we saw 18,033 terabytes of company information pass through apps powered by artificial intelligence, a 93% increase over the year before, across roughly 9,000 organizations. Worse still, we know that around 39.7% of those AI interactions put sensitive data at risk.
Security leaders are under pressure to take action. Many are still trying to meet modern threats with familiar strategies. They know they need to do something, so they add another tool or deploy another portal. This approach to security feels like progress. The stack gets bigger, and the dashboards multiply. But in reality, the result tends to be more gaps and more risk.
Traditional security tools create new threats and issues
Traditional tools were designed for a world where data moved through predictable channels, but that world is gone. Even today’s small businesses need to manage an environment that sprawls and changes weekly.
Most organizations attack evolving security concerns as a moving target. They have point solutions for file transfer and document intake. They add plugins for email and chat. They tack on separate tools for vendor exchange and data loss prevention.
Each tool solves a narrow problem. But together, they result in a tangle of policy gaps called fragmentation. Fragmentation is where security breaks down. When multiple vendors manage pieces of the security story, you don’t get one coherent policy. You get inconsistent controls, unclear ownership, and weak links between the steps of a single workflow. Teams start asking which tool applies in which scenario, and that uncertainty becomes the risk.
A fragmented security model can’t meet the scale and speed of AI-era threats. Prompts contain customer details, and outputs reveal internal information. Training sets gather regulated data unintentionally, and logs store sensitive content. Manual review and bolt-on controls can’t keep up.
Why these old processes and their workarounds slow down productivity
Here’s the part that many security strategies still fail to address. People rarely bypass security to be reckless; they bypass it because they’re trying to do their job. A recent study from Anagram shows that 40% of employees will work around cybersecurity measures if it means they can get their work done faster. That same study also reports that 78% of employees claim to use intelligent agents and tools, but as many as 58% admit they don’t always follow data security procedures.
Your teams just want to send an account statement to a customer or move information from email into a case or ticket without slowing down. When security requires switching tools or accounts, people find a way around it. They send attachments from personal email because it’s faster, and they use file-sharing links because they work more reliably for them. All of this shadow IT isn’t a rebellion; it’s process pain.
Security teams try to correct those behaviors with more training and more documentation. The added process layers on drag without fixing the underlying cause. Productivity slows, and security ends up stuck policing rather than enabling.
How new tools improve both security and workflows
Modern security must work in real workflows. Protection can’t be a portal you bolt on after the fact. It has to be present wherever work already happens. Instead of adding more apps, organizations need a single encryption layer that protects data across all of their systems. With that end-to-end foundation, there is no need for a separate portal per use case.
This is where security and productivity stop being trade-offs. Email allows users to drag and drop as usual without changing habits. Systems of record permit teams to exchange sensitive files and messages inside the tools they’re familiar with. External collaboration stays simple, because customers and partners don’t need new accounts or training. They can securely send and receive information from their phones.
An embedded layer of security makes consistent policy possible. One layer can govern access and encryption across workflows and enforce controls in the background. Built-in protection is the only sustainable defense. When security is embedded, adoption happens naturally. Workflows move faster, and the organization measurably shrinks its attack surface at the same time.
Brian Holyfield
Brian Holyfield is the Co-Founder and Chief Product Officer of SendSafely. He and his fellow co-founders each have more than 25 years of experience in the cybersecurity industry. Brian is one of the original architects behind SendSafely’s end-to-end encryption platform. Before SendSafely, he co-founded Gotham Digital Science (GDS), a boutique cybersecurity firm specializing in Red Team penetration testing and application security for Fortune 100 and FTSE 100 clients, which was acquired by Stroz Friedberg (Aon). Prior to founding GDS, he was a Manager at Ernst & Young’s Advanced Security Center. Brian holds a Master’s in information systems Auditing and a Bachelor’s from the University of Florida. He is a published security author with speaking engagements at BlackHat, RSA, and other premier conferences.