Answer capsule
The list helps teams ask better questions about prompt injection, data disclosure, supply chains, outputs, agency, and consumption.
What the source establishes
- The 2025 list is maintained by a community-driven OWASP project.
- It addresses application-level risks such as prompt injection and excessive agency.
- The project has continued to add agentic security resources.
Turn categories into tests
A risk name has little value until it becomes an abuse case against the real application, permissions, data, and tool chain.
Scope the assembled system
A foundation model may resist one attack while a retrieval connector or downstream parser remains exploitable. Test the product architecture, not only the model endpoint.
Consumption is architecture
Retries, long contexts, tool loops, and adversarial requests can create unexpected cost and availability consequences. Limits and circuit breakers belong in production design.
Evidence to request
Ask for threat models, test cases, results, residual risks, monitoring, vulnerability response, and the customer's responsibilities for every relevant category.
Turn this source into a reviewable decision
For AI for CIOs, use this briefing as a dated decision record rather than a substitute for the source. Preserve OWASP GenAI Security Project, the exact URL, the July 20, 2026 review date, the supported facts above, the editorial interpretation, the limitations, and any buyer-specific evidence. Link that record to the decisions most directly affected: Enterprise AI platform architecture; Enterprise knowledge retrieval; Software delivery and modernization; Service management and employee support. State whether the source changes the scope, evidence requirement, control, sequence, or only the language used to describe the decision.
Before action, name the accountable owner, affected population and workflow, exact offering or configuration, source data and rights, human decision point, exception and appeal path, complete cost, expected benefit, failure and stop conditions, retained evidence, and next review date. Keep official facts, provider statements, buyer observations, representative tests, measured outcomes, editorial inferences, and unknowns visibly separate. Reopen the record when the source, offer, model, integration, data, policy, population, responsible person, or measured result changes.
Decision test
Ask whether the source changes the decision itself, the evidence required, the implementation sequence, or only the language used to describe an existing capability. Record which claims are directly supported, which are provider statements, which require an independent test, and which remain unknown. A source-linked review should make uncertainty easier to see, not bury it inside a blended score.
Questions to take into review
- Which services are common and which remain workload-specific?
- How can a team change a model without rewriting the application?
- Are source permissions enforced at retrieval and answer time?
- How are stale or superseded documents handled?
- Which repositories and dependencies are exposed?
- What checks gate generated changes?
- What actions can the assistant execute?
- Which record remains authoritative for incident and change state?
The publication supports research and executive decision preparation. It does not provide legal, financial, accounting, employment, clinical, cybersecurity, investment, procurement, or implementation advice.