Abstract
Security risk analysis typically treats control effectiveness as a static input, yet controls degrade through configuration drift, depend on monitoring systems that may themselves be degraded, and compete for finite remediation budgets. The FAIR Controls Analytics Model (FAIR-CAM) provides the theoretical framework for these dynamics but has so far remained theoretical. We present the first agent-based model to operationalize the core FAIR-CAM dynamics, making control physiology computationally observable, and release the implementation as open source. The simulation implements eight agent types, a multiplicative defense-in-depth susceptibility formula, a three-source variance model, budget-constrained remediation, and a narrative causation engine that produces a complete causal trace for every loss event. In a hospital ransomware scenario (N=1,000 iterations), three organizational dynamics emerge that static analysis cannot represent. First, emergent operational efficacy diverges from the analytical FAIR-CAM formula by approximately 17 percent, driven by correlated extrinsic variance; the divergence grows linearly with extrinsic frequency and vanishes under purely intrinsic drift. Second, a sharp queueing regime transition in the remediation pipeline approximately 2.8x expected loss when budget falls below a scenario-specific threshold (5-10 engineer-hours/month). Third, cascading monitoring failures propagate through the VMC topology: a single degraded VMC silently compounds undetected variance across the controls it manages. These dynamics are structural properties of the FAIR-CAM architecture and should generalize beyond the specific scenario studied.
Explore similar work
Jul 8, 2026cs.LG
AI control is a family of techniques to prevent an AI with malicious goals from subverting its operator's intent. AI Control usually studies a single agent in one trajectory, but real deployments run many agents over shared infrastructure, and the most severe risks (model-weight exfiltration, training-run poisoning) plausibly need several agents acting in concert. We initiate the empirical study of multi-agent AI control, formalising distributed attacks in which several agents jointly aim for a malicious goal. We develop FakeLab: a synthetic AI-lab codebase (9 services, 86 benign tasks, 4 attack objectives). We evaluate single agent monitoring against distributed attacks, varying the number of agents, their coordination, model capabilities and precise monitoring configuration. Our central finding is the fragmentation effect: as more agents coordinate to attack, per-agent monitoring becomes less likely to catch any of the attackers. Secondly, this is not driven by the ratio of benign to malicious code -- we argue this is likely dependent on model capability. Third, an explicit planner amplifies the fragmentation effect, raises the rate of completing the attack up to sevenfold, and mildly sharpens executors' poor monitor-theory-of-mind. Finally: a weak "trusted" monitor misses most attacks, while a stronger one cuts undetected success by more than an order of magnitude but remains imperfect. We are happy to share FakeLab, our control setting, with safety researchers on request.
Oliver Makins, Orazio Angelini, Zohreh Shams +1
Aug 31, 2026cs.AI
Fleets of LLM agents now externalize effects that cannot be fully undone: they move money, deploy code, delete data, and disclose information. Current controls check one effect at a time, so a fleet of individually authorized agents can overdraw its principal's risk under a shared trigger while every local gate stays correct. We propose the irreversibility budget, a cumulative account of residual value-at-risk that a trusted runtime maintains for each principal across agents, workflows, and tenants. Treating irreversibility as a first-class resource, the runtime charges each effect its residual loss below the agent and denies the marginal effect once the aggregate would overdraw the budget. Getting the price right is hard, because effects are heterogeneous, adversarially declared, and correlated. We perform a controlled study in which per-effect gates admit fleet-level overdraws of up to 48 times the tenant's risk limit while the budget holds every correctly charged run within that limit. Conservative, dependency-aware pricing remains the central open problem for a deployable design.
Bardia Mohammadi, Laurent Bindschaedler
Apr 16, 2026cs.CR
We introduce LinuxArena, a control setting in which agents operate directly on live, multi-service production environments. LinuxArena contains 20 environments, 1,671 main tasks representing legitimate software engineering work, and 184 side tasks representing safety failures such as data exfiltration and backdooring, making it the largest and most diverse control setting for software engineering to date. We validate LinuxArena is useful for control research by running sabotage evaluations, which measure whether attackers can complete side tasks while working on main tasks, and monitor evaluations, which measure a monitor model's ability to detect sabotage attempts. Against a GPT-5-nano trusted monitor at a 1% step-wise false positive rate, Claude Opus 4.6 achieves roughly a 23% undetected sabotage success rate. We additionally release LaStraj, a dataset of human-crafted attack trajectories that evade monitors at substantially higher rates than any model-generated attacks we elicited, showing that current attack policies do not saturate LinuxArena. These results suggest that LinuxArena has meaningful headroom for both attackers and defenders, making it a strong testbed for developing and evaluating future control protocols.
Tyler Tracy, Ram Potham, Nick Kuhn +31