.png){kind=small}
There is a pattern to how new technology enters the enterprise. It begins with excitement and experimentation. Teams adopt it because it helps them move faster. IT departments warn of risks, but lack the visibility or the tools to stop it. And before long, the technology is woven so deeply into everyday work that trying to remove it would be impossible.
This happened with Shadow IT. A decade ago, employees brought in Dropbox to share files, Trello to manage projects, and Slack to collaborate, long before these tools were formally approved. CISOs eventually caught up by deploying discovery platforms, integrating apps into single sign-on, and negotiating corporate licenses. But only after years of data scattering across unmonitored environments, auditors citing compliance gaps, and security teams struggling to reassert control.
Today the same story is unfolding again, but this time the stakes are far higher. The protagonist is not another SaaS platform. It is Shadow AI: the unmonitored, unapproved, and often invisible use of generative AI and autonomous systems inside organizations.
Unlike Shadow IT, Shadow AI does not arrive as a neatly packaged app. It seeps in through the tools employees already rely on.
This creates a new kind of invisibility. With Shadow IT, CISOs could at least detect an unfamiliar app connecting to corporate networks. With Shadow AI, the risk hides inside platforms that are already sanctioned.
An employee drafting an email in Outlook might unknowingly share sensitive information with an AI system running in the background. A project manager summarizing notes in Notion could be funneling confidential business logic into a third-party model. None of this shows up in the logs security teams are used to relying on.
Shadow AI is not just another cycle of unsanctioned technology adoption. It represents a shift in how risk manifests.
Some organizations try to deal with Shadow AI the way they first tried to handle Shadow IT with bans. They blacklist ChatGPT, block traffic to known endpoints, and issue stern policies against unsanctioned use. But this approach misunderstands the reality on the ground.
Employees turn to AI because it helps them. It drafts faster emails, accelerates code, and summarizes documents that would otherwise consume hours. When bans are put in place, usage doesn’t stop. It goes underground.
A 2025 KPMG survey of nearly fifty thousand professionals found that 57% admitted to hiding their AI use from employers, and almost half said they had already uploaded company data into public AI tools. Bans don’t reduce the problem they reduce visibility.
The risks are not only operational. They are regulatory.
The EU AI Act has set the tone by introducing obligations for high-risk AI use cases and penalties for noncompliance. In the U.S., NIST is weaving AI-specific overlays into its 800-53 control catalog. India’s DPDP Act requires companies to prove that sensitive personal data is not being mishandled. Each of these frameworks assumes that enterprises can answer a basic question: Where is AI being used, and what data is it touching?
Shadow AI makes that question impossible to answer with certainty. Which means organizations operating without visibility are not only risking data leakage they are risking fines, lawsuits, and reputational fallout when regulators come knocking.
What’s required is not another PDF full of policies, but a way to make those policies executable. This is where the concept of policy-as-code becomes essential. Security rules and compliance mandates for example, “no customer PII in prompts during earnings week” or “source code must never leave the development environment” must be translated into machine-enforceable guardrails.
That means real-time interventions at the point of risk:
This is precisely the problem Quilr is designed to address. Rather than slowing down innovation, it embeds guardrails directly into the way employees use AI.
It shines light on Shadow AI usage across copilots, plugins, and agents. It applies context-aware controls that prevent risky prompts or outputs from ever leaving the enterprise boundary. It monitors autonomous AI agents and can halt rogue behavior before it spirals. And it translates complex compliance requirements into operational rules that execute automatically.
The goal isn’t to punish employees for using AI. It’s to meet them where they are, enable them to work faster, and make sure security and compliance travel with them, invisibly, seamlessly, and effectively.
Shadow IT taught enterprises a hard lesson: you cannot govern what you cannot see. Shadow AI is that lesson multiplied. It is embedded, invisible, and capable of far greater harm. Bans won’t work, ignorance won’t protect, and regulators won’t wait.
Enterprises now face a choice. They can either stumble into another decade of reactive cleanup, or they can put visibility and guardrails in place today. Shadow AI doesn’t need to remain in the dark. With the right approach, it can be harnessed safely, compliantly, and responsibly.
The shadow is already here. The question is whether we will continue to work in the dark or finally turn on the lights.
