Organisations are pouring investment into AI. But new data from the SAP Concur annual Global Business Travel Survey reveals that nearly three-quarters (70%) of Canadian business travellers have or would make use of unapproved AI tools, also known as ‘shadow AI’ for business travel.
The survey’s findings provide insight into how business travellers are using AI, where a lack of official tools leaves companies missing out, and what employers can learn from this disconnect.
Which business travellers are using shadow AI
Why do travellers turn to shadow AI? For 38% of respondents, it’s a matter of preference. They favour different tools over their company’s approved options. For another 32%, it’s about availability: their employers do not offer any AI tools for planning or booking travel.
Demographics and work arrangements play a big role in who relies on unauthorised tools. Consideration steadily declines by generation: while more than three-quarters of Gen Z (79%) and Millennial (76%) travellers are open to using shadow AI, this falls 62% for Gen X and 49% for Boomers.
Workplace flexibility is another key differentiator, with remote workers (81%) saying they would turn to unapproved AI tools significantly more often than fully on-site employees (71%).
Whether employees travel for business internationally seems to make a difference, too. 75% of those who travel internationally have or would use shadow AI tools, compared to 63% of domestic travellers.
The main ways travellers use AI-powered tools
Three-quarters of travellers (70%) say they have used AI-powered tools to support elements of business travel. The most popular use cases they report include planning their trip agenda (29%), tracking expenses during the trip (24%), and assessing the risks of the trip (20%).
Around a fifth (18%) use AI tools to rebook or make changes to their trip, as well as curate travel options during booking. A similar percentage (18%) use them to complete their expense report after the trip.
The shadow AI risk
These findings tell a cautionary tale: if there’s a gap between the AI tools employees want to use and what’s on offer, they’re likely to source their own alternatives.
“It’s a huge worry for business leaders. 96% of CFOs say they’re concerned by shadow AI in business travel”, says Brian Veloso, Managing Director at SAP Concur Canada. “As consumer AI tools proliferate, they open the door for employees to use unsanctioned systems for booking or planning business travel. Unfortunately, this shadow AI can create security risks, particularly when employees input sensitive data or connect business systems to unauthorised software. Leaders must educate workers on the risks and provide T&E tools that deliver the desired level of AI support.”
The AI features travellers really want
One way for businesses to keep AI usage on track is to understand how employees want to use AI in travel – and provide tools that suit those needs.
When asked, 38% of employees said they want AI integrations in other parts of the workflow (e.g. PowerPoint and their calendar). One in three employees (26%) said they would like AI embedded specifically into communication software (e.g. Teams, Slack), and another 26% want proactive AI that notifies them to book through push alerts or reminders.
Around a quarter of employees (22%) want chatbot interfaces within current booking tools, while 23% would like integrations in role-specific tools (e.g. CRM).
AI is already out on the road with business travellers. Now, it’s up to leaders to ensure corporate governance by offering approved, AI-powered tools that deliver what travellers actually want.
Compromised npm packages are using blockchain transactions to hide their command-and-control
Posted in Commentary with tags Hacked on July 29, 2026 by itnerdSecurity firm Socket found that two Joyfill npm packages were compromised to deliver a remote access trojan that harvests browser data, crypto wallets, and Git and GitHub CLI credentials from developer machines. The malware resolves its command-and-control by chaining transactions across three separate blockchain networks, with a backup path to a hardcoded IP if that fails, letting the operators swap out their real infrastructure any time without ever republishing the malicious package.
Socket posted a write up about this here: Two Joyfill npm Beta Releases Compromised to Deliver DEV#POP…
Roman Sannikov, Global Research Coordinator, iCOUNTER
“The part of this that actually got my attention is the command-and-control setup. Chaining together transactions across three separate blockchain networks, with a fallback process that pulls a boot payload straight from a hardcoded IP if the primary chain fails, gives the operators a way to swap out their real payload infrastructure any time they want, without ever having to touch the npm package again. Persistence is really the whole game for a threat actor once they’re in, and this is one of the more ingenious ways I’ve seen someone build that in from day one. The credential harvesting tells the same story. Browser data, crypto wallet extensions, Git and GitHub CLI credentials, VS Code storage, basically anything a developer machine touches, that breadth isn’t what you build if you’re just trying to grab a batch of credentials to sell quickly. It’s what you build if you’re planning to operate inside these environments for a while. What I’d flag for defenders is that Socket still hasn’t nailed down how the packages got compromised in the first place, workstation, repo, CI pipeline, or stolen publishing credentials are all still open questions, and that answer is going to matter more than the malware itself, because it tells you where the next one comes from.”
Besides nailing down how these packages got compromised is an important step. But as a matter of course, software vendors of all sorts need to know what’s in their software and where it came from as well as be accountable for that by a third party. That is when we will see real change.
Leave a comment »