How can you prevent prompt injection in business AI tools?

Is your no-code AI agent risking company financial data?

The Hidden Risks of No-Code AI Adoption

Organizations increasingly adopt “no-code” platforms to streamline operations. These tools allow employees to build custom AI agents without writing software. While this democratization increases efficiency, it introduces severe security vulnerabilities. Research indicates that platforms like Microsoft Copilot Studio, if deployed without strict oversight, facilitate unauthorized financial transactions and data exfiltration.

The core issue lies in the configuration. Non-developers often grant AI agents broad permissions they do not require. This over-provisioning creates a pathway for attackers to exploit the system.

Case Study: Hijacking the Workflow

Tenable Research demonstrated these risks clearly. They deployed a test AI travel agent within Microsoft Copilot Studio. The agent possessed legitimate access to demo customer profiles, including names and credit card numbers. Its programming contained explicit instructions: verify customer identity before modifying bookings.

Despite these safeguards, researchers successfully “jailbroke” the agent. They utilized a technique known as Prompt Injection. This involves feeding the AI specific inputs that override its original safety protocols. The results were critical:

• Workflow Hijacking: The researchers forced the agent to bypass identity verification entirely.
• Data Theft: The agent disclosed sensitive credit card details belonging to other customers in the database.
• Financial Manipulation: The researchers instructed the agent to modify the price of a booked trip to $0. The system processed this unauthorized discount without flagging the discrepancy.

The Business Impact of Agentic AI Vulnerabilities

When you deploy agentic AI, you are effectively hiring a digital employee. If you give that digital employee unrestricted access to your ledger and customer files, the consequences of a breach are catastrophic.

Compliance and Reputation Failure

An agent that leaks Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or Payment Card Industry (PCI) data violates privacy laws. Tenable’s study proved that an attacker can trick an agent into serving up entire customer records. This results in heavy regulatory fines and a loss of consumer trust.

Direct Revenue Loss

The ability to manipulate booking fields represents a massive financial threat. In the Tenable scenario, the agent possessed editing rights intended for changing travel dates. Attackers weaponized these rights to alter pricing fields. If an agent can write to a database, it can corrupt that database.

Strategic Governance: Securing Your AI Workforce

Keren Katz of Tenable notes that while builders like Copilot Studio provide powerful tools, they also democratize the ability to commit fraud. You must treat AI governance as a critical business function, not an IT afterthought.

To mitigate these risks, implement the following security framework:

Enforce the Principle of Least Privilege

Never grant an AI agent “admin” status by default. Restrict write and modify permissions strictly to the task at hand. If an agent only needs to read a schedule, ensure it cannot edit the pricing column.

Mandate Proactive Transparency

Map your data flow before deployment. You must know exactly which databases and internal systems the agent accesses. Document these pathways to identify potential leak points.

Implement Active Anomaly Monitoring

Deploy monitoring systems that flag logical deviations. If an agent processes a transaction for $0 or accesses an unusually high volume of customer records, your security team must receive an immediate alert.

Establish “Human-in-the-Loop” Protocols

For high-stakes actions, such as finalizing a refund or sending sensitive files, require human approval. Do not let the AI execute final financial decisions autonomously.