Back to Intelligence

Kontext Security Raises $4M for AI Agent Runtime Controls: A Defender's Guide to Visibility and Enforcement

SA
Security Arsenal Team
September 24, 2026
13 min read

The rapid adoption of agentic AI inside enterprise environments has created a new class of operational risk: autonomous software acting on behalf of users, calling APIs, reading data, and triggering downstream actions at machine speed. Kontext Security's emergence from stealth with a $4 million seed round to build a runtime enforcement platform for AI agents is a signal that the market is catching up to what practitioners have been warning about for two years — traditional controls are blind to what AI agents are actually doing at execution time.

This post breaks down why runtime controls for AI agents matter from a defensive standpoint, what security teams should be hunting for today, and how to implement compensating controls while vendor-native solutions mature.

Technical Analysis: The Visibility Gap in Agentic AI

The Problem Space

AI agents — autonomous or semi-autonomous processes powered by large language models — are being embedded into SaaS platforms, developer tools, security products, and business workflows. Unlike traditional software, these agents:

  • Generate code, API calls, and tool invocations dynamically at runtime
  • Operate across trust boundaries, often with inherited user permissions
  • Communicate over standard HTTPS to LLM API endpoints, making network inspection difficult
  • Execute actions based on probabilistic reasoning, not deterministic logic

From a SOC perspective, this is a nightmare scenario. An AI agent with read access to a SharePoint site, a mailbox, or a codebase can exfiltrate data, invoke malicious tools, or be prompt-injected into performing unauthorized actions — and the traffic looks like legitimate API calls to api.openai.com or api.anthropic.com.

What Kontext Security Is Building

Per the SecurityWeek report, Kontext Security is developing a platform that evaluates AI agent behavior in real time to provide visibility and control over their actions. While specific technical details of the product are limited in the announcement, the stated mission — runtime enforcement — addresses a critical gap in the current security stack.

Existing controls fall short in three key areas:

ControlLimitation
DLPCannot parse LLM-generated payloads or tool call chains effectively
EDR/XDRTreats agent processes as benign Python/Node.js runtime activity
CASB/SSESees HTTPS to LLM endpoints but cannot evaluate agent intent or action sequences
API gatewaysInspect request structure, not semantic behavior or chained actions

Runtime enforcement implies inline evaluation of agent actions — intercepting tool calls, function invocations, and data access requests before they execute, and applying policy in real time. This is conceptually similar to what a WAF does for web traffic, but operating at the agent action layer.

Threat Scenarios This Addresses

Without runtime visibility and enforcement, defenders face several concrete risk scenarios:

  1. Prompt injection leading to unauthorized tool invocation. An attacker-controlled input (email, document, web page) instructs an agent to exfiltrate data, call a malicious API, or modify files. Without runtime inspection, the SOC sees only benign HTTPS traffic.
  2. Shadow AI agents. Developers and business users deploying agents with access to internal data without security review. These agents often run as Python scripts, Node.js processes, or embedded SaaS features with no logging.
  3. Excessive agency. Agents configured with broader permissions than their function requires — a customer service chatbot with write access to a CRM, a code assistant with push access to production repositories.
  4. Supply-chain compromise via agent frameworks. Malicious packages in the LangChain, AutoGen, or CrewAI ecosystems that turn legitimate agents into attack vectors.

Exploitation Status

This is not a vulnerability disclosure. There is no CVE, no active exploitation campaign, and no CISA KEV entry. The urgency here is architectural: organizations are deploying AI agents faster than they are deploying controls to govern them. The risk is present and growing, but it is a gap in defensive coverage, not an active exploit.

Detection & Response

The absence of a vendor product does not mean defenders are helpless. Below are practical detection and hunting strategies that SOC teams can implement today using existing telemetry.

SIGMA Rules

YAML
---
title: Process Connection to LLM API Endpoint
id: 8f2a1b3c-4d5e-6f7a-8b9c-0d1e2f3a4b5c
status: experimental
description: Detects processes establishing network connections to known LLM API endpoints. May indicate unauthorized AI agent activity, shadow AI usage, or legitimate approved integrations. Baseline expected traffic before deployment.
references:
  - https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1071.001/
  - https://www.securityweek.com/kontext-security-emerges-with-4-million-for-ai-agent-runtime-controls/
author: Security Arsenal
date: 2026/04/06
tags:
  - attack.command_and_control
  - attack.t1071.001
logsource:
  category: network_connection
  product: windows
detection:
  selection:
    DestinationHostname|contains:
      - 'api.openai.com'
      - 'api.anthropic.com'
      - 'generativelanguage.googleapis.com'
      - 'api.cohere.ai'
      - 'api.mistral.ai'
      - 'openai.azure.com'
  filter_known_processes:
    Image|endswith:
      - '\msedge.exe'
      - '\chrome.exe'
      - '\firefox.exe'
  condition: selection and not filter_known_processes
falsepositives:
  - Approved AI integrations in business applications
  - Developer tools with LLM assistance features
level: medium
---
title: AI Agent Framework Execution via Python or Node
id: 3c4d5e6f-7a8b-9c0d-1e2f-3a4b5c6d7e8f
status: experimental
description: Detects execution of Python or Node.js processes with command-line references to common AI agent frameworks and orchestration libraries. May indicate shadow AI agent deployment or developer experimentation with agentic frameworks.
references:
  - https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1059.006/
  - https://www.securityweek.com/kontext-security-emerges-with-4-million-for-ai-agent-runtime-controls/
author: Security Arsenal
date: 2026/04/06
tags:
  - attack.execution
  - attack.t1059.006
logsource:
  category: process_creation
  product: windows
detection:
  selection:
    Image|endswith:
      - '\python.exe'
      - '\python3.exe'
      - '\node.exe'
    CommandLine|contains:
      - 'langchain'
      - 'autogen'
      - 'crewai'
      - 'openai-agents'
      - 'llamaindex'
      - 'semantic_kernel'
      - 'mcp_server'
      - 'modelcontextprotocol'
  condition: selection
falsepositives:
  - Approved AI development and research activity
  - Legitimate AI-powered internal tools
level: medium
---
title: MCP Server Process Execution
id: 5e6f7a8b-9c0d-1e2f-3a4b-5c6d7e8f9a0b
status: experimental
description: Detects execution of Model Context Protocol (MCP) server processes, which are used to extend AI agent capabilities with external tools and data sources. Unauthorized MCP servers may expose internal systems to agent-driven access.
references:
  - https://attack.mitre.org/techniques/T1059/
  - https://www.securityweek.com/kontext-security-emerges-with-4-million-for-ai-agent-runtime-controls/
author: Security Arsenal
date: 2026/04/06
tags:
  - attack.execution
  - attack.t1059
logsource:
  category: process_creation
  product: windows
detection:
  selection:
    CommandLine|contains:
      - 'mcp-server'
      - 'mcp_server'
      - 'modelcontextprotocol'
      - '@modelcontextprotocol'
      - 'mcp-server-'
  condition: selection
falsepositives:
  - Approved MCP server deployments for AI development workflows
level: medium

KQL (Microsoft Sentinel / Defender)

Hunt for unauthorized AI agent activity by identifying non-browser processes communicating with LLM API endpoints. This query assumes standard endpoint telemetry from Defender for Endpoint or equivalent EDR.

KQL — Microsoft Sentinel / Defender
// Hunt: Processes communicating with LLM API endpoints (potential shadow AI agents)
// Scope: Last 7 days. Tune the process exclusion list to match approved applications.
let LLMEndpoints = dynamic([
    "api.openai.com",
    "api.anthropic.com",
    "generativelanguage.googleapis.com",
    "api.cohere.ai",
    "api.mistral.ai",
    "api.together.xyz",
    "openai.azure.com"
]);
let ApprovedProcesses = dynamic([
    "msedge.exe", "chrome.exe", "firefox.exe", "brave.exe"
]);
DeviceNetworkEvents
| where TimeGenerated > ago(7d)
| where RemoteUrl in~ (LLMEndpoints)
| where InitiatingProcessFileName !in~ (ApprovedProcesses)
| summarize
    ConnectionCount = count(),
    FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated),
    LastSeen = max(TimeGenerated),
    RemoteIPs = make_set(RemoteIP, 10),
    DeviceNames = make_set(DeviceName, 10)
    by InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine, InitiatingProcessFolderPath
| order by ConnectionCount desc

A complementary query for hunting agent framework execution:

KQL — Microsoft Sentinel / Defender
// Hunt: Python/Node processes invoking AI agent frameworks or MCP tooling
// Scope: Last 7 days. Review for unauthorized agent deployments.
DeviceProcessEvents
| where TimeGenerated > ago(7d)
| where FileName in~ ("python.exe", "python3.exe", "node.exe")
| where ProcessCommandLine has_any (
    "langchain", "autogen", "crewai",
    "openai-agents", "llamaindex", "semantic_kernel",
    "mcp_server", "modelcontextprotocol", "mcp-server"
)
| summarize
    ExecutionCount = count(),
    FirstSeen = min(TimeGenerated),
    LastSeen = max(TimeGenerated),
    Devices = make_set(DeviceName, 10),
    Users = make_set(AccountName, 10)
    by ProcessCommandLine, FolderPath
| order by ExecutionCount desc

Velociraptor VQL

For endpoint forensics and threat hunting at scale, use Velociraptor to identify processes with active connections to LLM endpoints and inspect their execution context.

VQL — Velociraptor
-- Hunt for processes with established connections to LLM API endpoints
-- Execute across the fleet to identify unauthorized AI agent activity
SELECT Pid, Name, CommandLine, Exe, Username, CreateTime
FROM pslist()
WHERE CommandLine =~ '(?i)(langchain|autogen|crewai|openai|anthropic|mcp_server|modelcontextprotocol)'
   OR Exe =~ '(?i)(langchain|autogen|crewai|mcp)'

-- Correlate with active network connections to known LLM endpoints
SELECT Pid, Name, CommandLine, Exe, Username
FROM netstat()
WHERE RemoteIP =~ '(?i)(openai|anthropic|googleapis|cohere|mistral)'
   OR Name =~ '(?i)(python|node)'

Remediation & Hardening Script

The following PowerShell script provides a baseline audit of AI agent exposure on Windows endpoints. It inventories installed Python packages related to agent frameworks, checks for MCP server configurations, and optionally blocks egress to LLM endpoints at the host firewall level.

PowerShell
#Requires -RunAsAdministrator
# AI Agent Exposure Audit and Egress Control Script
# Security Arsenal — Defensive Controls for Agentic AI

param(
    [switch]$AuditOnly,
    [switch]$BlockEgress
)

Write-Host "[+] AI Agent Exposure Audit — $(Get-Date -Format 'yyyy-MM-dd HH:mm:ss')" -ForegroundColor Cyan

# --- 1. Inventory Python packages related to AI agent frameworks ---
Write-Host "`n[*] Checking for AI agent framework packages..." -ForegroundColor Yellow
$AgentPackages = @("langchain", "autogen", "crewai", "openai", "anthropic", "llamaindex", "semantic-kernel", "modelcontextprotocol", "mcp")
try {
    $PipList = pip list 2>$null | Out-String
    foreach ($pkg in $AgentPackages) {
        if ($PipList -match $pkg) {
            Write-Host "  [!] FOUND: $pkg" -ForegroundColor Red
        }
    }
    if ($PipList -notmatch ($AgentPackages -join "|")) {
        Write-Host "  [+] No known agent framework packages detected via pip." -ForegroundColor Green
    }
} catch {
    Write-Host "  [-] pip not available. Manual package inventory required." -ForegroundColor DarkYellow
}

# --- 2. Check for MCP server configuration files ---
Write-Host "`n[*] Checking for MCP server configurations..." -ForegroundColor Yellow
$MCPPaths = @(
    "$env:USERPROFILE\.cursor\mcp.json",
    "$env:USERPROFILE\.claude\claude_desktop_config.json",
    "$env:APPDATA\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json",
    "$env:USERPROFILE\.vscode\mcp.json",
    "$env:USERPROFILE\.continue\config.json"
)
foreach ($path in $MCPPaths) {
    if (Test-Path $path) {
        Write-Host "  [!] MCP config found: $path" -ForegroundColor Red
        Write-Host "      Review this file for unauthorized tool configurations." -ForegroundColor DarkYellow
    }
}

# --- 3. Audit running processes with LLM-related command lines ---
Write-Host "`n[*] Checking for running processes with AI agent indicators..." -ForegroundColor Yellow
$SuspiciousProcesses = Get-Process | Where-Object {
    $_.ProcessName -match "python|node"
} | ForEach-Object {
    $cmdline = (Get-CimInstance Win32_Process -Filter "ProcessId=$($_.Id)").CommandLine
    if ($cmdline -match "(?i)(langchain|autogen|crewai|openai|anthropic|mcp_server|modelcontextprotocol)") {
        [PSCustomObject]@{
            PID = $_.Id
            Name = $_.ProcessName
            CommandLine = $cmdline
        }
    }
}
if ($SuspiciousProcesses) {
    $SuspiciousProcesses | Format-Table -AutoSize
    Write-Host "  [!] Active agent processes detected. Review above." -ForegroundColor Red
} else {
    Write-Host "  [+] No active agent processes detected." -ForegroundColor Green
}

# --- 4. Optional: Block egress to LLM API endpoints ---
if ($BlockEgress) {
    Write-Host "`n[*] Applying egress firewall rules for LLM endpoints..." -ForegroundColor Yellow
    $LLMDomains = @(
        "api.openai.com",
        "api.anthropic.com",
        "generativelanguage.googleapis.com",
        "api.cohere.ai",
        "api.mistral.ai"
    )
    foreach ($domain in $LLMDomains) {
        $ruleName = "Block-LLM-Egress-$domain"
        $existing = Get-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName $ruleName -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue
        if (-not $existing) {
            # Resolve IPs and block — note: LLM providers use CDN ranges; consider proxy-level controls for production
            Write-Host "  [*] Creating rule: $ruleName" -ForegroundColor Yellow
            New-NetFirewallRule -DisplayName $ruleName `
                -Direction Outbound `
                -Action Block `
                -RemoteAddress (Resolve-DnsName $domain -Type A -ErrorAction SilentlyContinue | Select-Object -ExpandProperty IPAddress) `
                -Protocol TCP `
                -Profile Any `
                -Enabled True | Out-Null
            Write-Host "  [+] Rule created: $ruleName" -ForegroundColor Green
        } else {
            Write-Host "  [=] Rule already exists: $ruleName" -ForegroundColor DarkYellow
        }
    }
    Write-Host "`n  [!] NOTE: LLM providers use dynamic CDN IPs. For production egress control," -ForegroundColor Red
    Write-Host "      use a forward proxy (e.g., Zscaler, Palo Alto, Squid) with domain-based" -ForegroundColor Red
    Write-Host "      URL filtering instead of host firewall rules." -ForegroundColor Red
}

Write-Host "`n[+] Audit complete. Review findings and escalate unauthorized agent deployments." -ForegroundColor Cyan

Remediation: Defensive Actions for AI Agent Governance

There is no patch to apply and no vendor advisory to follow. The remediation here is architectural and procedural. Security teams should take the following steps now:

Immediate (0–30 Days)

  1. Inventory AI agent usage. Run the audit script above across your endpoint fleet. Review SaaS application catalogs for embedded AI agent features (Microsoft Copilot Studio, Salesforce Agentforce, ServiceNow AI Agents). You cannot govern what you have not identified.

  2. Establish egress visibility. Ensure your proxy, firewall, or CASB can log and alert on connections to LLM API endpoints. At minimum, baseline which processes and users are communicating with api.openai.com, api.anthropic.com, and similar endpoints.

  3. Enforce API key management. AI agents require API keys to function. Audit your secrets management platform for OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google AI API keys. Rotate any keys found in source code, environment files, or configuration management repositories.

Short-Term (30–90 Days)

  1. Deploy network-level controls. Route all LLM API traffic through an authorized proxy. Block direct egress to LLM endpoints from endpoints and servers that have no approved AI use case. Use domain-based filtering, not IP-based rules — LLM providers use CDN infrastructure.

  2. Define agent permission boundaries. Apply the principle of least privilege to AI agents. An agent that summarizes emails does not need write access to the CRM. An agent that reviews code does not need push access to production branches. Document and enforce these boundaries.

  3. Implement logging for agent actions. Where possible, enable verbose logging for AI agent platforms. Microsoft Copilot Studio, for example, supports audit logging through the Microsoft 365 compliance center. Ensure agent tool invocations, data access events, and API calls are captured and forwarded to your SIEM.

Medium-Term (90–180 Days)

  1. Evaluate runtime enforcement platforms. Kontext Security and similar emerging vendors are building the capability to evaluate agent actions in real time. As these products mature, evaluate them against your specific agent deployment patterns. Key evaluation criteria: inline vs. passive enforcement, supported agent frameworks, policy granularity, and integration with your existing SOC tooling.

  2. Develop an AI agent acceptable use policy. Define which agent frameworks are approved, what data they may access, what actions they may take autonomously vs. with human approval, and what logging is required. Enforce this policy through technical controls, not just documentation.

  3. Incorporate agentic AI into tabletop exercises. Add prompt injection, rogue agent behavior, and shadow AI discovery scenarios to your IR playbooks and tabletop exercises. Your incident response team needs to understand how to investigate and contain an AI agent that has been manipulated into performing unauthorized actions.

Ongoing

  1. Monitor the AI agent security market. Kontext Security's $4M raise is an early signal. Expect rapid innovation in this space. Maintain awareness of new runtime enforcement, agent observability, and AI governance platforms as they emerge. Reassess your control stack quarterly.

Conclusion

Kontext Security's emergence is not a threat event — it is a market validation of a problem that security practitioners have been flagging since the first autonomous agents were deployed in enterprise environments. The defensive gap is real: AI agents are taking actions, accessing data, and invoking tools at runtime with minimal visibility and almost no enforcement.

Security teams should not wait for a vendor product to begin closing this gap. The detection rules, hunting queries, and hardening steps above provide immediate, actionable controls that can be implemented with existing tooling. As runtime enforcement platforms mature, organizations that have already established visibility and governance will be positioned to adopt them effectively.

Related Resources

Security Arsenal Penetration Testing Services AlertMonitor Platform Book a SOC Assessment vulnerability-management Intel Hub

Is your security operations ready?

Get a free SOC assessment or see how AlertMonitor cuts through alert noise with automated triage.