A Unified Compliance Aggregator Framework for Automated Multi-Tool Security Assessment of Linux Systems
Authors: Sheldon Paul, Izzat Alsmadi
Organizations: Department of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical Science Texas A&M University - San Antonio, TX, USA · Professor, Department of Computing, Engineering and Mathematical Science Texas A&M University - San Antonio, TX, USA
Assessing the security posture of modern computing systems typically requires the use of multiple specialized tools. These tools focus on different aspects such as configuration compliance, file integrity, and vulnerability exposure, and their outputs are often difficult to interpret collectively. This paper introduces the Unified Compliance Aggregator (UCA), a framework that integrates several open-source security tools into a single composite score representing overall system security. The proposed framework combines outputs from Lynis, OpenSCAP (STIG and CIS profiles), AIDE, Tripwire, and Nmap NSE. A normalization process converts heterogeneous outputs into a consistent 0 to 100 scale, followed by weighted aggregation. We also introduce a logarithmic scoring model for file integrity measurements to address limitations observed in prior linear approaches. Experiments were conducted on Ubuntu 22.04 across different hardening levels and environments. Results show consistent improvement in composite scores as systems are hardened, while also revealing contrasting behavior between compliance and file integrity tools. Two case studies, a basic web server and a DVWA-based system illustrate how the framework can be applied in practical scenarios.
Security misconfigurations remain a leading cause of OS-level compromise, and manually keeping systems compliant with standards like Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) Security Technical Implementation Guides (STIGs) is a tedious and expensive process. Existing compliance automation tools can reduce some of this burden, but they depend on static, pre-written corrective actions. In this paper, we introduce SHIELDS, a multi-agent system that uses large language models (LLMs) to approach OS hardening as an iterative, feedback-driven process. Instead of applying fixed remediations, SHIELDS continuously proposes fixes and refines them based on feedback from target system execution and validation scans. We evaluate the system across multiple virtual machine configurations using six contemporary LLMs ranging from 20B to 400B parameters, and find that SHIELDS successfully remediates up to 73% of scan findings. Our results also suggest that success in this setting depends less on model size (parameter count) than on effective tool use and information gathering, paving a practical path toward reducing the burden of security compliance in environments where compute is limited or security and privacy needs drive local model use.
In critical infrastructure, operational technology environments often cannot be actively scanned, and yet active system feedback is needed for risk assessment and compliance. This paper presents a non-invasive, MCP-grounded multi-agent pipeline that converts natural-language system descriptions into source-verified knowledge graph and audit-ready artifacts in the NIST OSCAL format for continuous automated compliance management. The architecture decouples LLM-based reasoning from deterministic knowledge retrieval against authoritative threat-intelligence sources, reducing the risk of fabricated vulnerabilities and hallucinated attack paths. In an evidence-based synthetic scenario of a water utility, the pipeline achieves 0.90 CVE recall and perfect D3FEND recall. It generates a schema-valid OSCAL System Security Plan and an OSCAL Security Assessment Report. Nevertheless, the core insight is not that grounding via MCP eliminates errors (e.g., hallucinations) entirely from the pipeline, but that it shifts errors into the first phase of asset extraction from the natural language description. Here, a single incorrectly extracted entity can lead to genuine but irrelevant CVEs in subsequent stages of the pipeline, which consumes time and resources. However, it makes the remaining risk visible, verifiable, and suitable for a time-efficient manual review, since the infrastructure (e.g., version numbers, OS, etc.) is typically known.
Modern AI agent implementations such as frontier coding agents chain multiple tools at runtime that create a security surface that per-tool guardrails are unable to address, as individually permitted tools can violate organizational policies when composed. We propose the Dynamic Security Control Compositor (DSCC), a two-phase approach to compositional security for multi-tool agent chains. In Phase 1, at session checkout, a Most Restrictive Set (MRS) algorithm composes per-tool security policies into a single effective policy with a formal monotonicity invariant that extending a chain can only tighten the result, blocking incompatible combinations before any tool executes. Outputs of any tool call propagate their classification constraints into a session-level taint state, so subsequent invocations must satisfy the most restrictive constraints seen so far. In Phase 2, at runtime, the system tracks the sensitivity of data the agent touches through a monotonic taint state and revokes the session if the accumulated exposure would make a subsequent tool call a policy violation. Together, these phases provide defense in depth, where static composition prevents unsafe chains from starting, and runtime taint tracking catches violations that emerge from the specific data used. We provide a reference implementation on 32 tools governed by 16 NIST SP 800-53 aligned policies and evaluate it under two composition modes. In the default clearance mode, permitted combinations are partitioned into classification-level clusters, blocking 79.2% of policy pairs and 95.5% of triples. The alternative taint mode admits mixed-classification chains within the exfiltration boundary, blocking 42.5% and 60.5% respectively. We discuss the governance implications for organizations deploying multi-tool agents, including the utility-security tradeoff and the changes needed to operationalize chain-aware policies.
Chris Schneider, Kriti Faujdar, Philipp Schoenegger +1