In Salesforce Agentforce, the recommended way to make an agent respond to events is a Flow: a record is created or a case is updated, and the Flow passes data into the agent's prompt. Separately, Email-to-Case and Web-to-Case turn inbound customer messages into case records; it is how airlines and hotels run support intake. Both are standard, documented, as-designed features. Chained together, they produce this path:

public internet → email → case record → agent prompt → agent action → case comment → outbound reply

An unauthenticated outsider now has a route into an internal agent's instructions, and the agent's reply leaves through the same door. Nothing was misconfigured. The finding, documented by researchers in August 2026, is a clean example of how agents that arrive inside existing platforms fail: through the application around them, not the model inside them.

The risk is in the application, and the application is the thing nobody re-reviewed

Which intake features are enabled, which triggers fire, which objects are exposed to guest users, which automation passes untrusted data where, and which model version the agent is quietly calling underneath: these are the variables that decide whether the Agentforce chain is a support-queue nuisance or a data exposure. A vendor risk review performed once at procurement sees none of them, because the agent did not exist at procurement. A prompt filter watching the agent's inputs does not know that a particular input originated from a stranger, because prompt filters do not understand Email-to-Case.

Securing an inherited agent therefore means understanding its host application at the depth its own admins do. That depth is the one thing a questionnaire and a scanner both lack. The City-Forum campaign, an active worldwide data-theft operation against Salesforce and ServiceNow instances running since March 2025, was found in exactly this territory: the gap between platform features and the configurations enterprises actually run.

Builders are multiplying, and some of them are agents

The platforms have made agent creation as accessible as making a slide deck. Marketing operations builds an agent to pull pipeline reports. Finance builds one to reconcile invoices. Each rides its creator's permissions, because that is what makes it useful. Shadow AI was an employee pasting data into a chatbot. Shadow agents are that employee's access, running unattended, multiplied across everything they were ever granted.

Increasingly, agents also build agents. A coding agent tagged into a chat channel can scaffold and deploy another agent as easily as it opens a pull request; an orchestration platform spins up sub-agents to divide a task, each with its own connections and none with its own review. Any governance model that assumes a human requested each agent is quietly obsolete.

Why governance keeps producing a document

Ask a large enterprise about agent governance and the answer is usually a document: an acceptable-use policy, a monthly committee, a set of principles nobody disputes and nothing enforces. Ask the operational question, how many agents are running right now, what can they reach, and who owns each one, and the document does not know.

The OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 now describes the sharpest version of this gap under its "No Governance" category: a skill deployed and managed inside a third-party platform is unreachable by external scanners (OWASP Agentic Skills Top 10 whitepaper, ast10-top10-whitepaper-2, published at owasp.github.io). The tools an enterprise points at the problem from outside cannot see inside the venues where most agents live. Governance fails most often because the rules get written before the security team can see the things the rules apply to.

The stack, bottom-up, with a test for each layer

The working order is bottom-up, and each layer is the precondition for the one above it. A practical way to check whether a program is real is to apply an operational test at each level.

The cost of paper compliance

The EU AI Act's penalties carry GDPR-level weight: up to €35 million or 7% of global annual turnover for prohibited practices, up to €15 million or 3% for other violations. Every framework converging on it assumes the stack above exists. GDPR already showed what happens when it does not. British Airways (£20 million) and Marriott (£18.4 million) were not fined for having imperfect policies. Everyone has imperfect policies. They were fined because compliance existed on paper and could not be evidenced operationally when regulators asked. A governance practice built bottom-up generates that evidence as a byproduct: the inventory, the owners, the configurations, the review history.

Some platforms are designed to produce exactly that record. One leading example is Reco, which discovers agents across multiple vantage points, including the ones that never touch SSO, and assigns each a risk profile before any policy can be applied to it.

The Agentforce chain at the top of this article is not an exploit. It is a configuration, and configurations are governable, provided someone can see them. Chapters 1 to 3 of Into the Expanse cover the shift, the three launch vectors, and the governance practice in full: https://www.reco.ai/agent-ecosystem-security