Capability-Based Security

Modern AI coding-agent harnesses (Claude Code, Codex CLI, Cursor) rest their security boundary on a largely unexamined assumption: that the action A a human approves is the same action A' the harness executes, where A is fixed by a stated policy for what a scope grant or session-scoped approval authorizes. We show this assumption fails systematically and reproducibly. We introduce Approval Laundering, a taxonomy of six failure modes by which a harness's enforcement mechanism silently substitutes A' for A after approval: Scope, Argument, Temporal, Tool, Delegation, and Semantic laundering. Unlike prior work that evaluates risk classifiers against static corpora or infers implicit authorization boundaries, we study credential-binding integrity: given an already-approved action, does the harness dispatch exactly that action? Instrumenting Claude Code's pre-execution mediation point (PreToolUse), we conduct a controlled, headless, repeated-measures study of all six classes (N=19-20 runs each), reporting a Bound-Gap Rate (BGR) with Wilson confidence intervals and inter-rater agreement (kappa=1.0). We prototype Approval Token, a keyed capability Hk(principal, agent_id, session_id, tool, arguments, scope, expiry) issued by a mediator that never returns the key to the agent, evaluated via paired before/after replay of 118 runs (McNemar's exact test). The token fully eliminates Delegation laundering and, for our seeded session-identity-mismatch construction, Temporal laundering (p<10^-5), but by design leaves Scope laundering unaffected and shows no significant reduction in Argument laundering (p=1): an honest negative result, since these two classes leave every recorded dispatch field unchanged, diverging one process level below what a field-only verifier can observe. We discuss implications for defenses that bind only at the tool-invocation boundary.

The emerging Internet of Agents enables LLM-powered agents to discover peers, invoke tools, and delegate tasks across organizational boundaries. Existing protocols increasingly define how agents exchange messages, but not how an agent proves its identity, authorization, advertised capabilities, or accountability after delegation. We present InterSAGE, a trust-native protocol suite that supplies this missing security substrate alongside, rather than in place of, communication protocols. InterSAGE comprises four layers: Persistent Identity, Discovery, Trust Negotiation, and Accountability. Its four core primitives are: (1) Agent Identity Cards that bind developer, code package, operator, and deployment context; (2) capability-aware discovery using DID-bound Verifiable Credential manifests; (3) trust negotiation combining monotonic capability attenuation with two-tier access control; and (4) kernel-mediated cryptographic audit trails that bind usage, delegation, and execution traces to agent identity without a consensus ledger. InterSAGE is designed to complement MCP, A2A, ANP, and AG-UI, allowing communication protocols to evolve independently while keeping trust semantics explicit, portable, and verifiable. We compare InterSAGE with more than 50 efforts spanning agent protocols, decentralized identity, OAuth/OIDC extensions, zero-trust governance, delegation, and audit architectures. We show that no prior architecture jointly enforces persistent identity, capability-aware discovery, trust negotiation, and accountability as a unified four-layer trust substrate for secure agent interoperability.

Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used. This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history. We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers. The result yields a safety trilemma: Useful Capability, Reliable Safety, and Open Access cannot coexist. We then show how a trusted credential can complement existing safeguards by adding hard-to-copy information that predicts actual downstream use, and identify the stronger condition needed to eliminate the floor. Evidence from dual-use evaluations, adaptive attacks, and deployed trusted-access programs supports the practical relevance of these conditions.

Autonomous agents are moving from sandboxed text generators to operators of code, data, and physical infrastructure, and they increasingly learn while deployed. This reopens a question that alignment techniques answer only probabilistically: after an agent has adapted in the field, is the running system still confined to what its operator authorised? Here we show that confinement can be guaranteed as an invariant of the agent's execution architecture rather than a probabilistic outcome of its training. Governed individuation binds an agent at boot to a cryptographically frozen identity digest, and routes every action through a gate defined over the semantic effect of the action rather than its name. We prove that no amount of learning, skill acquisition, or self-induced governance abstraction can widen the agent's permitted authority without an operator-signed change to its identity; the guarantee holds even when the agent induces its own safety principle and that principle is wrong. Empirically, in an open-ended tool-use benchmark where a large action space rules out name-based blocking, ungoverned software agents under reward pressure attempt to tamper with their own evaluation at a task-dependent rate that reaches every run on the hardest task, whereas the gate reduces executed forbidden effects to zero as a verified property of the construction while preserving task success. An adversarial evaluation of monitors of increasing semantic depth shows false-allows falling from 75% (name-based gating) to zero (dynamic effect tracing), and refusal history transfers compliance to held-out red-line families. Trust in a deployed learning agent shifts from a wager on its continued alignment to a check anyone can run at boot.

Model Context Protocol (MCP)-style ecosystems give language-model applications a practical connection layer for tools, resources, prompts, and transports. As agents move from connection to execution, security decisions often remain split across clients, servers, prompts, approval dialogs, OAuth deployments, and logs. This paper asks whether a runtime can make execution-layer invariants explicit and testable while preserving MCP-like workflows. We define eight invariants: metadata non-authority, grant-backed approval, canonical resources, principal binding, scoped capability invocation, source-and-target data-flow authorization, deny-path audit, and explicit protocol state. We implement these invariants in HCP, a Handle-Capability Protocol reference runtime for MCP-style agent execution that represents calls through principals, resources, grants, capabilities, handles, policy decisions, data-pipe checks, and audit entries. We evaluate HCP against two MCP-like baselines: a naive connection-layer runtime and a practice-informed connection-layer mitigation baseline with metadata linting, session checks, and per-call approvals. Across 10 benchmark cases, the naive baseline permits all modeled attacks, the mitigation baseline permits 6 of 10, and HCP blocks all 10 while preserving audit evidence. Ablations identify which runtime components block attacks and preserve forensic evidence. A local in-memory microbenchmark reports sub-millisecond mean latencies for measured policy, invocation, peek, and pipe operations. A bounded GitHub README-screening sample provides ecosystem signals, not vulnerability findings. The results support a narrow claim: MCP-style agent systems need an execution-control layer in addition to connection-layer conventions.

Coding agents often receive broad tool access for an entire task, even when a resource is needed only for one subgoal. We call this gap lingering authority: a temporary resource/effect capability remains exposed after the episode that justified it has closed. PORTICO is a reference monitor for revocable capabilities exposed to the planner. It compiles an explicit task contract into initial capabilities, grant rules, trusted closure predicates, and global deny rules. A request-grant-invoke lifecycle materializes expansions as opaque, epoch-bound handles. Closure removes those handles from the next planner interface and rejects stale replay before side effects. The monitor assumes mediated tools and a sound typed catalog. In controlled coding-agent tasks, PORTICO records no executed contract-forbidden effects in the evaluated runs, while controlled grants recover boundary work blocked by a fixed narrow envelope. A non-revoking comparator receives the same initial envelope and the same grants at the same turns. On the closure slice, both systems match task success, scope compliance, and all pre-closure decisions; PORTICO then rejects 10/10 post-closure reuses, while the comparator permits 10/10. A deterministic stale-write audit records 0/6 versus 6/6 executed forbidden effects. Scripted traces and six live model traces over file writes, git mutation, and network egress show the same split. In a four-episode same-policy diagnostic, broad request exposure preserves zero executed forbidden effects but raises blocked proposals from 67 to 84. Frozen real-repository runs, with commits and traces recorded, exercise the same lifecycle on real project layouts.

Autonomous agents are increasingly connected to cloud, deployment, and data-control workflows, but production mutation authority should not reside inside non-deterministic reasoning processes. Existing access-control mechanisms authorize identities, while assurance layers certify proposed actions; neither alone provides a mandatory enforcement point for certified authority at the moment of mutation. This paper introduces the Sovereign Execution Broker (SEB), a runtime enforcement boundary for certificate-bound agentic infrastructure. SEB consumes certificates issued by the Sovereign Assurance Boundary (SAB), verifies that the requested mutation matches the certified execution contract, checks validity windows, policy epochs, revocation epochs, and live-state drift, mints scoped execution identity, invokes infrastructure APIs, and records signed decision and outcome records. By separating proposal, admission, and execution, SEB turns certified authority into a short-lived, revocable, auditable runtime capability, provided that production mutation APIs reject non-broker identities. We present the SEB execution model, certificate and replay-verification predicates, scoped identity semantics, bypass-prevention deployment patterns, failure behavior, and a concrete prototype implementation. We evaluate the prototype on AWS and Kubernetes clusters, measuring latency overheads, revocation propagation, drift detection, and security under fault injection.

Enterprise security was built to govern data boundaries: the protected surface was data at rest and in transit, and the controls -- access control, data-loss prevention, perimeter inspection -- governed crossings of that boundary. Production AI agents dissolve this assumption. An agent reads context, calls tools, invokes connectors, and modifies systems of record on an enterprise's behalf, so risk moves inside the workflow, into sequences of individually-permitted actions that may transform a business process no one authorized. Existing policy engines do not extend to this regime: they evaluate request-time decisions against atomic principals, where agentic systems require stateful evaluation against composite principals whose authority attenuates through delegation chains. We present a reference architecture for the runtime governance of production agents, built from four composable primitives: a five-plane decomposition (a reasoning plane that adjudicates intent, and four enforcement planes -- network, identity, endpoint, data -- that realize the decision), stop-anywhere mediation, composite principals with capability attenuation, and audit as a structured evidence substrate. We define a taxonomy of six interruption primitives that generalize allow and deny, state and argue for four correctness invariants, and demonstrate the foreclosure of seven production-agent threats across five concrete workflows. A reference implementation of the policy-engine core supplies measured evidence: attenuation correctness and evidence reconstructability hold on every trial, adjudication runs in single-digit microseconds, and the audit substrate's tamper-evidence behaves exactly as designed. We are explicit about scope: the architecture governs delegated action, not model behavior, and a full-system evaluation against a live agent benchmark is the invited next step.

Large language model (LLM) agents are becoming long-running software actors rather than fixed tool users. They accumulate memory, activate skills, synthesize tools, fork children, attach remote resources, and commit checkpoints into reusable execution images. These mechanisms improve adaptability, but also create a systems-security failure mode: if exposing an action also grants the authority needed to perform it, self-evolution becomes a permission-escalation path. This paper presents Agent libOS, an agent-native library-OS substrate for capability-controlled self-evolving agents. Its central invariant is that model-visible affordances may evolve while resource authority changes only through explicit, audited runtime primitives. Agent libOS represents an agent as an AgentProcess with process identity, process-local Object Memory, message queues, a tool table, loaded Skills, process-local Deno/TypeScript JIT tools, child processes, budgets, checkpoints, and explicit capabilities. AgentImage objects define boot-time prompt and tool-table state; Skills and JIT tools extend the action surface; checkpoint-derived images make internal state reusable. None of these mechanisms grants filesystem, shell, human, memory, process, checkpoint, image, JSON-RPC, MCP, or PTY authority by itself. The prototype implements process-local namespaces, persistent runtime state, LLM-call observability, human approval queues, budgets, syscall-mediated JIT tools, trusted Runtime Modules, Object-bound PTY sessions, checkpoint restore/fork/commit, JSON-RPC and MCP providers, and a deterministic runtime-safety benchmark. On 27 versioned deterministic tasks, it completed the task plans while preventing all modeled unauthorized side effects, with a 7.0% conservative false-denial rate. Simple wrapper and sandbox baselines preserved task completion but failed most safety checks.

Tool-using agents increasingly operate in open-ended deployment environments, where they compose file systems, web APIs, code interpreters, and enterprise services at runtime. This creates a safety gap in tool composition: an agent can satisfy every per-tool permission check and still produce an unsafe end-to-end effect, such as reading a confidential document, summarizing it, and sending the summary to an external endpoint. We call this failure mode permission laundering. ChainCaps addresses it with a runtime rule: every value carries a sink-specific capability budget, and tool composition propagates budgets by intersection. A value can preserve or lose authority as it moves through a tool chain, but it cannot gain new authority through composition. We implement ChainCaps as a transparent MCP proxy that requires no changes to the agent or tool servers. On 82 tasks across five frontier models from three providers, ChainCaps reduces attack success rate from 25-68% to 0-4.8% while preserving 96-100% benign completion. In replay experiments, it also outperforms scalar-IFC and per-function-isolation baselines. Manifest quality is the dominant deployment bottleneck: expert manifests reach 100% attack blocking, while naive manifests fall to 27.3%. Our claims are limited to explicit-flow composition safety under trusted manifests and proxy-visible data movement, a practical gap in deployed tool-using agents today.

AI systems increasingly synthesize executable structure at runtime: LLMs generate programs, agents construct workflows,self-improving systems modify their own behavior. In classical homoiconic and staged languages, the transition from code representation to execution is unrestricted. eval is a language primitive, not a governed operation. We argue that in governed intelligent systems, this transition is an authority amplification: it converts symbolic structure into executable authority and must be mediated like any other effect. We present governed metaprogramming, a language design where program representations (machine forms) are first-class values, form manipulation is pure computation, and materialization (the transition from form to executable machine) is a governed effect subject to structural inspection. The governance system analyzes the proposed program's capability requirements, policy compliance, and resource estimates before permitting execution. We formalize two judgments: pure form evaluation (which emits no directives) and governed materialization (which emits exactly one governed directive). We prove three properties: purity of form manipulation, the no-bypass theorem, and boundary preservation. We implement the design in mashinTalk, a DSL for AI workflows compiling to BEAM byte code, and report on integration with 454 existing machine-checked Rocq theorems. The central contribution is reclassifying eval from a language primitive into a governed effect.

We present a certified purity architecture that converts governance enforcement in cognitive workflow systems from a runtime convention into a structural capability boundary. A prior three-layer governance architecture proves governance completeness, provenance completeness, and the impossibility of ungoverned effects, conditional on the pure module constraint: that step executors cannot perform effects. That constraint was enforced by module import graph analysis, which is insufficient against adversarial bypass on the BEAM virtual machine. This paper closes the gap through four mechanisms: (1) a restricted WebAssembly compilation target where effect-producing instructions are structurally absent; (2) purity certificates, cryptographically signed proofs binding executor binaries to their import classifications; (3) a runtime verification gate that rejects uncertified executors before they enter the governance pipeline; and (4) portable governance credentials via remote attestation for cross-organizational verification. We prove four theorems: structural purity by construction, bypass elimination for all five BEAM bypass classes, certificate integrity, and gate completeness. The guarantee holds relative to an explicit Trusted Computing Base. Evaluation on four implemented executors shows verification latency of 39--42 us, full plan cycle under 400 us, runtime overhead under 0.4% of a 100 ms HTTP request, and zero determinism divergences across repeated invocations.

We present an algebraic semantics for governed execution in which governance is axiomatized, compositional, and coterminous with expressibility. The framework, mechanized in 32 Rocq modules (~12,000 lines, 454 theorems, 0 admitted), is built on interaction trees and parameterized coinduction. A three-axiom GovernanceAlgebra record (safety, transparency, properness) induces a symmetric monoidal category with verified pentagon, triangle, and hexagon coherence, where every tensor composition preserves governance. An algebraic effect system constrains the handler algebra so that only governance-preserving handlers can be constructed in the safe fragment; programs in the empty capability set provably emit only observability directives. Capability-indexed composition bundles programs with machine-checked capability bounds, and a dual guarantee theorem establishes that within_caps and gov_safe hold simultaneously under all composition operators. The capstone result is the coterminous boundary: within our formal model, every program expressible via the four primitive morphism constructors is governed under interpretation, and every governed program is the image of such a program. Turing completeness is preserved inside governance; unmediated I/O is excluded from the governed fragment. Governance denial is modeled as safe coinductive divergence. The governance algebra is parametric: any system instantiating the three axioms inherits all derived properties, including convergence, compositional closure, and goal preservation. Extracted OCaml runs as a NIF in the BEAM runtime, with property-based testing (70,000+ random inputs, zero disagreements) confirming behavioral equivalence between the specification and the runtime interpreter.

Agent skills - structured packages of instructions, scripts, and references that augment a large language model (LLM) without modifying the model itself - have moved from convenience to first-class deployment artifact. The runtime that loads them inherits the same problem package managers and operating systems have always faced: a piece of content claims a behavior; the runtime must decide whether to believe it. We argue this paper's central thesis up front: a skill is untrusted code until it is verified, and the runtime that loads it must enforce that default rather than infer trust from a signature, a clearance, or a registry of origin. Without skill verification, a human-in-the-loop (HITL) gate must fire on every irreversible call - which is operationally untenable and degrades into rubber-stamping at any non-trivial scale. With skill verification treated as a separate, gated process, HITL fires only for what is unverified, and the system becomes sustainable. We give a trust schema that includes an explicit verification level on every skill manifest; a capability gate whose HITL policy is a function of that verification level; a biconditional correctness criterion that any candidate verification procedure must satisfy on an adversarial-ensemble exercise; and a portable runtime profile with ten normative guidelines abstracted from a working open-source reference implementation. The contribution is harness- and model-agnostic; nothing here requires retraining, fine-tuning, or proprietary infrastructure.

Every system that performs effects has two boundaries: what it can do (expressiveness) and what governance covers (governance). In nearly all deployed AI systems, these boundaries are defined independently, creating three regions: governed capabilities (the only useful region), ungoverned capabilities (risk), and governance policies that address non-existent capabilities (theater). Two of the three regions are failure modes. We focus on the governance of effects: actions that AI systems perform in the world (API calls, database writes, tool invocations). This is distinct from the governance of model outputs (content quality, bias, fairness), which operates at a different level and requires different mechanisms. We present a formal framework for analyzing this structural gap. Rice's theorem (1953) proves the gap is undecidable in the general case for any Turing-complete architecture that attempts to govern effects behaviorally: no algorithm can decide non-trivial semantic properties of arbitrary programs, including the property "this program's effects comply with the governance policy." We define coterminous governance: a system property where the expressivenessboundary equals the governance boundary. We show that coterminous governance requires an architectural decision (separatingcomputation from effect) rather than a governance layer added after the fact. We show that structural governance under this separation subsumes separate governance infrastructure: governance checks become part of the execution pipeline rather than a second system running alongside it. We propose coterminous governance as the testable criterion for any AI governance system: either the two boundaries are provably identical, or risk and theater are structurally inevitable. Proofs are mechanized in Coq (454 theorems, 36 modules, 0 admitted).

Agentic systems increasingly act with user secrets for APIs, messaging platforms, and cloud services. Today's agent runtimes typically implement authorization by exposure: enabling action often means placing a reusable secret, or a reusable artifact derived from it, inside the runtime, so a transient prompt-injection or tool-side compromise becomes durable account compromise. Existing defenses cover adjacent pieces such as secret storage, scoped delegation, sender-constrained tokens, and runtime monitoring, but leave the combined agentic obligation without a common specification: an untrusted autonomous requester should be able to cause a user-authorized secret-backed operation without gaining reusable authority over it. We formalize this as the Agent Secret Use (ASU) problem and identify seven security properties any solution must satisfy, spanning authorization integrity and secret confidentiality. We propose the Secret-Use Delegation Protocol (SUDP), in which a requester proposes a canonical operation, the user authorizes it with a fresh authenticator-backed grant, and a custodian redeems the grant to perform the bounded use; reusable authority never crosses the requester boundary. We specialize SUDP for LLM-driven agents, where it applies whenever a tool call would exercise user-enrolled authority-bearing material. Under standard cryptographic assumptions, SUDP satisfies all seven properties when integrated with a hardware-rooted runtime. A reference implementation is available at https://github.com/xhyumiracle/sudp.

Modern AI agents routinely depend on secrets such as API keys and SSH credentials, yet the dominant deployment model still exposes those secrets directly to the agent process through environment variables, local files, or forwarding sockets. This design fails against prompt injection, tool misuse, and model-controlled exfiltration because the agent can both use and reveal the same bearer credential. We present CapSeal, a capability-sealed secret mediation architecture that replaces direct secret access with constrained invocations through a local trusted broker. CapSeal combines capability issuance, schema-constrained HTTP execution, broker-executed SSH actions, anti-replay session binding, policy evaluation, and tamper-evident audit trails. We describe a Rust prototype integrated with an MCP-facing adapter, formulate conditional security goals for non-disclosure, constrained use, replay resistance, and auditability, and define an evaluation plan spanning prompt injection, tool misuse, and SSH abuse. The resulting system reframes secret handling for agentic systems from handing the model a key to granting the model a narrowly scoped, non-exportable action capability.