当AI能够像安全研究员一样理解代码逻辑,安全工作不再仅是“发现和解决问题”,而是迈向持续治理与协作重构的新阶段。

一次产品发布,为何引发行业震荡?

2026年2月,Anthropic发布Claude Code Security。这款能够基于语义理解代码结构与逻辑关系的安全智能体,在真实环境中发现了超过500个此前未被识别的高危漏洞。消息公布后,资本市场迅速反应,多家传统安全厂商市值波动明显。市场的剧烈震荡折射出一个深层现实:运用智能体来进行安全运营已成为全球头部AI公司、安全公司共同发展的核心方向。

早在2025年,Google和OpenAI都已经发布了相关自主安全研究智能体工具,并在漏洞识别、漏洞验证、代码审计等诸多场景进行应用,代码安全智能体、漏洞管理智能体以正在经历从 “助手” 到 “协作者” ,从 “规则驱动” 向 “语义推理” 的范式跃迁。这些智能体可以捕捉传统安全工具难以捕捉的业务逻辑缺陷和访问控制失效等复杂漏洞,具备更强大的主动防御能力。

目前,中国已有多家技术服务提供商发布了安全运营智能体、代码安全智能体等相关能力,并开放供最终用户使用。国际数据公司(IDC)于2025年发布了中国安全智能体市场概览,2025:东风已至,未来可期》(Doc# CHC53614225,2025年6月),该报告全面展示了2025年中国安全智能体市场的产品技术发展情况以及市场竞争情况,详情请见下图:

从规则驱动到语义推理:安全能力的底层变化

过去十余年,代码安全体系主要依赖SAST、DAST、SCA等工具。这些工具通过规则匹配、特征识别与漏洞库对比完成扫描任务,在已知漏洞检测、依赖组件风险识别以及合规支持方面发挥了重要作用。然而,伴随应用架构的微服务化、业务逻辑的复杂化,以及AI生成代码的比例不断上升,传统基于规则的检测方式在某些场景中已经难以适配用户的安全检测需求,如其难以识别跨模块逻辑漏洞、难以理解权限链条与业务流程、难以处理语义层面的访问控制问题以及自动修复能力有限等。

代码安全智能体的出现,正是对这些短板的回应。基于大模型的语义理解能力,智能体可以跨文件分析上下文关系,模拟安全研究员的推理过程,识别复杂逻辑缺陷,并给出针对性修复建议。这种变化的意义在于,安全能力开始具备“理解”而非仅“匹配”的特征。安全流程也因此不再局限于漏洞扫描,而是向自动修复与流程嵌入延伸。

替代还是协作?行业结构正在重组

伴随技术突破而来的,是关于“替代”的讨论。安全智能体是否会取代传统工具?是否会削弱安全团队的价值?

从当前技术实践看,更合理的判断是能力重组,而非全面替代。

传统SAST、DAST、SCA工具在稳定性、规模化扫描、合规审计以及零日漏洞识别方面仍然不可或缺。尤其是在遗留系统和第三方组件治理场景中,规则工具具有成熟优势。

而智能体更擅长语义推理、复杂场景识别与自动化修复。它弥补了传统工具在上下文理解与闭环能力上的不足,却并未消除对人工判断与策略设计的需求。事实上,当前主流安全智能体产品均保留人工审批机制。这一设计本身表明,在风险决策、异常处理以及责任承担方面,人类依然是关键节点。未来,传统工具会快速嵌入智能体能力实现AI原生安全检测、自动化修复等问题,其安全流程从“检测-修复-审计”转向“预防-检测-修复-治理-审计”的全链路闭环。

企业安全运营模式正在发生转型

技术能力的变化,正在反向推动安全运营模式重构。

首先,安全工作加速左移。智能体能够嵌入CI/CD流程,在代码提交阶段进行实时分析与反馈,使安全从事后扫描转向前置控制。

第二,安全效率显著提升。代码审查、漏洞验证、修复建议生成等高重复性工作可实现自动化,安全团队得以将更多精力投入策略设计与复杂风险分析。

第三,安全能力逐步形成闭环。检测不再是终点,而是治理流程的一部分。风险识别、优先级排序、修复执行与复盘优化可以形成持续循环体系。

这一转型意味着,企业不应仅关注“是否使用智能体”,而应重新思考整体安全架构如何适应这一趋势。

企业应如何布局安全智能体?

面对这一变化,企业需要保持理性与节奏感,而非盲目替换现有体系。

首先,应从架构层面评估智能体的嵌入方式。将其作为增强模块接入现有安全能力体系,通过接口与流水线集成,实现能力协同,而非简单的工具叠加。

其次,可以从高频、低风险场景切入。例如代码审查自动化、依赖漏洞筛查、修复建议生成、安全报告生成等场景,既能体现效率优势,又能控制风险边界。在积累实践经验后,再逐步扩大应用范围。

再次,企业需要同步建立治理机制。明确智能体的决策边界、人工审批节点与异常回滚机制,确保自动化能力在可控范围内运行。

同时,未来企业的安全团队也将以“人+智能体”协同为主流运营模式。安全团队也应做好角色升级准备。未来的安全工程师将更多参与风险评估、模型调优与安全策略设计等复杂任务的处理上。

安全智能体不是终点,而是协作时代的起点。

IDC更多相关研究

IDC已于2026年启动AI安全技术系列研究,围绕AI原生安全架构、安全智能体成熟度评估、AI驱动DevSecOps实践路径及企业级AI治理框架展开深入分析。

如需进一步了解与研究相关内容或咨询 IDC其他相关研究,请点击此处与我们联系。

It has been just over a week since Chinese New Year 2026 and the impact of this year’s robotic display still lingers in my mind.

For those who have not already seen it, the performances stole the CNY limelight, featuring humanoid robots executing jaw-dropping feats such as somersaults and nunchaku routines—blending traditional culture with cutting-edge robotics and AI technology.

I could not help but imagine that if these robots were dressed in full traditional attire and masks, I would be hard-pressed to distinguish them from human performers.

These viral displays highlight China’s growing dominance in robotics, from AI-driven humanoids to industrial robots, signalling a significant leap in automation that is  reshaping industries worldwide.

The tech enthusiast in me—as I’m sure many of you can relate—began wondering about the engineering and infrastructure puzzle pieces that made this possible.

What Powered the CNY 2026 Robot Performance?

Infrastructure Considerations

  • Physical Hardware – The cost-effective materials and scalable mass production capabilities required to design robots capable of such performance suggest clear pathways toward real-world consumer and industrial applications.
  • Compute Power: CPUs, GPUs, and AI Acceleration- Deploying these robots require edge computing hubs, high performance processors, AI accelerators, and potentially cloud-based large language models (LLM) integration. This enables real-time vision processing, path planning, environmental perception, and precise motion control, allowing the robots to perform complex and dynamic movements with high synchronization accuracy
  • Network Infrastructure – The underlying high-speed backbone network facilitates real-time command, control, and data-transmission—essential for large-scale synchronized robotic choreography. Localized 5G-A networks likely played a key role in minimizing latency and enhancing responsiveness
  • Digital Platforms – Software platforms enable seamless integration, centralized control, developer customization, and system scalability, allowing robotic systems to be adapted across multiple industries and use cases.

Sovereignty Considerations

Balancing rapid high-tech adoption requires data localisation policies, cybersecurity safeguards, and protection of critical infrastructure components to ensure operational resilience and national autonomy.

Who Built the Robots Behind the CNY 2026 Show?

The company behind the spectacle is Chinese robotics startup Unitree Robotics, founded in 2016. Unitree has often been compared to Boston Dynamics, but with a significantly more affordable pricing model—much like Deepseek’s positioning relative to ChatGPT.

For example, Unitree’s R1 robot starts at approximately USD 5,000, utilizing cost effective hardware while supporting modular LLMs that allow developers greater customization and experimentation.

In addition, the system platform is open-source, enabling distributed training, custom model development, and seamless deployment with support for major open-source frameworks. In 2025, the company announced that users could further customise and control robots via a mobile application. In a world where most individuals own at least one smart device, the primary limitation becomes creativity rather than accessibility.

What Hardware Do These Robots Run On?

The robots run on high-performance computing module featuring 8-core CPU and integrated GPU. Newer models offer integration with NVIDIA Jetson Orin models, delivering AI performance up to 275 TOPS (trillions of operations per second).

For Terminator fans, it may be reassuring to know that—at least for now—battery limitations mean these robots operate for 1-2 hours before requiring charging.

Note: The G1 robots featured in the CNY show are more advanced models and may have enhanced performance specifications.

How Were the Robots Coordinated?

The robots relied on cluster-performance technology, enabling synchronized group movement. Onboard sensors provided real-time environmental perception, supported by localised 5G-A networks. However, while the robots were physically autonomous in movement, they were largely pre-programmed and choreographed for the specific event rather than operating with full independent agency.

Implications for Infrastructure and Sovereignty: Infrastructure Control & Autonomy

The shift to software-defined, centralized robotics platforms means that manufacturing, logistics, and operational infrastructure increasingly depends on digital orchestration layers and ecosystem partnerships. Whoever governs these platforms–whether vendors, hyperscalers, or local integrators–can significantly influence operational autonomy, resilience, and long-term competitiveness.

Regional adoption of integrated execution platforms—particularly in Asia Pacific’s push for industrial embodied AI–signals a move toward locally governed infrastructure ecosystems, reducing dependency on foreign technology stacks. In Asia/Pacific, local partnerships are becoming essential to accelerating innovation while protecting data sovereignty and regulatory compliance.

Final Reflections

Reflecting on China’s CNY 2026 robotic spectacle, I was struck not only by the technical brilliance and seamless choreography, but by how it exemplifies the convergence of affordable, high-performance robotics infrastructure and strategic technological self-reliance. The future of automation is not just about building smarter robots—it is about who controls the orchestration layers, data flow, compute infrastructure, and platform ecosystems behind them.

What’s your take on balancing innovation and digital independence?

Interested to learn more? Talk to us.

Franco Chiam - Vice President - IDC

Franco Chiam is the vice president for IDC's Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan) Cloud, Datacenter, Telecommunication, and Infrastructure Research Group. He manages and shapes the above domains' offerings to IDC clients, which include cloud and infrastructure surveys, market analysis and perspective, speaking engagements, and executive briefings. In the ever-evolving landscape of technologies, the pillars of cloud computing, datacenters, and telecommunication have emerged as the driving forces behind our interconnected world. As these domains continue to shape the future of infrastructure, their integration and advancement play a crucial role for the foreseeable future.

Manufacturers across Asia/Pacific are navigating powerful crosscurrents: cost pressure, supply chain volatility, skills gaps, and intensifying competition. At the same time, AI is shifting from isolated pilots to systems that can plan, decide, and act. Agentic AI is moving from experimental tooling to bounded operational use cases. The shift is real, but uneven, and it will reward manufacturers that already have disciplined data, process ownership, and governance.

IDC’s FutureScape Worldwide Manufacturing 2026 Predictions for Asia/Pacific (excluding Japan) are more than forecasts. They are a planning input and a view of where investment and capability-building are likely to concentrate. Use them to pressure-test priorities and readiness, not as a certainty about what will happen or when. In the context of agentic AI, they help answer the question for leaders on whether agentic AI will matter, and how quickly they can translate these signals into measurable operating outcomes (eg. disruption recovery, cycle time, quality, OT risk).

What is Agentic AI in Manufacturing?

Agentic AI in manufacturing goes beyond analytics and copilots. It introduces AI agents that can sense conditions, evaluate options, and autonomously execute and orchestrate workflows across the organization, including planning, production, quality, engineering, IT, and cybersecurity, within defined guardrails. Humans remain accountable for strategy, oversight, and exception handling.

Most manufacturers in Asia/Pacific are not starting from this end state. As the differentiated use cases in the above IDC framework illustrate, many organizations remain concentrated in early stages:

  • Generic productivity use cases, providing task-level assistance such as document summarization or reporting.
  • Early functional or process-specific use cases where AI provides decision support within a single function but remains human-driven.

These capabilities are increasingly table stakes. They improve efficiency, but do not yet differentiate manufacturers or fundamentally change how factories, supply chains, or engineering organizations operate.

For manufacturers, the real value lies further up the curve, adopting advanced functional and industry-specific use cases, where AI agents are deeply integrated with operational data, engineering systems, and execution platforms. This is where AI begins to autonomously coordinate decisions across functions, close the loop between design and operations, and where value becomes measurable with fewer schedule resets, faster recovery, reduced security detection time, and fewer late-stage design remedies.

The following three predictions should be read through this lens. Each one highlights a step away from generic productivity toward higher-order, manufacturing-specific agentic capabilities.

Autonomous Production Scheduling

IDC Prediction: By 2027, over 40% of manufacturers with a production scheduling system in place will upgrade it with AI-driven capabilities to start enabling autonomous processes.

Autonomous production scheduling is the most pragmatic entry point into agentic AI for manufacturers because it sits at the intersection of demand, capacity, assets, labor, and supply. Most Asia/Pacific manufacturers already operate advanced planning and scheduling (APS) tools, but these systems are typically static, rule-based, and highly dependent on human planners to intervene when conditions change.

Agentic scheduling represents a step change. AI agents continuously ingest live signals from manufacturing execution systems (MES), maintenance systems, supplier updates, logistics data, and demand forecasts. They evaluate trade-offs in near real time, simulate multiple scenarios, and rebalance production plans dynamically. Over time, these agents do not just recommend changes, they begin to execute them autonomously within predefined constraints, escalating only when exceptions exceed risk thresholds.

This moves manufacturers beyond functional decision support into advanced functional autonomy. Planning is no longer a periodic activity; it becomes a continuously orchestrated process that coordinates decisions across production, maintenance, and supply chain functions.

What to do now:

  • Start where volatility is highest: a constrained line, plant, or product family with frequent schedule disruption.
  • Connect real-time shop floor, asset health, and supply signals directly into the scheduling layer.
  • Establish human-on-the-loop governance early, then expand agent decision rights as performance, trust, and accountability mature.

Predictive Industrial Data Security

IDC Prediction: To counter data model poisoning risks, 70% of large manufacturers will use AI-enabled OT cyberdefense by 2029, autonomously flagging low-level threats and cutting detection times by 60%.

As manufacturers scale advanced agentic AI use cases, cybersecurity becomes a foundational requirement, not a supporting function. Agentic AI systems depend on trusted data, models, and execution environments. If those inputs are compromised, autonomy magnifies risk at machine speed.

AI-enabled OT cybersecurity introduces agents that continuously monitor behavior across networks, devices, control systems, and AI models themselves. Instead of relying on signature-based detection, these agents identify subtle anomalies such as data poisoning, abnormal control logic, or coordinated low-level intrusions that traditional tools and human operators often miss.

For Asia/Pacific manufacturers operating complex brownfield environments, this capability is essential to safely scaling autonomy. Without it, organizations will be forced to cap agent decision authority, limiting the very value agentic AI is meant to unlock.

What to do now:

  • Map critical OT assets, data streams, and AI models that feed systems and agentic workflows.
  • Deploy AI-driven anomaly detection alongside existing SOC and OT security tooling, not as a replacement.
  • Define clear escalation and containment rules that balance autonomy with human accountability.

Agentic Product & Process Simulation

IDC Prediction: By 2028, 50% of A1000 manufacturers will use AI agents in conjunction with design and simulation tools to continuously validate design changes and configurations or variants against product requirements.

Continuous design validation is where agentic AI clearly enters the industry-specific tier. Today, engineering, simulation, manufacturing, and quality operate in loosely coupled stages with design validation occurring episodically, often disconnected from real-world production feedback, and issues surfacing late through defects, rework, or warranty issues.

Agentic AI changes this by embedding validation agents directly into the digital thread. These agents continuously test design changes against requirements, manufacturability constraints, historical defect data, and live production feedback. As materials, suppliers, processes, or operating conditions change, validation updates automatically, closing the loop between design intent and operational reality.

For manufacturers with high product complexity, configuration variability, or rapid innovation cycles, this capability transforms how risk, quality, and cost are managed. It shifts validation from a checkpoint activity to an always-on assurance mechanism.

What to do now:

  • Integrate PLM, simulation, quality, and manufacturing data into a shared, persistent validation workflow.
  • Use agents to automatically assess the downstream impact of engineering changes before release.
  • Move from milestone-based validation reviews to continuous, agent-driven validation embedded in daily operations.

Turning Predictions into Action

These predictions highlight a common truth: agentic AI is not a single technology investment. It is an operating model shift. Manufacturers that succeed will align four foundations:

  1. Strategy: Clear ownership of where autonomy creates value, where human judgment must remain in the loop, and how decision rights evolve over time as agents mature.
  2. Workforce: New roles focused on supervising, governing, training, and continuously improving AI agents, not just consuming AI outputs. This includes redefining accountability as work shifts from people executing tasks to people overseeing autonomous systems.
  3. Technology: Modernized data, security, and cloud foundations designed for continuous orchestration, resilience, and trust spanning IT and OT environments.
  4. Measurement: A clear baseline of current maturity and performance, with success defined not by one-time deployments but by metrics tied to targeted outcomes, such as reduced disruption, faster cycle times, improved quality, or increased autonomous decision coverage.

For Asia/Pacific manufacturers, near-term advantage will come from moving a few bounded workflows into governed production use. Leaders who default to a “wait for certainty” strategy, delaying action until technologies, standards, or competitors fully converge, risk locking themselves into lower positions on the agentic maturity curve and find themselves under increased competitive pressure. Those who treat these predictions as navigational beacons, not distant forecasts, will build factories that are more resilient, adaptive, and competitive.

Agentic AI will not replace manufacturing excellence. It will amplify it.

FAQs on Agentic AI in Manufacturing

  1. What real business problems does agentic AI actually solve in factories and supply chains?

Agentic AI excels in volatile and constraint-heavy operations with frequent disruptions, competing priorities, and too many variables for humans to continuously rebalance. In practice, it helps manufacturers shorten disruption recovery time, reduce manual coordination, and ensure more decisions follow defined guardrails. Examples include autonomous production scheduling, predictive maintenance, quality inspection and predictive quality, AI-enabled OT cyberdefense, and digital twins / simulation-driven design and operations.

  1. Where is the ROI—quality, throughput, inventory, OEE, labor, or something else?

ROI usually shows up first as reduced disruption cost (fewer expediting cycles, fewer schedule resets, less unplanned downtime) and then as improvements in throughput and service levels once planning and execution tighten.

  1. Is agentic AI really different from traditional automation, RPA, or rules-based systems?

Yes, the difference is adaptive decisioning across systems, notjust automation. Rules-based automation executes what you already know; agentic AI can evaluate trade-offs under changing conditions, run scenario logic, and act within constraints, then escalate exceptions when risk thresholds are exceeded.

  1. What data and integration requirements matter most?

Agentic AI depends on trusted signals and tight integration across planning, shopfloor execution, asset health, and supply inputs, otherwise it just automates bad decisions faster. Prioritize master/asset data quality, event-level timestamps, and clearly governed interfaces between IT and OT, with security controls that protect both data and models, and assign data owners to ensure continued data quality assurance.

  1. What workforce impacts and change management issues should be expected?

Expect work to shift from “doing the task” to supervising decision quality: defining guardrails, monitoring exceptions, tuning agents, and clarifying accountability when outcomes are wrong. The hard part is decision rights, escalation paths, and aligning planners/engineers/IT/OT/security around a shared operating model, and this will involve changed responsibility and job design.

Register now for the live webinar on 24 February 2025 at 1:30 pm SGT to join IDC in charting the agentic future with confidence

Stephanie Krishnan - Associate Vice President, Manufacturing and Energy Insights Programs - IDC

Stephanie Krishnan is an associate VP responsible for producing, developing, and growing the IDC Manufacturing and Energy Insights programs in Asia/Pacific. Within Manufacturing Insights, Stephanie conducts supply chain and Industry 4.0 research that supports clients with global sourcing (profitable proximity and sustainable outcomes), transportation, logistics, warehousing, and more. In addition, her contributions to subscription products and custom research span ecosystems, value chains, and the supply chains of industrial industries. In this role, she delivers a research agenda that supports technology buyers in their strategies and buying decisions as well as vendors in terms of market trends and intelligence.