- The AI Trust Letter
- Posts
- Self-fixing AI Agents are here?
Self-fixing AI Agents are here?
Top AI and Cybersecurity news you should check out today
Rodrigo Fernandez
October 20, 2025
Welcome Back to The AI Trust Letter
Once a week, we distill the most critical AI & cybersecurity stories for builders, strategists, and researchers. Let’s dive in!
🤖 Early Signs of “Self-Fixing” AI Observed
The Story:
NeuralTrust reports the first field evidence of AI systems that detect their own mistakes and attempt to correct them in real time. The behaviors were seen in live enterprise deployments and logged during incident investigations.
The details:
Models tried automatic recovery steps such as re-prompting, tweaking tool parameters, switching tools, or retrying failed actions before a human intervened.
These self-correction loops were triggered by simple signals (failed tests, API errors, policy denials) rather than explicit human prompts.
NeuralTrust highlights the need for granular logs, policy checks, and audit trails so recovery attempts are observable, bounded, and reversible.
Why it matters:
Self-correction can reduce outages and save human time, but it also expands the blast radius if an agent “fixes” the wrong thing. Teams should treat recovery logic like any other high-privilege workflow: require guardrails, rate limits, and human approval for sensitive actions, and keep full lineage of what the AI changed and why.
🏆 What is The Best AI Gateway?
The Story:
Gartner has released its first Market Guide for AI Gateways, recognizing the growing importance of infrastructure designed to manage, secure, and monitor enterprise AI systems. As organizations move from pilots to production, AI gateways are emerging as the control layer that enables scalability, compliance, and operational resilience.
The details:
AI gateways act as orchestration layers between applications and large language models (LLMs), managing routing, authentication, observability, and data governance.
Gartner highlights their role in solving cost unpredictability, vendor lock-in, and runtime security issues common in AI deployments.
Among the featured platforms, NeuralTrust’s AI Gateway is cited for its focus on runtime protection, data masking, and behavioral threat detection aligned with NIST AI RMF, OWASP GenAI, and ISO/IEC 42001 frameworks.
Other notable mentions include LiteLLM for open-source flexibility, Apache APISIX for extensibility, and Portkey for observability and compliance.
Why it matters:
Running generative AI in production introduces new challenges—uncontrolled costs, data exposure, and opaque model behaviors. AI gateways provide the missing layer of control, helping enterprises standardize model access, enforce security policies, and ensure accountability across increasingly complex AI stacks.
🚨 AI-Powered Automation in Cyberattacks
The Story:
In its latest digital defense update, Microsoft reported that its systems now process more than 100 trillion security signals every 24 hours. The volume reflects how both attackers and defenders are leveraging scale, automation and AI to wage cyber campaigns or mount defenses.
The details:
Microsoft notes that many of these signals come from adversaries using generative AI to automate phishing, vulnerability discovery and malware deployment.
The company observed that identity compromise remains the chief access vector, with phishing and social engineering accounting for 28 % of breaches.
On the defensive side, Microsoft says its AI-powered tools have shortened response times from hours to seconds, but it warns that speed and volume of threats are outpacing many traditional controls.
Why it matters:
The sheer scale of signals shows that cyber-defense must now operate at machine speed and volume. Manual processes, one-off alerts or isolated playbooks will not keep up. Teams need tools and workflows that automate detection, triage and response, while retaining human oversight for novel or high-impact events.
👀 Fire Employees for Phishing Mistakes?
The Story:
A new study reveals a major disconnect between security leaders’ attitudes and their own behavior toward phishing risks. While 77% of IT and security executives said they would dismiss employees who fall for phishing scams, nearly two-thirds admitted to having clicked a malicious link themselves at some point.
The details:
73% of leaders believe their organization is unlikely to be phished, yet 64% have personally clicked a phishing link.
20% of those who fell for scams never reported the incident internally, highlighting a lack of transparency even at senior levels.
Many organizations still don’t enforce basic measures like multi-factor authentication (MFA), with only 54% applying it across all users.
Companies that emphasize ongoing training rather than punitive measures saw an 88% reduction in long-term phishing risk.
Why it matters:
The report highlights how overconfidence and punishment-driven cultures undermine cybersecurity resilience. Sustainable defense requires a shift toward continuous education, open reporting, and leadership accountability. Phishing resilience improves when learning replaces blame and when every level of the organization is treated as part of the human defense layer.
⛓️💥 Vibe Coding Security Risks
The Story:
A new report from WIRED warns that the rise of “vibe coding”—using AI models to rapidly generate and adapt code instead of writing it manually—is creating new security blind spots similar to those that once plagued open-source software. As developers increasingly rely on generative AI tools, many of the same transparency and supply-chain issues that affected open source are resurfacing, often at larger scale.
The details:
Security researchers note that AI-generated code often inherits old vulnerabilities embedded in the data used to train the models, potentially reintroducing outdated flaws.
Each AI-generated code output can differ slightly, even when using the same prompt or dataset, making version control and auditing more difficult.
A survey by Checkmarx found that in 2024, 60% of code in some organizations was generated by AI, yet only 18% had a list of approved AI coding tools.
Unlike open-source repositories—where contributions and changes are traceable—AI-generated code lacks authorship records, increasing the difficulty of auditing or assigning accountability.
Why it matters:
As companies adopt generative AI in software development, they inherit unseen dependencies and reproducibility issues. Without governance mechanisms for tracking code provenance or validating AI-generated outputs, software supply chains risk becoming opaque and insecure.
Establishing internal controls, human review, and documentation standards for AI-assisted coding will be key to maintaining both quality and accountability.
What´s next?
Thanks for reading! If this brought you value, share it with a colleague or post it to your feed. For more curated insight into the world of AI and security, stay connected.
