As organizations scale GenAI across departments, risk management has become a top priority. Yet most companies focus exclusively on technology risk—prompt injection attacks, model poisoning, data exfiltration—while overlooking a critical gap: user risk. How employees actually use AI tools reveals behavioral patterns that traditional security tools simply cannot detect. The result is an incomplete picture. You might have excellent technical defenses in place, yet still face incidents driven by how people interact with AI. This article explores the full spectrum of GenAI risk management, from technology threats to user behaviors, and why a holistic approach is essential for scaling AI safely.

Understanding GenAI Risk: Technology vs. User Risk

GenAI risk exists on two distinct levels that rarely get discussed together, yet both are critical for comprehensive protection.

Technology Risk: System-Level Threats

Technology risk is what most security teams focus on. These are vulnerabilities in the AI system itself, from how it's built to how it processes data. OWASP has formalized this in the OWASP Top 10 for LLMs, which outlines the most critical risks facing AI systems.

Prompt injection attacks (OWASP LLM01:2025) occur when attackers manipulate prompts to override system instructions or extract sensitive data. A user might include hidden instructions in a prompt designed to bypass content filters or reveal model internals. Insecure output handling happens when AI-generated content is treated as trusted without validation, allowing malicious payloads to be passed downstream. Training data poisoning involves adversaries injecting malicious data into training datasets to corrupt model behavior. Model denial of service attacks overload models with computationally expensive requests to degrade performance. Supply chain vulnerabilities introduce risks through third-party models, APIs, or integrations. Sensitive information disclosure occurs when models inadvertently reveal training data or PII in outputs.

These threats are real and require strong technical defenses: prompt guards, input validation, output filtering, model monitoring, and access controls. Many vendors specialize in detecting and preventing these attacks at the infrastructure level. These are important and necessary investments. However, these tools focus on system behavior, not user behavior.

User Risk: Behavioral Patterns and Human Factors

User risk is the gap most companies overlook. It's about how employees and users actually interact with AI systems, the patterns that emerge from those interactions, and the compliance or security implications those patterns reveal. Unlike technology risk, which is about what an attacker might do to your system—user risk is about what employees might do within your system.

Unintentional PII exposure occurs when employees repeatedly paste customer names, account numbers, or social security numbers into AI prompts, often without realizing the data is being retained or exposed. Testing guardrails happens when teams methodically test whether the AI will accept restricted data or violate compliance policies, a behavioral pattern that signals either confusion or intentional probing. Compliance violations appear in conversations where employees ask the AI to generate content that violates company policy, regulatory requirements, or ethical standards. Toxic content generation shows up when employees request biased, hateful, or inappropriate content that could harm the company's brand or expose it to liability. Departmental risk variance reveals that certain teams show elevated PII exposure or compliance violations, indicating training gaps or operational stress. Seasonality patterns show spikes in risky conversations at specific times—for example, higher toxic content during hiring season or more PII exposure during financial close.

These patterns are invisible to traditional security tools because they're not attacking the system—they're using it in ways that create business, compliance, or reputational risk. Detecting them requires understanding user behavior, not just system behavior.

The Two-Layer Risk Framework

Effective GenAI risk management requires both layers working together.

Technology Risk: What Traditional Security Tools Detect

Your organization likely already has investments in technology risk management. These tools are essential and do their job well. They detect threats at the system level through various mechanisms.

Prompt Injection Detection

Modern security tools can identify and block prompt injection attempts by analyzing prompt patterns, looking for tokens or instructions that deviate from normal usage. Tools like prompt guards validate inputs against known attack signatures, preventing malicious instructions from reaching the model. These detection methods operate at the gateway, catching threats before they can influence model behavior.

Data Exfiltration Prevention

Monitoring APIs, logs, and model outputs detects abnormal data flows or attempts to extract training data or PII from model internals. Systems track unusual access patterns or data volumes that might indicate someone trying to steal model weights or training information. This layer protects the model itself from being compromised or reverse-engineered.

Model Integrity Verification

Tracking model versions, checksums, and behavior ensures training data hasn't been poisoned or the model hasn't been compromised. Regular verification confirms the model is behaving as expected and hasn't been surreptitiously modified. This continuous monitoring catches even subtle changes in model behavior that might indicate an attack.

Anomaly Detection at Scale

Machine learning models learn normal system behavior and flag outliers—unusual latency, error rates, or API usage patterns. These systems establish baselines for what healthy operation looks like, then alert when something deviates significantly. The advantage is catching attacks that don't match known signatures.

These tools are important and necessary. Organizations need strong technical defenses. However, these tools focus on system behavior, not user behavior. They're built to catch attackers, not employees making honest mistakes.

User Risk: The Gap Technology Tools Miss

Here's where the second layer becomes critical. Traditional security tools cannot answer questions like: Which employees are unknowingly including sensitive data in prompts? Are certain departments showing higher compliance violations than others? Is the AI generating toxic or non-compliant content for specific user segments? What behavioral patterns precede most risky conversations? Where do users hit friction or confusion when using the AI? Is adoption uneven across teams, and why?

These questions require user analytics: deep visibility into how employees interact with AI, what they're trying to accomplish, and where the system isn't meeting their needs or is enabling risky behavior.

Real-World Example: The Global Bank

A global financial services company deployed a GenAI assistant across 80,000 employees in trading, legal, compliance, and HR. They had strong technical security in place—prompt guards, encryption, API monitoring. But within the first 60 days, user analytics revealed dozens of behavioral patterns that technical tools completely missed, each requiring a different response.

The trading department showed employees repeatedly asking the AI whether it would accept restricted market data. This pattern signaled confusion about what data was safe, not malice. The legal department had multiple employees asking variations of the same question—a sign they didn't understand the policy. Root cause: insufficient training, not a security threat. The HR department experienced PII inclusion that spiked during hiring season, a seasonal risk pattern showing employees under pressure taking shortcuts. The compliance team's conversations revealed employees requesting forbidden outputs like generating trading recommendations—an immediate policy violation requiring enforcement.

Traditional security tools would have focused on blocking these conversations or alerting security teams to potential attacks. User analytics revealed the truth: some were training gaps, some were seasonal stress, some were genuine compliance violations. Each required a different response: targeted training, process improvements, or enforcement. This insight is only possible with user behavior analytics.

Read the full case study here.

How User Analytics Fills the Gap

Purpose-built user analytics platforms like Nebuly track human behavior alongside system metrics, providing visibility that neither technology risk tools nor traditional web analytics can deliver. These platforms analyze conversations to understand intent and behavior, what employees are actually trying to accomplish, whether they're using AI for approved use cases, if they're testing boundaries, or if they're confused about what it can do.

Content analysis goes beyond metadata to examine actual conversation content: topics discussed, sentiments expressed, patterns of requests that signal risk. Compliance and safety detection identifies requests for toxic content, policy violations, PII exposure, and other behavioral red flags requiring intervention. User experience and adoption tracking reveals where employees hit friction, where they abandon conversations, where they succeed, indicating training needs or product gaps that impact both adoption and risk. Departmental and temporal pattern analysis surfaces risk variance across teams and times, enabling targeted intervention since risk isn't uniform across the organization.

Combining Technology Risk and User Risk

The strongest risk management approach combines both layers.

Layer 1: Technology Risk (System Security)

Prompt guards and input validation prevent attackers from manipulating the system. Output filtering and redaction ensure harmful content doesn't escape the model. API monitoring and rate limiting detect unusual access patterns. Model integrity checks verify the system hasn't been compromised. Encryption and access controls protect data throughout the pipeline.

Layer 2: User Risk (Behavioral Insight)

Conversation analysis detects compliance violations in real time. PII exposure detection identifies behavioral patterns through user interactions, not just redaction. Toxic content detection flags inappropriate requests or responses. User intent and confusion pattern analysis reveals where employees struggle or test boundaries. Departmental risk variance tracking shows which teams need targeted intervention. Real-time alerts for risky conversations enable immediate action.

Result: Proactive Risk Prevention

Together, these layers enable proactive risk prevention instead of just reactive threat detection. You catch risky patterns before they become incidents, intervene with training or process changes, and scale AI confidently. Technology tools protect systems from attackers. User analytics protect organizations from honest mistakes, policy confusion, and pressure-driven shortcuts.

Why Nebuly Helps Manage User Risk

While technology risk management tools are essential, they only tell half the story. Nebuly is designed to fill the user risk gap, providing real-time visibility into how employees interact with AI systems and identifying behavioral patterns that signal risk.

Real-Time Compliance Monitoring

Nebuly automatically analyzes every conversation between users and AI systems, detecting when employees include PII, request non-compliant content, or attempt to bypass guardrails. Unlike tools that redact PII after the fact, Nebuly identifies the behavioral pattern that precedes exposure, enabling intervention before data is compromised. The platform continuously monitors for policy violations and flags them in real time.

Behavioral Risk Signals

Nebuly tracks patterns that indicate potential risk: employees repeatedly testing whether the AI will accept restricted data, conversations showing confusion about what's safe or compliant, topics or requests that violate policy or generate toxic content, seasonal or departmental spikes in risky conversations, and engagement patterns that signal user struggle or abandonment. These patterns are invisible to traditional security tools because they're not attacking the system, they're using it in ways that create business risk.

Enterprise-Grade Security Built for Compliance

Nebuly implements enterprise-grade security to ensure that user analytics doesn't itself become a data risk. Automatic PII removal detects and replaces all personally identifiable information with pseudonyms, ensuring analytics work on sanitized data. Encryption protects all data in transit with TLS/SSL protocols and data at rest with enterprise-grade encryption. Role-based access control ensures only authorized personnel view sensitive insights. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and ISO 42001 certifications verify security and AI governance compliance through independent audits. Self-hosted options are available for organizations with strict data residency requirements, so conversational data never leaves your infrastructure.

Actionable Insights

Nebuly  provides context and actionable insights. The platform identifies why patterns emerge, helping teams respond with training, process changes, or policy updates rather than just enforcement. When you see guardrail testing, you know to provide training. When you see seasonal spikes, you know to adjust processes during high-pressure periods. This root-cause analysis makes risk management strategic, not just reactive.

Implementing a Holistic Risk Strategy

To scale GenAI safely, combine technology risk and user risk management.

Step 1: Assess Current Risk Posture

Evaluate your technology layer: What prompt guards, monitoring, and access controls are in place? Evaluate your user layer: Do you have visibility into how employees interact with AI? Can you detect behavioral patterns that signal risk?

Step 2: Close the User Risk Gap

Implement user analytics to track conversation content, compliance violations, and behavioral patterns. Set up real-time alerts for high-risk conversations (PII exposure, toxic content, policy violations). Enable departmental and temporal reporting to identify where risk concentrates.

Step 3: Create Response Playbooks

Training gaps require targeted education for teams showing confusion patterns. Policy violations require clear policy reinforcement and escalation. Unintentional PII exposure requires user awareness campaigns. System issues require feedback loops to improve AI system performance or guardrails.

Step 4: Monitor and Iterate

Track risk metrics over time to measure improvement. Adjust guardrails and training based on emerging patterns. Share insights across teams to prevent duplicated mistakes.

Conclusion

GenAI risk management is not a single problem with a single solution. It requires a two-layer approach: strong technology risk management (tools, guardrails, monitoring) and deep user risk visibility (behavioral analytics, compliance tracking, pattern detection).

Technology risk tools protect your systems from attackers. User risk analytics protect your organization by revealing how employees interact with AI, where they hit friction, and which behavioral patterns signal compliance or security concerns. The strongest organizations combine both layers. They invest in prompt guards, encryption, and monitoring. And they deploy user analytics to detect behavioral patterns that no system-level tool can see. This combination enables confident scaling—letting teams adopt AI while maintaining governance, compliance, and security.

As GenAI deployments grow across your organization, the question isn't whether to invest in risk management. It's whether you're managing only technology risk, or both technology and user risk. To learn more about how to add user risk visibility to your GenAI program, book a demo with Nebuly.

‍