Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the pressbook-premium domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /home/ecoonomy/domains/calypso.ue.katowice.pl/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6170
Indusface insights to industries most at risk of AI dependence
Online link to source site
News offline code

Partly true - The journalist who made the decision: gr06_25N

The article from Security Journal UK is partly true. It is based on research by Indusface, a company that specializes in application security, and on statements made by its founder, Venky Sundar. The article says that the legal (30% of firms using AI), IT and telecommunications (29.5%), and financial sectors in the UK are leaders in adopting AI, which helps improve their services. It also highlights risks related to AI, such as code vulnerabilities and data privacy issues, and recommends best practices like vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, and using WAAP (Web Application and API Protection). The data about AI adoption in the legal, IT, and financial sectors matches the findings in the McKinsey’s State of AI 2023 report, which confirms that knowledge-based industries use AI heavily for tasks like legal research and data analysis. The Forbes Advisor 2024 report, quoted in the article, says that 59% of UK citizens are concerned about AI, and 77% of global companies are exploring or already using the technology—this is consistent with global trends. Cybersecurity risks like “prompt injections” and AI-generated code vulnerabilities are also supported by industry sources like OWASP. However, the article relies mainly on Indusface’s own research, which raises questions about bias, since the company sells security solutions and Sundar’s comments promote these services. The lack of details about how the research was done makes it hard to verify the numbers. Also, there are few references to independent sources apart from Forbes Advisor, which reduces the article’s objectivity. Other websites, like SecurityWorldMarket.com, also use Indusface’s data, which limits the independence of the coverage. A UK government report on AI security confirms global risks related to AI and supports the article’s main points, but does not refer to Indusface’s findings. In conclusion, the article contains true information about AI adoption and related risks, which match global trends, but the potential conflict of interest, missing methodology, and limited use of independent sources lower its overall reliability.