Skip to content

Is half your workforce breaking AI policy? | The AI Insider Threat Report

Read Now
Blog
27 Aug 2025

Guardrails Aren’t Enough: Why Scanners Are Essential for AI Security

Guardrails Aren’t Enough: Why Scanners Are Essential for AI Security

Guardrails Aren’t Enough: Why Scanners Are Essential for AI Security

Guardrails alone can’t keep AI systems safe. This is something CalypsoAI’s research team sees every month when testing the world’s major models (results published on CalypsoAI’s Security Leaderboards). While guardrails are useful for setting behavioral boundaries, attackers are persistent. With the constant barrage of prompt injections, jailbreak attempts and novel exploits, organizations are left exposed to data leaks, compliance failures, and adversarial manipulations that guardrails weren’t designed to stop. To truly secure AI applications and agents, organizations need scanners that defend in real-time by detecting and blocking threats as they happen.

Why Enterprises Can’t Rely on Guardrails Alone

AI guardrails are preventive tools, typically built into models through training, reinforcement learning, or prompt rules. They shape the intended behavior of AI systems, restricting what models should and shouldn’t do. But once a model is in production, real-world usage exposes its limits through things like:

  • Attackers inventing new prompts and exploits that sidestep guardrail restrictions
  • Sensitive information, such as PII or source code leakings even when outputs appear safe
  • Slow adaptation, with guardrails often requiring retraining or reconfiguration before they can handle new threats

In other words, guardrails guide models, but they don’t guarantee security.

Scanners Catch What Guardrails Miss

CalypsoAI’s security scanners fill the gap guardrails leave behind. Operating at inference, scanners inspect both prompts and outputs in real time, blocking or flagging risky interactions before issues arise. For example, prompt injection and jailbreak scanners can detect manipulative prompts that attempt to override policies. Similarly, data loss prevention scanners stop sensitive data from leaving the organization.

Scanners can run in a block mode (preventing violations) or audit mode (logging events for oversight). Unlike guardrails, these security scanners are continuously updated, ensuring defenses keep pace with evolving attacks. 

To put it simply, guardrails are like the fences that define where people can go around a building. Scanners are the security checkpoints at the entrance—inspecting everything that crosses the threshold. One sets the boundaries; the other ensures nothing harmful slips through.

Scanners vs. Guardrails: Key Differences

While both scanners and guardrails contribute to AI security, they operate in fundamentally different ways. This table outlines the distinctions at a glance.

This contrast makes one thing clear: guardrails help guide AI, but scanners are what keep it truly secure in production.

Why Enterprises Need Scanners to Secure AI

While scanners provide the stronger layers of protection at inference, their real value comes when paired with guardrails, working together to create a defense-in-depth strategy.

Guardrails establish the baseline boundaries for model behavior. Scanners extend that protection, catching novel threats and circumvention attempts that guardrails can’t anticipate. For example, a guardrail might prohibit a model from giving medical advice, while a scanner detects and blocks attempts to sidestep that rule through indirect phrasing or manipulative prompts. 

This layered approach offers the strongest posture for AI security, enabling enterprises to innovate with confidence while staying resilient against ever-evolving risks.

To learn more about our Inference Platform arrange a callback.

Latest Posts

Blog

Explainability: Shining a Light into the AI Black Box 

AI Inference Security Project

The Geopolitics of Artificial Intelligence: Inside the U.S.-China AI Arms Race

AI Inference Security Project

The AI Security Market: From “What If” to “Must-Have”