Daily Tech Digest by Kannan Subbiah: Daily Tech Digest

Quote for the day:

"Transparent reviews create fairness. Subjective reviews create frustration." -- Gordon Tredgold

AI agents and bad productivity metrics

The great promise of was that it would finally clear our backlogs. Coding agents would churn out boilerplate at superhuman speeds, and teams would finally ship exactly what the business wants. The reality, as we settle into 2026, is far more uncomfortable. Artificial intelligence is not going to save developer productivity because writing code was never the bottleneck in software engineering. ... For decades, one of the most common debugging techniques was entirely social. A production alert goes off. You look at the version control history, find the person who wrote the code, ask them what they were trying to accomplish, and reconstruct the architectural intent. But what happens to that workflow when no one actually wrote the code? What happens when a human merely skimmed a 3,000-line agent-generated pull request, hit merge, and moved on to the next ticket? When an incident happens, where is the deep knowledge that used to live inside the author? ... The metrics that matter are still the boring ones because they measure actual business outcomes. The remain the best sanity check we have because they tie delivery speed directly to system stability. They measure deployment frequency, lead time for changes, change failure rate, and time to restore service. None of those metrics cares about the number of commits your agents produced today. They only care about whether your system can absorb change without breaking.

How vertical SaaS is redefining enterprise efficiency

For the past decade, horizontal SaaS has been the defining force in enterprise technology. Platforms like CRMs, ERP suites and collaboration tools promised universality, offering a single platform to manage every business function across all industries. The strategy made sense: a large total addressable market, reusable architecture and marketing scale. flips that model. It is narrow by design but deep in impact. A report by Strategy& found that B2B vertical software companies are now growing faster than their horizontal peers, thanks to higher retention rates, lower churn rates and better unit economics. When software mirrors how a business already works, people stop treating it like a tool they tolerate and start relying on it like infrastructure. ... In regulated industries, isn’t a feature; it’s the baseline for trust. I learned early that trying to retrofit audit trails or data retention policies after go-live only creates technical debt. Instead, design for compliance as a first-class product layer: immutable logs, permission hierarchies and exportable compliance reports built into the system. ... Vertical products don’t thrive in isolation. Integration with industry hardware, marketplaces and regulatory systems drives adoption. In one case, we partnered with a hardware vendor to automatically sync manifest data from their devices, cutting onboarding time in half and unlocking co-marketing opportunities.

API Security Standards: 10 Essentials to Get You Started

Most API security flaws are created during the design phase. You're too late if you're waiting until deployment to think about threats. Shift-left principles mean integrating security early, especially at the design phase, where flawed assumptions become future exploits. Start by mapping out each endpoint's purpose, what data it touches, and who should access it. Identify where trust is assumed (not earned), roles blur, and inputs aren't validated. ... Every API has a breaking point. If you don't define it, attackers will. prevent denial-of-service (DoS) attacks, and they're also your first defense against scraping, brute-forcing, enumeration, and even accidental misuse by poorly built integrations. APIs, by nature, invite automation. Without guardrails, that openness turns into a floodgate. And in some cases, unchecked abuse opens the door to far worse issues, like remote code execution, where improperly scoped input or lack of throttling leads directly to exploitation. ... APIs are built to accept input. Attackers find ways to exploit it. The core rule is this - if you didn't expect it, don't process it. If you didn't define it, don't send it. Define request and response schemas explicitly using tools like or JSON Schema, as recommended by leading API security standards. Then enforce them — at the gateway, app layer, or both. Don't just use validation as linting; treat it as a runtime contract. If the payload doesn't match the spec, reject it.

Why AI Urgency Is Forcing a Data Governance Reset

The cost of weak governance shows up in familiar ways: teams can’t find data, requirements arrive late in the process, and launches stall when compliance realities collide with product timelines. Without governance, argues, organizations “ultimately suffer from higher cost basis,” with downstream consequences that “impact the bottom line.” ... McQuillan sees a clear step-change in executive urgency since generative AI (GenAI) became mainstream. “There’s been a rapid adoption, particularly since the advent of GenAI and the type of generative and agentic technologies that a lot of C-suites are taking on,” he says. But he also describes a common leadership gap: many executives feel pressure to become “AI-enabled” without a clear definition of what that means or how to build it sustainably. “There’s very much a well-understood need across all companies to become AI-enabled in some way,” he says. “But the problem is a lot of folks don’t necessarily know how to define that.” In the absence of clarity, organizations often fall into scattershot experimentation. What concerns McQuillan the most is how the pace of the “race” shapes priorities. ... When asked whether the long-running mantra “data is the new oil” still holds in the era of large language models and agentic workflows, McQuillan is direct. “It holds true now more than ever,” he says. He acknowledges why attention drifts: “It’s natural for people to gravitate toward things that are shiny,” and “AI in and of itself is an absolutely magnificent space.”

Building a Least-Privilege AI Agent Gateway for Infrastructure Automation with MCP, OPA, and Ephemeral Runners

An agent misinterpreting an instruction can initiate destructive infrastructure changes, such as tearing down environments or modifying production resources. A compromised agent identity can be abused to exfiltrate secrets, create unauthorized workloads, or consume resources at scale. In practice, teams often discover these issues late, because traditional logs record what happened, but not why an agent decided to act in the first place. For organizations, this liability creates operational and governance challenges. Incidents become harder to investigate, change approvals are bypassed unintentionally, and security teams are left with incomplete audit trails. Over time, this problem erodes trust in automation itself, forcing teams to either roll back agent usage or accept increasing levels of unmanaged risk. ... A more sustainable approach is to introduce an explicit control layer between agents and the systems they operate on. In this article, we focus on an AI Agent Gateway, a dedicated boundary that validates intent, enforces policy as code, and isolates execution before any infrastructure or service API is invoked. Rather than treating agents as privileged actors, this model treats them as untrusted requesters whose actions must be authorized, constrained, observed, and contained. ... In the context of AI-driven automation, defense in depth means that no single component, neither the agent, nor the gateway, nor the execution environment, has enough authority on its own to cause damage.

Demystifying CERT‑In’s Elemental Cyber Defense Controls: A Guide for MSMEs

For India’s Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), cybersecurity is no longer a “big company problem.” With digital payments, SaaS adoption, cloud-first operations, and supply‑chain integrations becoming the norm, MSMEs are now prime targets for cyberattacks. To help these organizations build a strong foundational security posture, the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) has released CIGU-2025-0003, outlining a baseline of Cyber Defense Controls, which prescribes 15 Elemental Cyber Security Controls—a pragmatic, baseline set of safeguards designed to uplift the nation’s cyber hygiene. ... These controls, mapped to 45 recommendations, enable essential digital hygiene, protect against ransomware, ensure regulatory compliance, and are required for annual audits. CERT‑In’s Elemental Controls are designed as minimum essential practices that every Indian organization—regardless of size—should implement. ... The CERT-In guidelines offer a simplified, actionable starting point for MSMEs to benchmark their security. These controls are intentionally prescriptive, unlike ISO or NIST, which are more framework‑oriented. ... Because threats constantly evolve and MSMEs face unique risks depending on their industry and data sensitivity, organizations should view this framework not as an endpoint, but as the first critical step toward building a comprehensive security program akin to ISO 27001 or NIST CSF 2.0.

AI-fuelled cyber attacks hit in minutes, warns CrowdStrike

CrowdStrike reports a sharp acceleration in cyber intrusions, with attackers moving from initial access to lateral movement in less than half an hour on average as widely available artificial intelligence tools become embedded in criminal workflows. Its latest Global Threat Report puts average eCrime "breakout time" at 29 minutes in 2025, a 65% improvement on the prior year. ... Alongside generative AI use in preparation and execution, the report describes attempts to exploit AI systems directly. Adversaries injected malicious prompts into GenAI tools at more than 90 organisations, using them to generate commands associated with credential theft and cryptocurrency theft. ... Incidents linked to North Korea rose more than 130%, while activity by the group CrowdStrike tracks as FAMOUS CHOLLIMA more than doubled. The report says DPRK-nexus actors used AI-generated personas to scale insider operations. It also cites a large cryptocurrency theft attributed to the actor it calls PRESSURE CHOLLIMA, valued at USD $1.46 billion and described as the largest single financial heist ever reported. The report also references AI-linked tooling used by other state and criminal groups. Russia-nexus FANCY BEAR deployed LLM-enabled malware, which it named LAMEHUG, for automated reconnaissance and document collection. The eCrime actor tracked as PUNK SPIDER used AI-generated scripts to speed up credential dumping and erase forensic evidence.

Shadow mode, drift alerts and audit logs: Inside the modern audit loop

When systems moved at the speed of people, it made sense to do compliance checks every so often. But AI doesn't wait for the next review meeting. The change to an inline audit loop means audits will no longer occur just once in a while; they happen all the time. Compliance and risk management should be "baked in" to the AI lifecycle from development to production, rather than just post-deployment. This means establishing live metrics and guardrails that monitor AI behavior as it occurs and raise red flags as soon as something seems off. ... Cultural shift is equally important: Compliance teams must act less like after-the-fact auditors and more like AI co-pilots. In practice, this might mean compliance and AI engineers working together to define policy guardrails and continuously monitor key indicators. With the right tools and mindset, real-time AI governance can “nudge” and intervene early, helping teams course-correct without slowing down innovation. In fact, when done well, continuous governance builds trust rather than friction, providing shared visibility into AI operations for both builders and regulators, instead of unpleasant surprises after deployment. ... Shadow mode is a way to check compliance in real time: It ensures that the model handles inputs correctly and meets policy standards before it is fully released. One AI security framework showed how this method worked: Teams first ran AI in shadow mode, then compared AI and human inputs to determine trust.

Making AI Compliance Practical: A Guide for Data Teams Navigating Risk, Regulation, and Reality

As AI tools become more embedded in enterprise workflows, data teams are encountering a growing reality: compliance isn’t only a legal concern but also a design constraint, a quality signal, and, often, a competitive differentiator. But navigating compliance can feel complex, especially for teams focused on building and shipping. What is the good news? It doesn’t have to be. When approached intentionally, compliance becomes a pathway to better decisions, not a barrier. ... Automation can help with regulations, but only if it's used correctly. I've looked at a tool before that used algorithms to find private information. It worked well with English, but when tested with material in more than one language, it missed a few personal identifiers. The group thought it was "smart enough." It wasn't. We kept the automation, but we added human review for rare cases, confidence levels to make checks happen, and alerts for input formats that aren't common. The automation stayed the same, but there were built-in checks and balances. ... The biggest compliance failures don’t come from bad people. They come from good teams moving fast, skipping hard questions, and assuming nothing will go wrong. But compliance isn’t a blocker. It’s a product quality signal. People will trust you more if they are aware that your team has carefully considered the details.

Tata Communications’ Andrew Winney on why SASE is now non-negotiable

is often discussed as a product decision, but in reality it is a journey. Many enterprises start with a few use cases, such as securing internet access or enabling remote access to private applications. But they do not always extend those principles across contractors, third-party users, software-as-a-service applications and hybrid environments. Practical Zero Trust requires enterprises to rethink access fundamentally. Every request must be evaluated based on who the user is, the context from which they are accessing, the device they are using and the resource they are requesting. Access must then be granted only to that specific resource. ... represents a structural convergence of networking and security rather than a simple technology swap. What are the most critical architectural and change-management considerations enterprises must address during this transition? SASE is not a one-time technology change. It represents the convergence of networking and security under unified orchestration and policy management. That transition takes time and must be managed carefully. We typically work with enterprises through phased transition plans. If an organisation’s immediate priority is securing internet access or private application access for remote users, we begin there and expand to additional use cases over time. Integration is critical. Enterprises have existing investments in cloud platforms, local area networks and security tools.

Daily Tech Digest by Kannan Subbiah

Daily Tech Digest - February 24, 2026