Pre-breach protection for the AI era

Stop hostile web content
before it becomes AI context.

CyberArmor evaluates URLs, web pages, prompts, and agent-bound content before humans, browsers, apps, or AI agents trust them — then enforces policy and records decision-level evidence. The runtime connects that decision to redaction, routing, agent identity, response, and audit.

Run the 15-minute local PoC Request a Design Partner Pilot
Pre-ingestion URL trust gate — 15-minute local PoC
Runtime control: redaction, routing, identity, and audit evidence
Built for security-led pilots and design partners
cyberarmor.ai / platform / runtime-control

Actor

Identified

Tenant, user, app, agent, provider, and model context

Policy

Enforced

Monitor, warn, block, route, limit, or redact by context

Evidence

Recorded

Decision trace for SOC, audit, legal, and leadership

BLOCKEDURL trust gate: zero-width promptware detected — AI agent fetch blocked2s ago
REDACTEDCredential removed before AI submission — browser prompt18s ago
ROUTEDProvider policy applied — approved model path selected1m ago
Security-Led Design Partner Motion
Cross-Layer AI Context
Runtime Policy Control
Credential Redaction in Supported Paths
Protection-Backed Evidence
The Problem

Enterprise AI Is Moving Faster Than
Security Can Follow.

Security teams are being asked to govern AI systems, agents, providers, and workflows that move faster than traditional review cycles. The hard part is not only seeing AI risk. It is controlling it and proving the control worked.

AI Activity Is Spreading Across Uncontrolled Paths

Employees, developers, contractors, apps, and vendors are using AI tools, APIs, assistants, and providers outside formal review paths. Security teams need more than a list of tools; they need control points that can act when AI activity happens.

Sensitive Data Can Leak Before Anyone Sees the Alert

Credentials, API keys, payment data, bank details, PII, and non-public information can be pasted into generative AI before a traditional ticket, alert, or review workflow ever fires. Detection has to connect to redaction, blocking, routing, and evidence.

Governance Without Enforcement Is Just a Document

Most AI governance efforts begin as policy documents, committee decisions, and vendor questionnaires. When those controls are not tied to runtime enforcement and decision-level evidence, violations become exceptions without response, proof, or accountability.

Why Existing Tools Miss This

Traditional URL filters were built
for human browsing.

A page can look completely harmless to a user while hiding instructions in CSS, comments, metadata, Unicode tags, or zero-width characters. Existing Safe Browsing, SmartScreen, and VirusTotal feeds answer “is this site malicious for a human?” — not “is this content safe for an AI agent to ingest?”

CSS and off-screen hidden text

display:none, visibility:hidden, opacity:0, font-size:0. Invisible to a user, read verbatim by an LLM.

Unicode-tag and zero-width encoding

Instructions encoded in Unicode tag characters (U+E0000–E007F) or zero-width spaces. Browsers render nothing; AI contexts ingest everything.

Metadata, comments, and structured data

JSON-LD, Open Graph tags, HTML comments, and schema markup are never shown to a human visitor. They can carry arbitrary instructions for an AI reader.

CyberArmor evaluates external content before it enters AI context, then allows, warns, redacts, sandboxes, blocks, or isolates based on tenant policy — with evidence written on every non-cached decision.

The Platform

An AI Security Runtime for Control and Proof.

CyberArmor.AI gates external content before it is trusted, then connects detection, policy, routing, identity, redaction, response, audit, and evidence into one operating model. Pre-ingestion control and protection-backed evidence.

01

Identify

Understand the actor, tenant, app, agent, provider, model, and data context behind an AI action

02

Gate

Evaluate external URLs and web content for phishing, promptware, and prompt injection before it reaches any human, browser, or AI agent

03

Inspect

Evaluate prompt risk, sensitive data, credentials, provider posture, and policy-relevant signals

04

Control

Monitor, warn, block, route, limit, or redact in supported runtime and user workflow paths

05

Prove

Capture decision-level evidence that explains what happened, what changed, and which policy applied

Cross-Layer AI Security Context

Users & Identities
Models & Providers
Applications & APIs
Agents & Workloads
Data & Prompts
Evidence & Audit Trails
Explore the Full Platform
What Exists Today

URL Trust Gate runs end-to-end.

The 15-minute local PoC installer brings up the full gate stack on any developer laptop and submits four crafted attack pages — benign, CSS-hidden promptware, zero-width injection, credential-harvest — all producing live verdicts in under 120 ms.

Implemented and Tested

  • FastAPI service — end-to-end, health-checked, Prometheus metrics on port 8014
  • URL canonicalization, querystring redaction, homoglyph / punycode normalization
  • SSRF-guarded safe crawler — no cookies, no credentials, redirect-hop revalidation
  • Playwright detonation sandbox on an isolated Docker network (port 8015, internal)
  • Heuristic detection: prompt injection, credential harvest, brand impersonation, zero-width stripping
  • ML-based detection via detection service — phishing, promptware, DLP, IOC scoring
  • Google Safe Browsing v4, Microsoft SmartScreen, and VirusTotal v3 reputation feeds
  • Tenant allow/block lists via policy service (GET /policies?tenant_id=…&scope=url-trust-gate)
  • Policy decisions: allow, warn, redact, sandbox, block, isolate
  • Evidence writes to audit service on every non-cached decision
  • Consumer hooks: browser extension, endpoint agent, RASP Python, LangChain SDK, LlamaIndex SDK
See the full capability status Request a Design Partner Pilot
Protection-Backed Evidence

Evidence Is Strongest When It Is Attached to Control.

CyberArmor.AI is built around one operating loop: identify the AI action, inspect the risk, enforce the right control, and preserve evidence that explains what happened. Logs alone are not enough. Controls without proof are hard to defend. The platform is designed to bind both together.

01

Identify

Attribute the AI action to a tenant, user, app, workload, agent, provider, and model where the deployment path provides that context.

02

Inspect

Evaluate prompt risk, sensitive data, credential leakage, provider posture, and policy-relevant context before the action is trusted.

03

Control

Apply the approved response: monitor, warn, block, route, limit, or redact in supported browser, endpoint, SDK, extension, and RASP paths.

04

Connect

Preserve the relationship between actors, agents, tool use, policy decisions, response actions, and downstream evidence records.

05

Prove

Produce reviewable decision-level evidence for SOC teams, AppSec, legal, compliance, audit, and executive stakeholders.

Pre-Breach Data Protection Example

Redact the secret before it becomes an incident.

Credential leakage into generative AI is a practical enterprise risk. CyberArmor.AI redaction modes are designed to turn policy into an optional response action: remove supported secrets, PII, PCI, NACHA, NPI, or non-public indicators while preserving evidence about the control that ran.

BEFORE

Summarize this log: OPENAI_API_KEY=sk-... and password=hunter22

AFTER

Summarize this log: OPENAI_API_KEY=[REDACTED-OPENAI-KEY] and [REDACTED-PASSWORD]

Evidence: decision=ALLOW_WITH_REDACTION, policy=redact-secrets, findings=OPENAI_API_KEY/PASSWORD, raw secret preview suppressed.

Product Availability

A Clear Boundary Between What Is Deployable and What Is Being Expanded.

CyberArmor.AI is being built with security-led design partners and controlled pilot deployments. The platform already includes working control, detection, policy, redaction, routing, identity, audit, endpoint, and onboarding paths. Broader enterprise workflows are intentionally marked as pilot-stage while they mature.

Pilot-ready capabilities

Available Today

  • URL & Context Trust Gate — 15-minute local PoC with four live attack-page demos (display:none promptware, zero-width injection, credential harvest, benign)
  • SSRF-guarded safe crawler and optional Playwright detonation sandbox for JavaScript-heavy content
  • External reputation feeds: Safe Browsing v4, Microsoft SmartScreen, and VirusTotal v3 with in-process caching
  • Tenant URL allow/block lists with scope-based policy integration
  • AI request monitoring and policy decision logging
  • Prompt-risk, credential leak, and sensitive-data inspection
  • Redaction-mode policy decisions for supported browser, endpoint, SDK, extension, and provider paths
  • AI provider routing, provider resolution, credential-handling, and audit event patterns
  • Agent identity registration, tenant scoping, delegation metadata, and revocation paths
  • Endpoint-assisted AI tool and connection discovery
  • Tenant-scoped policy builder, artifacts, and API-key flows
  • Audit logs, telemetry, incidents, and evidence capture
Expanding with customers

In Pilot / Design Partner Phase

  • Expanded shadow AI inventory across SaaS and identity sources
  • Agent trust verification and delegation-chain workflows
  • Proof Vault evidence packaging and external audit exports
  • Production SIEM/SOAR integration workflows
  • Advanced fail-closed runtime enforcement across more enterprise control points
  • Native PQC deployment validation where customer environments support required cryptographic dependencies
  • Industry-specific compliance and reporting packs

URL Trust Gate runs end-to-end in 15 minutes on a developer laptop — detection, policy, evidence, and four live attack-page verdicts.

Audit, action graph, compliance, and evidence paths are tied to enforcement decisions, not just reporting copy.

Endpoint agents, browser/IDE/Office extensions, SDKs, RASP hooks, and LangChain/LlamaIndex wrappers support pilot validation.

Core Capabilities

Built for the Realities of Enterprise AI Risk.

Every capability maps to the integrated runtime loop: identify AI activity, inspect risk, decide policy, enforce the approved response, and prove what happened.

URL & Context Trust Gate

Pre-ingestion safety check for URLs and external content before it reaches any human, browser, endpoint agent, or AI agent. Detects phishing, hidden prompt injection, promptware, and IOCs — including CSS-hidden and zero-width-encoded payloads. Backed by Safe Browsing v4, Microsoft SmartScreen, and VirusTotal reputation feeds. 15-minute local PoC available.

Prompt Injection Defense

Detect prompt injection, jailbreak attempts, adversarial normalization patterns, and suspicious prompt behavior targeting AI applications and workflows.

Shadow AI Discovery

Surface unreviewed AI tools, model calls, browser usage, endpoint activity, APIs, and service connections through supported signals.

AI Agent Trust & Control

Register AI agents, scope allowed tools, track delegation context, and preserve evidence around autonomous workflows as trust controls mature.

Sensitive Data Redaction

Inspect AI-bound data for credentials, secrets, PII, PCI, bank-routing data, healthcare identifiers, and non-public indicators so supported paths can redact, warn, log, or block by policy.

Identity-Aware Policy Engine

Apply contextual controls to humans, services, workloads, and AI agents with tenant-scoped policy evaluation and decision records.

Provider Routing & Control

Resolve approved AI providers, route OpenAI-compatible and Anthropic-style requests, handle provider credentials, track cost signals, and emit audit events.

Action Graph & Evidence

Capture trace IDs, policy decisions, actor context, delegation chains, data classifications, signatures, and chain hashes for reviewable AI activity records.

Runtime Response

Connect detection and policy decisions to response actions such as block, redact, route, notify, limit, revoke, or hand off into SOC workflows.

Why CyberArmor.AI

This Is What Different Looks Like.

The AI security category is getting crowded with point products and retrofitted tooling. CyberArmor.AI is aimed at the harder problem: making AI activity controllable, attributable, and provable across the places where enterprise AI actually runs.

01

Governance That Becomes Runtime Control

Most governance products stop at visibility, questionnaires, or policy documentation. CyberArmor.AI ties governance to runtime decisioning so policy can result in monitor, warn, block, route, limit, or redact actions where supported.

Policy to Action
02

Protection-Backed Evidence

Evidence is valuable because it is bound to control. CyberArmor.AI records who or what acted, which policy applied, what response ran, what data classification was involved, and why the decision happened.

Control + Proof
03

Cross-Layer Causality by Design

CyberArmor.AI brings together detection, policy, AI routing, endpoint signals, browser and IDE workflows, agent identity, secrets, response, audit, and compliance evidence so teams can reconstruct the chain.

Action Graph
04

Honest Platform Boundaries

Enterprise buyers trust specific claims. CyberArmor.AI separates pilot-ready capabilities from roadmap expansion, because a security runtime has to be credible before it can be trusted.

Buyer-Safe Roadmap
05

Pre-Ingestion Web Content Trust for AI Agents

Existing URL filters answer 'is this site safe for a human?' CyberArmor.AI also answers 'is this content safe for an AI agent to ingest?' The URL Trust Gate evaluates external destinations for promptware, hidden prompt injection, phishing, IOCs, and credential harvesting before content ever reaches AI context — with policy-based enforcement and evidence written to audit.

URL Trust Gate
Use Cases

Real Threats. Real Buyers. Real Answers.

CyberArmor.AI is built around the security challenges enterprise teams are already facing: AI data leakage, prompt misuse, agent identity, provider sprawl, and the lack of proof when AI activity crosses a boundary.

CISO / Head of Security

Shadow AI Discovery & Governance

The Problem

Employees and vendors are connecting to AI tools, APIs, and models without security review. You have limited inventory, uneven controls, and little evidence when usage crosses policy.

The Solution

CyberArmor.AI uses supported endpoint, browser, API, and integration signals to surface AI usage, connect it to policy, and preserve evidence as coverage expands with each deployment path.

Explore Shadow AI Control
How It Works

From AI Activity to Controlled Evidence.

CyberArmor.AI follows a practical runtime model: attribute the AI action, inspect risk, enforce the policy, and preserve evidence. That is the loop security teams need to make AI governance operational.

Identify

Attribute the AI Action

  • Connect AI activity to tenant, actor, app, agent, provider, model, and request context where available
  • Surface unreviewed AI tools, model calls, browser activity, endpoints, and integration signals
  • Create the foundation for policy decisions that are attributable instead of anonymous
01
Inspect

Score Risk and Resolve Policy

  • Evaluate prompt injection, sensitive data, credential leakage, provider posture, and tenant policy
  • Use policy logic to decide whether the action should be monitored, warned, blocked, routed, limited, or redacted
  • Preserve the reason code and policy context so the decision can be reviewed later
02
Control

Enforce the Approved Response

  • Block high-risk actions, redact supported sensitive values, route to approved providers, or warn users depending on policy
  • Apply controls in supported browser, endpoint, IDE, Office, SDK, RASP, provider, and runtime paths
  • Connect response actions to incidents, telemetry, audit events, and downstream SOC workflows
03
Prove

Generate Evidence That Explains the Control

  • Capture structured records of actor, request, model/provider context, data classification, policy, decision, and response
  • Give SOC, AppSec, legal, compliance, and executive teams reviewable AI activity evidence
  • Build organizational trust in AI adoption with controls that can be demonstrated, not merely asserted
04
Runtime Evidence & Traceability

Not Just Logs.
Control You Can Prove.

When something goes wrong with AI — and it will — security teams need more than alerts. They need a structured, reviewable record of the control decision: which user or agent, which provider or model, what data was involved, which policy applied, and what response ran.

CyberArmor.AI captures evidence as part of the runtime control loop. That makes investigations stronger because the proof is connected to the action: blocked, redacted, warned, routed, limited, or allowed.

Protection-backed. Audit-ready. Decision-level granularity.
EVIDENCE STREAM — LIVE
URL trust gate: BLOCKEDEVT-00482

Zero-width prompt injection detected in external page — AI agent fetch blocked before content ingestion

POL-URL-01: Block Promptware2026-04-11 09:14:38 UTC
Policy enforcement: REDACTEVT-00481

Credential removed before AI-bound browser prompt submission

POL-DLP-04: Redact Secrets2026-04-11 09:14:32 UTC
Provider routing: APPROVEDEVT-00480

Request routed to approved model path with credential handling

POL-ROUTE-02: Approved Provider2026-04-11 09:14:28 UTC
Timestamped Actions
Causality Chains
Policy Attribution
Audit-Ready Records
Why Now

Enterprise AI Has Outpaced The Control Stack Built for It.

IBM's 2025 Cost of a Data Breach research puts hard numbers behind the AI oversight gap: among organizations reporting an AI-related security incident, 97% lacked proper AI access controls and 63% lacked AI governance policies.

OWASP's GenAI security work identifies risks like prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, supply chain vulnerabilities, excessive agency, and model theft. NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001 give enterprises a governance language; the EU AI Act adds pressure for documentation, traceability, oversight, and cybersecurity.

Governance alone is not enough. Enterprises need visibility, runtime controls, and evidence they can show to security, legal, audit, and executive stakeholders.

97%

IBM reported that organizations with an AI-related security incident often lacked proper AI access controls.

OWASP

Prompt injection, sensitive information disclosure, supply chain risk, and excessive agency are recognized GenAI security risks.

NIST

AI risk management is moving into governed, measurable, and managed operating practice.

EU AI Act

High-risk AI obligations emphasize logging, documentation, transparency, oversight, robustness, and cybersecurity.

Founder-Led

Built by a Security Practitioner for Teams That Need Control and Proof.

CyberArmor.AI is founder-led by Patrick Kelly and built from the operating reality of enterprise security: policy has to become enforcement, sensitive data has to be protected before exposure, incidents need evidence, and AI adoption cannot wait for a perfect governance program.

The company is intentionally transparent about product maturity, design-partner work, and where the platform is strongest today. That posture is part of the product.

Read the company story

Security practitioner

Built from application, data, cloud, endpoint, identity, and AI security operating problems.

Hands-on builder

Rooted in working controls, tests, demos, runbooks, and deployment paths instead of slideware.

Enterprise lens

Designed for regulated environments, uneven ownership, legacy systems, and real security-team workflows.

Official Brand and Domains

CyberArmor.AI is the public brand and product site operated by CyberArmor AI, Inc. Official CyberArmor.AI web properties are served from cyberarmor.ai and its subdomains, including app.cyberarmor.ai, admin.cyberarmor.ai, docs.cyberarmor.ai, and support.cyberarmor.ai. CyberArmor.AI is not affiliated with similarly named third-party domains, services, or social profiles unless they are explicitly linked from one of those official properties.

Current Boundary

Built for pilots. Honest about the boundary.

Security buyers deserve to know exactly what is working end-to-end, what requires configuration, and what is on the roadmap. Here is where CyberArmor stands today.

Pilot-ready

URL Trust Gate runs end-to-end. 15-minute local PoC available. Three optional reputation feeds configurable via environment variables.

Deployable today

The broader platform — control plane, policy, detection, response, secrets, and endpoint agent — is deployable for controlled pilots, internal deployments, and operator-led staging environments.

Still maturing

Some customer-facing SaaS workflows, self-service onboarding, and MFA enforcement are still being refined and are marked as such in the capability status table.

FAQ

Questions Enterprise Buyers Actually Ask.

What exactly does CyberArmor.AI protect?+

CyberArmor.AI is designed to help security teams control and prove AI activity across users, applications, agents, APIs, providers, models, data, and runtime paths where policy decisions need to happen. Coverage depends on the deployment pattern, which is why the platform separates pilot-ready controls from capabilities being expanded with design partners.

How is this different from existing security tools we already have?+

Existing SIEM, DLP, endpoint, IAM, and cloud tools remain important. CyberArmor.AI complements them by adding AI-specific runtime context: actor and agent identity, model and provider usage, prompt-risk signals, sensitive-data inspection, policy decisions, redaction or blocking outcomes, and evidence records that can feed the broader security stack.

What does 'shadow AI' mean and why should we care?+

Shadow AI refers to AI tools, models, API connections, browser assistants, developer workflows, or vendor systems being used without security review. The risk is not only unauthorized software use; it is also sensitive data entering unmanaged AI systems, unreviewed model dependencies, unclear retention terms, and no evidence trail when something goes wrong.

What is 'AI runtime protection' and how does it work?+

AI runtime protection means evaluating AI activity as requests, model calls, agent actions, provider routes, or data flows happen. Depending on deployment, CyberArmor.AI can inspect context, call detection and policy services, produce a decision, enforce an approved action such as monitor, warn, block, route, limit, or redact, and preserve evidence.

Can CyberArmor.AI redact sensitive data before it reaches an AI provider?+

Yes, in supported paths. CyberArmor.AI redaction modes can remove supported secrets, credentials, PII, PCI, NACHA/bank data, NPI, and non-public indicators before AI-bound content leaves the protected surface. Redaction is optional policy behavior, not mandatory behavior, and evidence should capture labels, counts, policy, hashes, and action metadata without previewing raw secrets.

Does CyberArmor.AI require replacing our existing security infrastructure?+

No. CyberArmor.AI is designed to integrate with existing security toolchains — SIEM, SOAR, IAM, and cloud-native security platforms. It extends your existing investment rather than replacing it, bringing AI-specific visibility, runtime context, policy outcomes, and evidence that your current tools do not usually provide.

How does the evidence and traceability capability help with compliance?+

Security, legal, compliance, and audit teams need more than screenshots or meeting notes. CyberArmor.AI records structured evidence about AI activity, policy decisions, actors, timestamps, data classifications, and control outcomes so teams can investigate incidents, review governance exceptions, and map technical controls to frameworks such as NIST AI RMF, ISO/IEC 42001, OWASP GenAI guidance, and sector-specific requirements.

Is this relevant to my organization if we're early in AI adoption?+

Especially if you're early. The best time to establish AI runtime policy, redaction, routing, evidence, and trust controls is before AI usage proliferates — not after. Organizations that build the security infrastructure for AI adoption now will have a cleaner path to scale AI use safely and at speed.

What does 'patent-pending' mean for the platform?+

CyberArmor.AI uses 'patent-pending' to describe architectural innovations the company believes are differentiated and has chosen to protect through formal filing activity, including runtime control, AI trust evidence, and cross-layer security operationalization. It should be read as an intellectual-property signal, not as a substitute for product validation, security review, or procurement diligence.

Get Started

Ready to Control and Prove AI Activity?
Let's Talk.

See how CyberArmor.AI maps to your AI activity, data leakage risk, agent workflows, provider usage, runtime controls, and evidence needs. The best demos start with the control problem you already have.

Request a DemoTalk to an Expert

No spam. No hard sell. Every request is reviewed personally.