mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Caging the Agents: A Zero Trust Security Architecture for Autonomous AI in Healthcare

arXiv 2603.17419 ↗First posted 18 Mar 2026cs.CR cs.AIcited by 3

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Agent threats, guardrails and governance

Abstract (arXiv)

Autonomous AI agents powered by large language models are being deployed in production with capabilities including shell execution, file system access, database queries, and multi-party communication. Recent red teaming research demonstrates that these agents exhibit critical vulnerabilities in realistic settings: unauthorized compliance with non-owner instructions, sensitive information disclosure, identity spoofing, cross-agent propagation of unsafe practices, and indirect prompt injection through external resources [7]. In healthcare environments processing Protected Health Information, every such vulnerability becomes a potential HIPAA violation. This paper presents a security architecture deployed for nine autonomous AI agents in production at a healthcare technology company. We develop a six-domain threat model for agentic AI in healthcare covering credential exposure, execution capability abuse, network egress exfiltration, prompt integrity failures, database access risks, and fleet configuration drift. We implement four-layer defense in depth: (1) kernel level workload isolation using gVisor on Kubernetes, (2) credential proxy sidecars preventing agent containers from accessing raw secrets, (3) network egress policies restricting each agent to allowlisted destinations, and (4) a prompt integrity framework with structured metadata envelopes and untrusted content labeling. We report results from 90 days of deployment including four HIGH severity findings discovered and remediated by an automated security audit agent, progressive fleet hardening across three VM image generations, and defense coverage mapped to all eleven attack patterns from recent literature. All configurations, audit tooling, and the prompt integrity framework are released as open source.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 1 of its 10 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Mar 2026.

Builds on

1 of 10 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Agents of Chaos23 Feb

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Agentic AI Governance and Lifecycle Management in Healthcare
  2. 2026From Siloed Algorithms to Compliance-First Agentic Platforms: A Multi-Layered Architecture for Hospital AI Systems
  3. 2026Evaluating Frontier AI Agents as Autonomous Clinical Security Auditors
  4. 2026Uncovering Security Threats and Architecting Defenses in Autonomous Agents: A Case Study of OpenClaw
  5. 2026Trustworthy Agentic AI: A Comprehensive Cybersecurity and Systems Survey on Threat Landscapes, Defense Architectures, and Open Challenges
  6. 2026AgentWard: A Lifecycle Security Architecture for Autonomous AI Agents
  7. 2026Security Considerations for Artificial Intelligence Agents
  8. 2026From Single Chatbots to Governed Agent Ecosystems: An Agentic AI Pattern Catalogue and Orchestration Framework for Mission-Critical Hospital Information Management Systems