The OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications (2026) marks a quiet but consequential shift in how modern software security risk is being defined. Rather than focusing primarily on code artifacts, infrastructure configuration, or isolated model outputs—the framework surfaces a structural visibility gap in today’s security stacks: the lack of continuous observability into developer and autonomous agent behavior as it unfolds across tools, identities, memory, delegation, and execution over time.

The OWASP framework reflects careful, community-driven analysis and provides a neutral, practitioner-oriented lens on how agentic systems behave in real enterprise environments.

The full framework is available here:

https://genai.owasp.org/resource/owasp-top-10-for-agentic-applications-for-2026/

Why OWASP’s Agentic Top 10 Matters

Agentic systems—autonomous or semi-autonomous software entities that plan, retain memory, invoke tools, and act across multiple steps—are increasingly embedded in development workflows, CI/CD pipelines, operational systems, and internal platforms.

The OWASP Agentic Top 10 does not speculate about hypothetical threats. It documents observable failure modes that arise when software systems gain the ability to act across time, context, and delegated authority.

Importantly, the framework treats these failures not as anomalies, but as systemic properties of agentic architectures.

From Software Artifacts to Executing Actors

Traditional security models evolved around bounded objects:

• source code
• binaries
• infrastructure resources
• API endpoints
• runtime processes

 

Agentic systems introduce a different unit of analysis: executing actors.

These actors—human developers augmented by AI, or autonomous agents acting on their behalf—operate across:

• multiple tools and environments
• delegated permissions
• persistent memory
• chained execution paths
• inter-agent communication
  
  

The OWASP framework reflects this shift by focusing on what systems do over time, rather than what software is at rest.

What the OWASP Agentic Top 10 Documents

The ten risk classes defined by OWASP span a broad surface area, but they consistently express risk through a small number of observable behavioral domains:

• manipulation of execution paths
• unsafe or unintended tool invocation patterns
• privilege escalation through delegation
• dynamic supply-chain influence at runtime
• unexpected execution of generated code
• persistent memory corruption or reuse
• unsecured inter-agent communication
• cascading failure propagation
• misuse of human approval workflows
• autonomous behavioral drift
  
  

Each of these risks is expressed through observable actions and system effects, not inferred mental state or internal reasoning.

A Pattern That Repeats Across All Ten Risks

When read as a whole, the OWASP Agentic Top 10 reveals a consistent structural pattern:

1. Risk originates upstream, during development or agent operation
2. Unsafe behavior accumulates over time, not in a single event
3. Traditional controls engage after critical decisions and actions have already occurred
   
   

In practical terms, many of the most consequential failures begin before code is deployed, before infrastructure is provisioned, and before runtime enforcement is possible.

This is not a limitation of existing security tools. It is a reflection of how software systems have evolved.

What the Framework Deliberately Does Not Define

The OWASP Agentic Top 10 is a taxonomy, not a control specification.

It does not attempt to define:

• how developer or agent behavior should be continuously observed
• how execution patterns should be baselined or compared longitudinally
• how early-stage behavioral risk signals should be surfaced prior to enforcement
  
  

This omission is appropriate. Defining risk classes and defining control planes are distinct responsibilities.

However, the absence of this layer is itself informative.

The Structural Visibility Gap in Modern Security Stacks

Most enterprise security tooling is optimized to observe:

• artifacts after creation
• infrastructure after provisioning
• workloads after deployment
• processes after execution
  
  

Agentic risk, as documented by OWASP, emerges earlier—during behavioral interaction with tools, systems, identities, and delegated authority.

Taken together, these gaps point to the absence of an upstream behavioral control plane—one concerned with observing and contextualizing developer and agent actions before traditional enforcement layers engage.

This gap applies not only to autonomous agents, but also to human developers operating within increasingly automated software environments.

Developer Security Posture Management as an Emerging Control Plane

Developer Security Posture Management (DevSPM) refers to the practice of continuously observing, contextualizing, and correlating developer and autonomous agent actions across tools, workflows, identities, memory usage, and execution paths in order to surface unsafe behavior before it manifests as downstream security incidents.

At a category level, DevSPM can be understood as an emerging behavioral control plane that complements existing security enforcement layers rather than replacing them.

From the perspective of the OWASP Agentic Top 10, DevSPM represents a structural response to a newly visible class of risk—one that existing tools were not designed to observe directly.

Implications for Enterprise Architecture and Platform Strategy

For security and technology leaders, the OWASP Agentic Top 10 can be used as a diagnostic lens:

• Which developer or agent behaviors are currently unobserved?
• Where do unsafe action patterns emerge before enforcement?
• Which systems implicitly assume visibility that does not yet exist?
  
  

For platform and strategy teams, the framework raises an architectural question rather than a tooling decision: where should behavioral observability live within the security stack?

Using the OWASP Agentic Top 10 Effectively

The value of the OWASP Agentic Top 10 lies in how it is applied.

It is most effective when used to:

• assess structural visibility gaps
• evaluate security coverage assumptions
• inform long-term architecture and governance planning
  
  

It is not a checklist and not a prescription. It is a signal.

Closing Perspective

The OWASP Agentic Top 10 does not advocate for specific products or controls. It documents a structural change in how software systems behave and how security risk emerges as a result.

As software continues to evolve toward autonomous execution, security must evolve toward behavior-centric visibility.

How organizations choose to observe, contextualize, and govern that behavior will shape the next phase of enterprise security.

Further Reading

For readers interested in additional architectural context:

• The Missing Control Plane in AI-Native Software Security
• AI Security Has Two Perimeters: The Model and the Coder

→ Book a live demo and see how Archipelo helps teams align velocity, accountability, and security at the source