Nearly all security bosses are worried about AI safety with a third saying they still rely on manually reviewing code before launch

Date:
Fri, 12 Jun 2026 00:20:00 +0000

Description:
Security leaders increasingly worry that AI-generated code introduces risks, while many organizations still depend heavily on manual reviews.

FULL STORY ======================================================================Copy link Facebook X Whatsapp Reddit Pinterest Flipboard Threads Email Share this article 0 Join the conversation Follow us Add us as a preferred source on Google Newsletter Subscribe to our newsletter AI-generated code is growing faster than security oversight mechanisms Manual reviews struggle to keep
pace with machine-generated software Security leaders fear insecure coding patterns spreading through development pipelines Artificial intelligence coding assistants have spread across development teams faster than security frameworks can adapt to.

New Salt Security research has claimed 90% of security leaders now report active concerns about risks posed by AI-generated software. However, organizations continue embracing AI tools because they accelerate coding tasks, reduce time spent on repetitive work, and increase software delivery speed. Latest Videos From Watch full video here: Human review cannot handle
AI speed Security leaders believe that development practices designed before AI became mainstream may no longer provide sufficient oversight.

Nearly a third (29%) of respondents identified insecure coding patterns as
the primary risk introduced by AI assistants. You may like AI code security risk: The need for a smarter layer between detection and remediation Nearly all firms admit they have shipped code they know is vulnerable 81% of teams ship broken code: Mythos made that inexcusable

These systems learn from massive training datasets that contain their own flaws and outdated practices.

An AI tool can generate code that appears fully functional while quietly reproducing vulnerabilities a human might have caught. Are you a pro? Subscribe to our newsletter Sign up to the TechRadar Pro newsletter to get
all the top news, opinion, features and guidance your business needs to succeed! Contact me with news and offers from other Future brands Receive email from us on behalf of our trusted partners or sponsors By submitting
your information you agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and are aged 16 or over.

This problem resembles how antivirus software must constantly update its definitions because new threats emerge faster than signature databases can grow.

The difference here is that no central authority tracks every insecure
pattern an AI might replicate - as despite the widespread anxiety that AI introduces, more than one-third of organisations still depend on manual code reviews before any launch.

Reliance on human checking becomes structurally problematic when AI produces code at volumes no team can inspect thoroughly. What to read next AI has slashed coding time in 2026, but its sacrificed software stability Patch window is officially dead as AI finds bugs faster than humans can squash them These are the biggest risks businesses see around using AI - including the most 'extreme' threats

That method worked when developers wrote software at human speed, but it
fails when AI accelerates output dramatically.

Reviewer fatigue sets in quickly, teams apply standards inconsistently, and security requirements get interpreted differently across departments.

AI coding assistants are fundamentally changing how software is built, but governance has not kept pace, said Roey Eliyahu, CEO and co-founder at Salt Security.

Most organisations recognise the risks, but many are still trying to manage AI-generated code using security processes designed for a pre-AI world.

This approach does not scale any better than using a single email inbox to handle millions of daily messages without filtering or automation. Enterprise complexity makes enforcement harder Larger organisations with more than 500 employees face governance challenges that smaller firms simply do not encounter.

Distributed teams use different tools, follow varied workflows, and apply security standards with inconsistent rigour across regions.

The risk of developer overreliance on AI assistants grows proportionally with team size and delivery pressure.

Security agencies, including government cybersecurity bodies, have previously warned that AI systems expand attack surfaces and complicate accountability structures significantly.

Without better visibility into where AI-generated code enters the pipeline, governance remains guesswork dressed up as process.

Treating AI coding assistants as components of the software supply chain similar to vetting any third-party malware risk offers a more realistic path forward than hoping manual review will somehow catch up. Follow TechRadar on Google News and add us as a preferred source to get our expert news, reviews, and opinion in your feeds.



======================================================================
Link to news story: https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/nearly-all-security-bosses-are-worried- about-ai-safety-with-a-third-saying-they-still-rely-on-manually-reviewing-code -before-launch


--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 (Linux/64)
* Origin: tqwNet Technology News (1337:1/100)