mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Hardware Keystores for AI Agent Signing Workflows: A Zero-Trust MCP Enforcement Architecture

arXiv 2608.06130 ↗First posted 6 Aug 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

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

Abstract (arXiv)

AI agents increasingly sign Git commits, certify documents, and attest release artifacts on behalf of their operators, using private keys that live in software-accessible locations (plaintext files, environment variables, container memory) readable by any process the agent can reach. A widely deployed agent framework recently leaked its keys this way to a single email injection. Hardware keystores (HSM, TPM, smart card) keep the key on-device, but exposing the keystore as a tool an LLM agent can call moves the problem rather than removing it: once a signing session exists, the hardware cannot tell a request reflecting the operator's intent from one injected into content the agent read. We characterize this confused-deputy problem and build the five-layer Zero-Trust enforcement stack it requires, so that only requests consistent with the operator's committed intent reach the hardware. We evaluate on two attack planes. Prompt injection in content the agent reads (AgentDojo, three injection-following models, n=144) falls from an 18.1% baseline attack success rate to 0% under the full stack. Tool poisoning by a compromised MCP server (MCPTox) is contained identically: a hash comparison protects a pre-committed payload, and human-in-the-loop escalation contains autonomous requests with nothing pre-committed. A further probe delineates how far the semantic filter's protection extends: it detects a substitute document under an unrelated name, but an adversarially plausible substitute name defeats it in every trial we ran. We report this as a central finding: the architecture's guarantee never rests on the filter being right, only on a human being asked whenever nothing was committed in advance. The trade-off we characterize across both planes is that the less an operator can commit to in advance, the less deterministic the resulting guarantee, down to asking a human.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Agent threats, guardrails and governance, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Aug 2026.

Builds on

11 of 23 references.

Closest ancestors · 7

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System11 Feb
  2. 2025AgentBound: Securing Execution Boundaries of AI Agents24 Oct
  3. 2025MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents14 Oct
  4. 2025MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers19 Aug
  5. 2025MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols17 Aug
  6. 2025SAGA: A Security Architecture for Governing AI Agentic Systems27 Apr
  7. 2025MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits2 Apr

Other references · 4

  1. 2025Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directionscited by 265
  2. 2026AgentDyn: Are Your Agent Security Defenses Deployable in Real-World Dynamic Environments?cited by 59
  3. 2025Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategiescited by 42
  4. 2025MCIP: Protecting MCP Safety via Model Contextual Integrity Protocolcited by 34

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026GitInject: Real-World Prompt Injection Attacks in AI-Powered CI/CD Pipelines
  2. 2026Toward Securing AI Agents Like Operating Systems
  3. 2026TraceGrant: A Contract-Governed Security Framework for the Task-Effect Lifecycle of Networked LLM Agents
  4. 2026PACE: Provenance-Aware Capability Enforcement for Tool-Using LLM Agents
  5. 2026Grimlock: Guarding High-Agency Systems with eBPF and Attested Channels
  6. 2026Trust propagation and structural containment in Multi-agent LLM pipelines
  7. 2026Demystifying and Detecting Agentic Workflow Injection Vulnerabilities in GitHub Actions
  8. 2026Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI