Read insights for firms on how frontier AI may affect cyber resilience, governance and vulnerability management for firms.
Why we did a review
Frontier AI models can help firms identify and analyse their cyber vulnerabilities more quickly, but if used maliciously, amplify cyber threats to firms’ safety and soundness, customers, market integrity, and financial stability.
In May 2026, we said these models represent a step-change in capability[2], with significant implications for cybersecurity and operational resilience.
We wanted to understand how firms are using, testing and preparing for frontier AI models with cyber capabilities. We’ve been engaging with firms to learn more.
What we expect from firms
We’re making these insights widely available so that particularly small to medium-sized firms can:
- learn from others
- consider the insights in your own adoption of AI models
- prepare for AI-enabled cyber threats
This publication summarises observations reported by firms during our engagement. It does not introduce new rules, guidance or regulatory expectations.
Insights summary
These are the main themes firms reported during our review.
1. Vulnerability discovery is accelerating faster than firms' ability to respond
Firms told us that frontier AI is increasingly supporting the identification, validation and prioritisation of vulnerabilities, increasing the pressure on firms’ remediation processes.
2. Frontier AI is becoming a test of organisational resilience, not just a tool
Frontier AI is revealing whether firms have the right governance, risk ownership, engineering capacity and remediation processes needed to act on AI-generated vulnerability discovery.
Organisational readiness is the primary challenge.
3. The value of frontier AI depends on the firm's operating environment
Firms testing frontier AI models for cyber resilience report that the value they get from them is determined less by what models are being used and more by the governance, tooling, controls, human oversight and operational environment they’re in (the harness).
4. Frontier AI is making foundational cyber and operational resilience more important
Frontier AI is exposing firms’ weaknesses in their vulnerability management practices, access management controls, dependency mapping and remediation processes. Firms that do basic cyber-resilience practices well, and have clear accountability and effective oversight, are likely to be better positioned to tackle the challenges frontier AI brings.
5. Effective governance and human judgement remain critical
While frontier AI can significantly speed up many processes, firms continue to rely on human oversight to prioritise action and manage risk.
Senior leaders may need greater visibility of how AI affects remediation capacity, operational resilience and risk, and their firm’s ability to continue delivering important business services.
Who this publication is for
- Operational resilience leaders
- Technology leaders
- Risk leaders
- Cyber-resilience professionals
What we found
Harness engineering
Harness engineering refers to the environment, controls and processes around an AI model that makes its outputs useful, safe and reliable.
How effective frontier AI is depends on the environment around it
Firms using frontier AI models for cyber resilience say that the value they get from them is determined less by the models themselves and more by the technical and operational environment they’re deployed in.
Although AI models are advancing, and firms are seeing improvements in cyber discovery and analysis as a result, models are most effective when supported by both organisational and technical context. This includes an understanding of how systems and assets underpin important business services, alongside:
- specialist tooling
- robust validation processes
- operational guardrails (for example, limits on model permissions, human approval for higher-risk actions, and controls over access to sensitive systems and data)
- human expertise
Without these, firms report that models can generate large numbers of findings that are technically possible but difficult to validate, prioritise or act upon.
Firms have talked about the importance of taking control of frontier AI-related cyber risk through clear ownership and governance.
Early deployments reveal organisational readiness as much as model capability
Some firms are not approaching frontier AI as an enterprise-wide capability from the outset but using targeted deployments as a practical way to test organisational readiness before scaling more widely.
It’s helping them to pinpoint which vulnerability triage and remediation processes they may need to adapt.
Firms report that since having applied these targeted use-cases, they have gained a clearer understanding of:
- where post-discovery validation activity becomes constrained
- how remediation ownership operates
- whether change processes can absorb more findings
- how effectively cyber teams can distinguish between theoretical weaknesses and credible ways an attacker could exploit a vulnerability
Governance needs to keep pace with model-enabled discovery
As frontier AI capabilities develop, firms may need to consider whether their governance and escalation routes are sufficiently responsive.
Governance forums, risk committees and senior leaders may need clearer visibility of how frontier AI affects vulnerability registers, remediation, supplier dependencies, risk and operational resilience.
Firms may also need to distinguish between observed risks, firm-specific evidence and more speculative scenarios. This will help them respond promptly, while making sure actions remain proportionate.
Human judgement remains central
Although frontier AI is increasing the degree of automation in cyber resilience activities, firms report that human oversight remains critical.
Models can accelerate vulnerability discovery, code analysis and inform prioritisation, but firms continue to rely on specialist expertise to validate findings, assess relevance, determine priorities and make risk-based decisions.
Several firms observed that the benefits of autonomous discovery can be limited where processes cannot keep pace with the volume of output.
Firms reported the value of ensuring cyber expertise, risk ownership and decision-making authority remain closely integrated into how they manage cyber vulnerabilities and security risks.
What this means for firms
Firms should consider whether your use of frontier AI is supported by clear ownership, appropriate guardrails, access to system information and specialist review.
An AI model can identify vulnerabilities, but more importantly, the firm must be able to understand and act on those findings.
Firms should consider the following:
- Who owns decisions about the use of frontier AI in cyber-resilience activities?
- Are model outputs being assessed by people with cyber, technology and business experience?
- Is there a way to escalate important findings and risks?
- Can the firm distinguish between outputs that are technically plausible and findings that are genuinely exploitable?
Preparing for a vulnerability wave
Identifying more vulnerabilities may cause bottlenecks
Frontier AI is changing the speed, scale and manner in which vulnerabilities can be discovered and may need to be addressed.
Firms using frontier AI told us that they’re now able to identify weaknesses in software, systems and infrastructure rapidly – changing how they view cyber resilience.
Firms have suggested that it's not just whether they can identify vulnerabilities, but whether they can effectively assess and respond to a continuous flow of findings.
Firms noted that even where a substantial proportion of model outputs are ultimately discounted through expert review, the remaining volume of genuine vulnerabilities can still put considerable pressure on remediation teams, engineering resources, and change management processes.
Firms may need to understand where vulnerability remediation bottlenecks will arise and whether existing processes can accelerate without creating operational instability.
This includes validation capacity, engineering resource, patch testing, emergency change controls, evidence of closure and the ability to maintain important business services during periods of accelerated remediation.
Traditional prioritisation approaches are being challenged
Another recurring theme is the changing nature of remediation prioritisation.
Firms highlighted that frontier AI models can combine multiple lower-rated security flaws (vulnerability chaining) and create alternative routes to compromise.
The relationships between vulnerabilities, systems and dependencies may not have been visible through traditional approaches to testing and scanning. Several firms noted that with better visibility of these relationships, their vulnerability management decisions are increasingly informed by the potential disruptions incurred if an attack path was to be exploited rather than the ratings of vulnerabilities in isolation.
This is encouraging firms to have a broader view of cyber risk that looks past severity ratings alone. It emphasises a risk-based approach using factors such as exploitability, business service impact, prerequisites to exploit, risk-reduction controls and dependency on the vulnerable system.
What this means for firms
Firms should consider whether your vulnerability management and change processes are effective if the volume and speed that models discover vulnerabilities increases.
Firms should consider the following:
- Where are the likely bottlenecks in validation, remediation, patch testing and change implementation?
- Can the firm prioritise findings using exploitability, exposure, chainability, compensating controls and business service impact?
- Can the firm carry out urgent remediation at an appropriate pace while managing the resulting operational and change risks?
- Are you considering important business services when deciding which vulnerabilities to remediate first?
Effective cyber- and operational resilience foundations
Frontier AI is exposing existing cyber- and operational resilience weaknesses
Frontier AI models are revealing weaknesses beyond just technical vulnerabilities, but also the people, systems and processes that fix them.
As firms use frontier AI to identify vulnerabilities, the importance of asset mapping, dependency management, risk ownership, remediation capacity and triage processes will rapidly become apparent.
Several firms characterised frontier AI as a stress test of their existing cyber-resilience capabilities. It’s also prompting firms to question:
- How well they understand all the technology they use as a business.
- How quickly they can respond to risks.
- How resilient important business services are during periods of accelerated change.
Holistic approach to cyber resilience
Firms report that frontier AI is reinforcing the importance of defence in depth, as controls that may be effective in isolation need to operate cohesively as part of a broader security architecture.
As a result, firms are increasingly viewing cyber resilience as the combined effectiveness of multiple processes rather than the strength of individual controls.
Third-party and software supply chain dependencies are becoming more prominent
Firms also highlighted the importance of supplier preparedness, cloud dependencies, software supply chain visibility and shared infrastructure in their environment. Frontier AI may expose risks that require coordinated engagement and information sharing.
Some firms told us they’re engaging suppliers on using AI-enabled vulnerability discovery, how they’re validating findings, letting customers know, and whether they’re able to remediate quickly.
Firms may wish to consider how they collaborate with third parties to escalate material dependency risks that could affect important business services.
What this means for firms
Firms should consider whether your people, systems and processes can operate under greater pressure.
Frontier AI may expose weaknesses in firms’ existing arrangements, so we encourage you to consider the following:
- Do you have sufficient visibility of assets, dependencies and suppliers supporting important business services?
- Are cyber-resilience controls operating as an interconnected system, rather than as separate processes?
- Have you asked key suppliers how they are preparing for AI-enabled vulnerability discovery and increased patch volumes?
- Are you using trusted collaboration and intelligence-sharing routes where risks may affect shared technology or the wider sector?
Next steps
Firms should consider what the findings mean for you.
We’ve highlighted key questions to consider in each section above:
Further reading
Read the resources below for useful insights to consider your firm’s preparedness for AI-enabled cyber risks:
- Cyber Coordination Group Insights 2025[4], FCA
- Firm guidance for frontier AI[5], Cross Market Operational Resilience Group (CMORG)
- Frontier AI: what you need to know[6], National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC)
- Statement on AI and cybersecurity[7], G7 cyber experts group
- 2025 CBEST Thematic[8], Bank of England, Prudential Regulation Authority and FCA