Generative AI is now part of day-to-day work, but the real management question is no longer whether employees are allowed to use it. The harder question is whether they may unintentionally send sensitive business information to external AI services while trying to work faster. In practice, the risk does not stop at opening an AI website. It appears when users upload attachments, paste real data into prompts, move files through webmail, or use temporary cloud services as a bridge. Once design documents, customer lists, pricing files, draft contracts, or finance spreadsheets are sent outside the company boundary, incident handling becomes slower, evidence becomes weaker, and accountability becomes harder.
Background
When international organizations define AI usage rules, they usually run into two problems first. The first is accidental disclosure. Employees do not necessarily mean to leak information, but they paste production data into external large language models because it feels efficient in the moment. The second is route evasion. Even when a company has already restricted part of its outbound channels, employees may still move files through browsers, personal email, chat applications, or temporary storage services before the content reaches an AI tool. That is why policy statements alone are not enough. Security teams need to know whether uploads are visible, whether content risk can be assessed, whether risky routes can be restricted, and whether incidents remain traceable afterward.
Risk Expansion and Control Gaps
If an organization stops at the principle of “do not upload confidential data to AI tools,” three gaps usually remain. First, administrators may see website access but still fail to understand the actual outbound method. Second, they may see file transfer records without knowing which events involved sensitive content, which makes prioritization difficult. Third, they may generate alerts without creating a closed loop, because screenshots, evidence retention, application identification, and blocking rules are not connected into one operational workflow.
How to Use Ping32 to Reduce AI Upload Risk
1. Start with baseline outbound auditing
In the Ping32 console, go to Data Security -> Policy and open the target policy. Under File Security -> Leakage Tracking, enable the feature and use Parameter Settings -> General Settings to turn on screenshot capture and alerting when leakage is detected. Then confirm the policy scope for the departments, user groups, or endpoint sets that need control. The goal at this stage is not to shut down every action immediately. The goal is to build a reliable audit trail for outbound behavior through browsers, email, chat tools, and similar channels.
Verification should be deliberate. After the policy is applied, perform a test upload from a controlled endpoint through a browser and review the result in Data Security -> Leakage Tracking. Confirm that the record shows the endpoint name, outbound route, file name, timestamp, and any screenshot or alert data.
2. Add content-aware analysis so audit data becomes actionable
If the concern is that employees may submit customer records, source code, pricing documents, or financial data to AI systems, file transfer records alone are not enough. In the same policy, go to File Security -> Leakage Tracking -> Parameter Settings -> Sensitive Content Analysis and enable the feature. Then select the data classifications that matter to the business. For multinational environments, it is usually better to define classifications around business objects such as customer identifiers, contract values, design drawings, source code fragments, or supplier lists rather than around one country-specific naming scheme.
This changes the control model from “something was sent out” to “something sensitive was sent out.” If the organization wants to reduce noise, it can audit only records that contain sensitive content. If it also needs strong evidence retention, it can combine that rule with immediate backup of files that match sensitive categories.
3. Improve browser visibility with AI application identification
Many AI services run entirely in the browser, which means process-level visibility alone may not be precise enough. To improve this, go to System Settings -> Advanced Settings and enable AI Pro Service. Then return to Data Security -> Policy -> File Security -> Leakage Tracking and enable Intelligent Analysis Leakage Application. This helps refine records from “an outbound event happened in a browser” to “an outbound event happened through a specific web application or site,” which is much more useful when distinguishing normal browsing from real AI upload activity.
Testing matters here as well. Use a controlled browser session and confirm that the leakage record shows more than the browser process alone. If it still stops at the browser name, first verify that AI Pro Service is enabled and that the updated policy has been applied to the endpoint.
4. Allow uploads only to trusted business destinations
Many organizations do not need to block every web upload. What they need is to allow uploads only to trusted systems such as internal portals, approved service desks, or designated collaboration platforms. In that case, go to System & Network -> Policy -> Network Management and enable HTTP Protocol Filtering. In Parameter Settings, add rules for approved upload destinations first and use POST or PUT for the relevant upload methods. After that, add restrictive rules for other upload routes so browser-based file submission is limited to approved destinations.
This is especially useful for environments that want to allow uploads to an internal AI platform while preventing uploads to public AI services. Before rollout, review whether higher-level file outbound control rules could conflict with the HTTP filtering logic.
Product Value Summary
Preventing employees from uploading confidential information to AI tools is not about blocking one website at a time. It is about building a control loop that is visible, assessable, restrictive, and traceable. Ping32 supports that model by combining outbound auditing, sensitive content analysis, browser-context identification, and upload allowlisting. For organizations with multiple regions, multiple departments, and mixed remote work patterns, this is far more operationally sustainable than relying on awareness messages or scattered one-off restrictions.
FAQ
Q1: If the company does not want to ban AI tools completely, what should it do first?
Start by enabling Leakage Tracking so the security team can see browser, email, and chat-based outbound activity reliably. After visibility is in place, add sensitive content analysis and upload allowlisting in phases.
Q2: What if employees paste confidential text into an AI prompt instead of uploading a file?
That scenario still requires a combination of outbound auditing, screen evidence, browser application identification, and finer endpoint controls. The practical focus should be on whether sensitive business data left the managed endpoint, not only on whether a file was attached.
Q3: Is this something that should be rolled out to the entire company at once?
A phased rollout is usually safer. Start with high-sensitivity teams such as R&D, finance, and legal, verify the detection quality, and then expand once false positives, blind spots, and rule conflicts have been reduced.
Contact
7 min 
