<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Security on Markus Hupfauer</title>
    <link>https://hupfauer.one/tags/security/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Security on Markus Hupfauer</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://hupfauer.one/tags/security/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Identity is the control plane. Detection is a sensor.</title>
      <link>https://hupfauer.one/posts/identity-is-the-control-plane/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://hupfauer.one/posts/identity-is-the-control-plane/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Walking the vendor floor at RSAC this year, the count was roughly 40% prompt injection detection products, maybe 5% anything resembling agentic identity. That ratio is inverted from where the risk actually sits — and the gap is widening as agents move from demos into systems that do things on people&amp;rsquo;s behalf.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Let me try to explain why I think most of the industry is optimizing the wrong control.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h2 id=&#34;the-obvious-part-first&#34;&gt;The obvious part first&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Prompt injection is real. It is not going away. Detection has its place — as a sensor, alongside other sensors, feeding a decision layer. I am not arguing against building detectors. I am arguing against the implicit claim, encoded in how budgets are being spent, that detection is the &lt;em&gt;decisive&lt;/em&gt; control for agentic systems.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
