All engagements conducted under NDA · Evidence preserved to technical chain-of-custody standards · Engagements limited to qualified organizations

The Problem Evidence Quick Start Services Process Who We Serve About Resource Library → Request a Confidential Briefing
HIPAA  ·  SOX  ·  Litigation Risk

Your Employees Are Feeding Data Into AI.
Your Current Tools Can't See It.

Your employees use ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and 200+ AI tools every day — feeding in PII, trade secrets, and client data. The records of what they submitted persist on the endpoint after the session is deleted, in files your DLP and governance dashboards never examine. We find what those tools missed and build the documentation before a regulator or plaintiff's attorney asks for it.

Regulated industries only  ·  NDA signed at engagement start  ·  2–4 week turnaround  ·  Board-ready deliverables

200+
AI Artifacts & Indicators We Detect
$2.19M
HIPAA max penalty per violation category, per year — HHS/OCR (Jan 2026)
$4.88M
Average cost of a data breach — IBM 2024
Technical Chain of Custody
NDA-Protected Engagements
Board-Ready Deliverables
Certified Examiner Network
HIPAA · SOX · GDPR Aligned

"Most companies discover their AI exposure in a deposition, not an audit."

Three Time Bombs Every Company Is Sitting On

Before AI governance policies existed, your employees were already using AI tools. That data is gone—or is it?

Time Bomb 01

Regulatory Violations

  • HIPAA violations from PHI fed into ChatGPT — penalties up to $2,190,294 per violation category per year (effective Jan 28, 2026)
  • SOX internal control gaps when material nonpublic information enters AI tools
  • Attorney-client privilege waived when client matter details are processed through a consumer AI account outside privilege protections
Time Bomb 02

Litigation Exposure

  • Plaintiffs subpoena AI vendor records (OpenAI, Anthropic) to prove negligence
  • Without forensic documentation, you have no evidence to present when challenged
  • Insurance carriers now denying claims without AI usage documentation
Time Bomb 03

Trade Secret Contamination

  • Proprietary algorithms, code, and processes fed into AI tools
  • May have "escaped" into model training data permanently
  • Destroys IP protection and competitive advantage

Three Artifacts That Survive Deletion

Documented in our technical reference and verifiable on any Windows endpoint running Chrome. Each recoverable through standard tooling — no specialist hardware required.

01

IndexedDB Write-Ahead Log

Chromium browsers store AI tool conversation data in a LevelDB write-ahead log. Deleting a conversation appends a tombstone marker — the original content remains at its prior offset until compaction. Recoverable as plain text with standard tooling.

02

Browser History (SQLite)

Chrome and Edge record every AI tool domain visited, with timestamps and visit counts, in a SQLite database. Clearing browser history does not guarantee the underlying records are overwritten.

03

Session Restore Files

Chrome serialises open tab state to disk at browser close for crash recovery. Where an AI tool session was open, the captured state can include conversation content — independent of the history database and the IndexedDB log.

Full technical detail, file paths, and a reproducible verification test: Read the technical reference →

Start Here — Immediate Compliance Resources

Four services available now. No forensic infrastructure required. Deliverable in 2–5 days.

Instant Download

AI Governance Resource Library

From $297
Attorney drafting equivalent documentation: $3,000–$5,000. These frameworks: instant download.

Six practitioner-built compliance frameworks for healthcare, fintech, and legal organizations. Foundation Packs and Implementation Kits available for each industry. No engagement required.


  • Healthcare AI Governance Framework — $297
  • Healthcare AI Governance Implementation Suite — $497
  • Fintech AI Governance Framework — $297
  • Fintech AI Governance Implementation Suite — $497
  • Legal AI Governance Framework — $297
  • Legal AI Governance Implementation Suite — $497
48-Hour Delivery

AI Vendor Risk Assessment

$997 / report
An internal GRC review of a single vendor takes 2+ weeks of analyst time

Is that new AI tool your sales team wants HIPAA or SOX compliant? We score it against 8 criteria and return a Go / Conditional Go / No-Go verdict in 48 hours. No endpoint access required.


  1. 1Book via Calendly and complete a short intake form
  2. 2Send us the vendor's security page, DPA, and plan tier
  3. 3Receive your Go / No-Go report in 48 hours
  • 5-page vendor risk report with 8-criterion scoring
  • Go / Conditional Go / No-Go verdict with conditions
  • HIPAA, SOX, GDPR, and EU AI Act compliance mapping
5 Business Days

Standalone AI Policy Writing

$2,000
Custom policy written for your organization vs. generic template you adapt yourself

A Generative AI Acceptable Use Policy written specifically for your industry, regulatory framework, and named roles. Same outcome as the full audit's policy deliverable — without the forensic engagement.


  1. 1Book a 30-min intake call via email
  2. 2Complete our intake questionnaire (your roles, tools, frameworks)
  3. 3Receive your custom policy in 48–72 hours
  • Custom 10-section AUP for your organization
  • Framework alignment: HIPAA / SOX / GDPR / EU AI Act
  • Editable .docx + print-ready PDF
  • Rush delivery available (+$500)
2 Business Days

Browser Log Light Scan

$1,200
First step before committing to a $12,500 – $35,000 full forensic audit

Your IT admin runs a 5-minute read-only script. We scan it for ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, and 200+ AI indicators plus sensitive keywords. You get a 2-page risk dashboard — no raw data recovery, no air-gap required.


  1. 1Book via Calendly — 15-min setup call included
  2. 2IT admin exports browser history using our instructions (10 minutes, read-only)
  3. 3We analyze the export and return a risk dashboard in 2 business days
  • 2-page AI exposure risk dashboard
  • AI tool usage table: first seen, last seen, visit count, risk level
  • Overall risk rating (Low / Medium / High / Critical) + next steps

The Cost of One Incident vs. The Cost of Prevention

HIPAA Max Penalty
$2,190,294
Per violation category per year · HHS / OCR (effective Jan 28, 2026)
GDPR Max Fine
4% Revenue
Global annual turnover · EU AI Act mirrors this
Avg. Data Breach Cost
$4.88M
IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024
Attorney Policy Drafting
$3K–$5K
Our frameworks: from $297  View →

Four Tiers. One Goal: Know What's Already Out There.

Full forensic engagements for regulated organizations. If you're not ready for a full audit, see our Quick Start resources ↑ above.

Tier 2  ·  Waitlist Open

Continuous Shadow AI Monitoring

$5,000 – $12,000 / month
Launching Q3 2026  ·  Priority access for Tier 1 audit clients

For organizations that completed a Tier 1 audit and need ongoing visibility as employees adopt new AI tools.


What Monitoring Will Cover
  • Continuous detection of new shadow AI tool adoption across the organization
  • Weekly AI data movement summary — what's flowing to which platforms
  • Compliance drift alerts when usage patterns breach policy thresholds
  • Monthly risk score update with trend analysis
  • Priority access to incident advisory response if a breach occurs
Join the Waitlist Details →
Tier 3  ·  By Referral Only

Incident Advisory & Litigation Coordination

Engagement fee structured per matter
Activated when an incident is already in motion

Available to existing audit clients and partner law firms facing an active regulatory inquiry, breach disclosure, or legal discovery request involving AI tool usage.


What This Covers
  • Rapid incident scoping — initial assessment within 48 hours of engagement
  • Digital evidence preservation advisory and documentation
  • Regulatory notification preparation support
  • Coordination with qualified forensic examiners and legal counsel through our partner network

Access is through referral from an existing client or partner law firm only. Direct litigation and expert witness services are delivered through our certified forensic partner network.

Request an Introduction
Tier 4

AI Governance Implementation

$15,000 – $50,000
Project-based  ·  4–8 weeks  ·  Scoped to regulatory complexity

Typically engaged after a Tier 1 audit, following a board mandate or audit committee requirement, or for organizations building a full AI governance program from scratch.


Includes
  • Custom Generative AI AUP — HIPAA, SOX, GLBA, CCPA, and privilege obligations
  • NIST AI Risk Management Framework alignment documentation
  • Employee training program and awareness materials
  • AI vendor risk assessment framework and scoring criteria
  • Data retention and deletion protocols
  • Internal controls documentation package (SOX 302/404)
  • 90-day governance roadmap with milestone accountability
  • EU AI Act Article 11 / Annex IV — for orgs with EU operations
Request a Confidential Briefing Details →

From Evidence Collection to Board Report in 21 Days

We maintain technical chain of custody and forensic integrity from first collection through final report delivery.

1
Evidence Collection
Days 1–7
  • Guide remote forensic artifact collection via secure video call
  • Collect browser usage logs and AI application artifacts
  • Capture DNS query logs & network traffic
  • Scan email archives for AI tool accounts
  • Review cloud access logs
  • Maintain technical chain of custody and forensic integrity protocols
2
Analysis
Days 8–18
  • Pattern match against 200+ AI tool indicators
  • Clipboard forensic analysis
  • Deleted file recovery
  • Metadata extraction
  • Cross-reference with DLP logs
  • Manual validation of high-risk findings
3
Reporting
Days 19–21
  • Draft report to General Counsel
  • Board presentation preparation
  • Technical appendices for IT teams
  • Remediation handoff documentation
4
Remediation
Ongoing
  • Optional continuous monitoring activation
  • EU AI Act compliance implementation
  • Crisis response if needed
  • Long-term governance advisory

Four Industries With the Most to Lose

We focus exclusively on sectors where AI data exposure creates existential legal and regulatory risk.

Healthcare

$50M – $500M revenue
Pain HIPAA violations from clinical staff using ChatGPT
Buyer Chief Compliance Officer

Fintech

$20M – $200M revenue
Pain SOX/CCPA violations, trader AI usage
Buyer CISO, Chief Risk Officer

Legal Firms

AmLaw 200
Pain Attorney-client privilege leaks via AI tools
Buyer Managing Partner, General Counsel

Defense Contractors

Federal / Prime Contractors
Pain ITAR/EAR violations, classified data exposure
Buyer Facility Security Officer

The Only Firm Built Exclusively for Retrospective AI Forensics

We defined the category. We run the playbook. No firm currently specializes in uncovering what already happened before your AI policies existed — and the window to act before regulators and plaintiffs do is narrowing fast.

Cyber Insurance Now Requires Written AI Policies

Insurers are adding AI governance questions to underwriting questionnaires. No documented AI controls = policy exclusions or denied claims.

Plaintiff's Counsel Is Now Subpoenaing AI Records

Wrongful termination, malpractice, and data breach suits increasingly demand AI tool usage records. Most organizations cannot produce them.

HIPAA and SEC Enforcement Is Active

OCR and the SEC are actively investigating AI tool usage at regulated entities. The question is not if — it's what your documentation shows when they arrive.

Built on Peer-Reviewed Research and Regulatory Standards

DFRWS / SIU 2025

Methodology informed by emerging 2025 digital forensics research and DFRWS community frameworks

NIST AI RMF

NIST AI Risk Management Framework — risk identification, governance, and response protocols

EU AI Act

Article 11 / Annex IV technical documentation requirements for high-risk AI system operators

GDPR

Article 17 right to erasure implementation guidance and cross-border data flow obligations

What This Methodology Is Built to Surface

What the audit process is designed to recover from a standard Windows endpoint running Chromium-based browsers, mapped to common enterprise deployment scenarios.

The Scenario

A mid-size regulated organization. Existing DLP solution in place. An acceptable use policy either drafted or in progress. IT has blocked a handful of known AI domains on the corporate network. Leadership considers the AI governance situation handled. From the outside — and from their own audit logs — everything looks fine.

Finding 01

Prompt Content Surviving Interface Deletion

Browser artifact analysis is designed to recover content from AI sessions — including from tools the organisation never approved. The IndexedDB write-ahead log retains the original conversation text after interface deletion, because the deletion appends a marker rather than removing data. This is what DLP does not flag and what survives browser history clearing, because the artifact file is entirely separate from browser history.

Finding 02

OAuth Tokens for Unapproved Platforms

Authentication tokens for AI platforms outside the organisation's approved vendor list may be present in browser credential storage on endpoints where those tools were accessed. These tokens grant ongoing access to platforms where prior sessions — and in some cases, uploaded documents — may still be accessible. Where the employee no longer works at the organisation, the token may still be valid.

Finding 03

Conversation Exports Outside DLP Scope

AI platform conversation exports saved to user download folders sit outside any monitored directory and outside DLP coverage. Where regulated data was processed in the session, the export contains the full text. These files are named generically and are not distinguished from other downloads by endpoint monitoring tools.

Finding 04

Browser Extension Access to Webmail and Editors

AI writing assistant browser extensions with granted permissions to read and modify content across all sites — including webmail, document editors, and internal portals. These extensions operate outside endpoint DLP, outside network monitoring, and outside the organization's AI tool inventory entirely. Permission was granted at installation. Nobody reviewed it.

What This Means Legally

Under HIPAA, every cached prompt fragment containing patient information is a potential impermissible disclosure — regardless of whether the employee intended to expose it. Under SOX, AI-assisted financial analysis not archived in enterprise systems creates a documentation gap regulators are increasingly equipped to exploit. Under attorney-client privilege rules, client matter details processed through a consumer AI account may constitute a waiver.

The finding that surprises most compliance teams: the employees were not being malicious. They were being efficient. The tools were useful and fast and nobody told them the session didn't end when they closed the tab.

Scenarios above illustrate what the methodology is designed to surface. Actual recoverable artifacts depend on endpoint configuration, AI tools in use, browser version, and time elapsed since last session. No two endpoints are identical.

Built From the Gap Nobody Was Talking About

Shadow AI Forensics was built from an observation, not a business plan. Since generative AI tools reached mass adoption in late 2022, the governance conversation has been dominated by two things: policy documents and access controls. Lock down the tools, write a policy, check the compliance box.

"Forensic ground truth: anchor the evidence where you control it, not where the vendor does."

— Harish

Over two years working with generative AI tools, one gap kept surfacing that the governance conversation was ignoring: what these tools leave behind on the endpoint. Cached prompts in browser IndexedDB. Conversation artifacts in local storage. Authentication tokens retained long after a user believes they have logged out. Data a forensic examiner can recover from a workstation weeks or months later.

The research that followed focused on how these tools actually behave on the endpoint — which artifacts persist, where they are stored, how long they survive, and what a regulatory investigator or opposing counsel could reconstruct from a standard corporate workstation. That work became the Shadow AI Forensics methodology: built specifically around how AI tools behave in practice, not adapted from an existing IT security framework.

The gap was never in the AI tools themselves. It was between what organizations believed their controls covered and what was actually sitting on their endpoints. That gap is what we audit.

Shadow AI Forensics is led by Adil, an AI governance and digital forensics specialist focused exclusively on shadow AI exposure in regulated industries.

Litigation support and expert witness services are provided through our partner network of certified forensic examiners where legally required.

How the Methodology Is Structured

Forensic Chain of Custody

Every artifact collected under documented, defensible chain-of-custody protocols aligned with SWGDE and NIST standards.

Regulatory Mapping — Not Generic Checklists

Every finding is cross-referenced against HIPAA, SOX, GDPR, EU AI Act, and NIST AI RMF for your industry.

No False Positives Policy

Every high-risk finding is manually validated before inclusion in the final report. We don't inflate findings to justify our fee.

Attorney Work Product Structuring

Reports can be structured for delivery under attorney-client privilege where legally appropriate — protecting findings from opposing discovery.

We Work With a Select Number of Organizations Each Quarter

Shadow AI Forensics is a specialized consultancy, not a software product. We limit active engagements to ensure every client receives rigorous, hands-on forensic analysis — not an automated scan with a report attached.

Not the right fit

  • Companies under $10M revenue
  • Looking for a quick compliance checkbox
  • No legal or compliance stakeholder involved
  • Unwilling to provide endpoint access
  • Seeking automated scanning tools only

Entry point services (Policy Template, Vendor Assessment, Browser Scan) are available to organizations of all sizes.

Right fit

  • Regulated industries with real exposure
  • Legal, CISO, or CCO involved in decision
  • Active regulatory inquiry or litigation risk
  • M&A due diligence requirements
  • Board-level accountability for AI risk

Common Questions Before Engaging

Answers to what compliance leads, CISOs, and legal teams ask before booking a briefing.

Does this require installing software on our endpoints?

It depends on the engagement tier. The Browser Log Light Scan uses a read-only PowerShell script your IT team can review line-by-line before running — no installation, no persistent agent. Full forensic audit engagements use industry-standard forensic imaging tools, deployed with your IT team present. We never operate unilaterally on your infrastructure.

Who has access to our data? Where does it go?

Only the examiner assigned to your engagement. All data is processed under a signed NDA and our standard confidentiality agreement, executed before any engagement begins. Findings are delivered in an encrypted report. We do not retain client data beyond the engagement period — documented in our evidence destruction certificate, issued at close.

How long does a typical engagement take?

Browser Log Light Scan: 2–3 business days from export receipt to report. AI Vendor Risk Assessment: 48 hours from intake completion. Full AI Exposure Audit: 7–14 business days depending on scope and number of endpoints. Timeline is confirmed at engagement kickoff — we don't start the clock until scope is agreed.

What if the audit finds nothing significant?

That outcome exists and we'll tell you clearly when it does. A clean finding is a defensible finding — documented evidence that your organization examined its AI exposure and found it within acceptable parameters. That documentation has real value in a regulatory inquiry or litigation context. We don't inflate findings to justify our fee.

How is this different from our existing DLP or SIEM?

DLP and SIEM monitor traffic and flag policy violations in real time. They don't examine what's already on the endpoint — cached browser artifacts, local storage, downloaded conversation exports, browser extension permissions. We examine what your existing tools never saw. In most engagements, the meaningful findings come from artifacts that predate our involvement by weeks or months.

Can findings be structured under attorney-client privilege?

Yes. Where legally appropriate, engagements can be scoped and delivered under attorney-client privilege — typically by routing the engagement through outside counsel. We work with your legal team to structure this at kickoff. Not every organization requires this, but regulated industries facing active regulatory scrutiny or pending litigation often do.

Do you sign NDAs before starting?

Always. Our standard NDA is executed before we receive any organizational information. For enterprise engagements, we'll work with your legal team's preferred form. If you'd like to review our standard NDA before booking a briefing, email adil@shadowaiforensics.com.

Are the policy templates ready to use without outside counsel?

The frameworks are ready to deploy for most organizations — drafted with regulatory specificity for your industry and mapped to current HIPAA, SOX, FINRA, and ABA requirements. Organizations with complex multi-jurisdiction exposure or active regulatory matters should have outside counsel review before finalization. For most, the Foundation Pack is sufficient without that step.

Every Day Without Forensic Evidence Is a Day of Unquantified Risk

Every day of undocumented AI usage is potential liability. Whether you need a forensic audit or a quick policy resource — there's an entry point for your situation.

Book a Call