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

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.06130 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.06130/

## 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.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Agent threats, guardrails and governance](https://mlsanity.com/agents/agent-threats-guardrails-and-governance/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Model Context Protocol (MCP): Landscape, Security Threats, and Future Research Directions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.23278/) (2025)
- [MCPTox: A Benchmark for Tool Poisoning Attack on Real-World MCP Servers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.14925/) (2025)
- [MCP Safety Audit: LLMs with the Model Context Protocol Allow Major Security Exploits](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.03767/) (2025)
- [AgentDyn: Are Your Agent Security Defenses Deployable in Real-World Dynamic Environments?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.03117/) (2026)
- [MCPSecBench: A Systematic Security Benchmark and Playground for Testing Model Context Protocols](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.13220/) (2025)
- [SAGA: A Security Architecture for Governing AI Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21034/) (2025)
- [Enterprise-Grade Security for the Model Context Protocol (MCP): Frameworks and Mitigation Strategies](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08623/) (2025)
- [MCP Security Bench (MSB): Benchmarking Attacks Against Model Context Protocol in LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.15994/) (2025)
- [MCIP: Protecting MCP Safety via Model Contextual Integrity Protocol](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14590/) (2025)
- [AgentBound: Securing Execution Boundaries of AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21236/) (2025)
- [Blind Gods and Broken Screens: Architecting a Secure, Intent-Centric Mobile Agent Operating System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.10915/) (2026)

## 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.