What proof should CISOs require from AI agent security vendors?

CISOs should require evidence of outcomes, not capability claims, because the gap between a vendor's pitch and its production behavior is widest exactly where it matters: runtime enforcement, continuous testing, and MCP security.

The proof points worth demanding:

• AI asset discovery accuracy, demonstrated on a real environment, not described

• A documented red teaming coverage matrix showing which attack categories are tested and how broadly

• Runtime detection results: what the platform has actually caught and blocked in production

• A live guardrail enforcement demonstration, not slides

• Audit logs and forensic evidence sufficient to investigate after an incident

• Compliance reporting and control mappings to frameworks such as NIST AI RMF and MITRE ATLAS

• Reference customers, ideally in regulated industries

• Mean time to detect and respond metrics

The single most revealing request is to have the vendor walk through one real attack end to end: how it was detected, what was blocked, how it was investigated, and how it was reported. Vague answers are themselves an answer.

Akto provides discovery, posture management, runtime protection, guardrails, and continuous red teaming with measurable outputs, so security leaders can validate effectiveness through real security outcomes rather than theoretical capability.