Constrained-Action AI Remediation for SIEM/XDR via a NeMo-Guardrails Proxy
On the map: LLM safety and security → Prompt injection and agent security
Abstract (arXiv)
Security Operations Centers (SOCs) for information technology and operational technology share one incident-response problem: a flood of correlated alerts and too few analysts. Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as reasoning engines that triage alerts and, in autonomous deployments, issue commands that block IPs, kill processes, or quarantine files on production hosts. This coupling introduces a new risk: a single adversarial alert can become a remote code path through the LLM's reasoning, leading it to recommend an action the SOC then executes. We present a constrained-action architecture with two coordinated layers: (i) a SIEM/XDR control plane that grounds remediation in correlated host events and confines the LLM's output to a closed intent vocabulary whose templated commands are executed by thin endpoint agents, backstopped by an argument validator; and (ii) a NeMo-Guardrails proxy that wraps the SOC-analyst LLM with input- and output-rail policies, evaluated out-of-the-box against a SOC-specific adversarial corpus we release. The stock proxy lifts injection recall from 25.0% to 94.5% at a 0.1% false-positive rate, and a live red-team exercise confirms that the closed intent vocabulary and argument validator contain the observed LLM failure modes before any command crosses the trust boundary. As an architectural fit (not yet a measured operational-technology deployment), the constrained-action property suits critical-infrastructure settings where a wrong remediation has physical, not merely operational, consequences. The loop is best run human-in-the-loop or delayed: the measured rail latency keeps inline control out of scope.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Prompt injection and agent security, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 6 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Oct 2026.
Builds on
6 of 28 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
- 2024AgentDojo: A Dynamic Environment to Evaluate Prompt Injection Attacks and Defenses for LLM Agents19 Jun
Other references · 5
- 2023Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Modelscited by 2,914
- 2023Llama Guard: LLM-based Input-Output Safeguard for Human-AI Conversationscited by 1,124
- 2024JailbreakBench: An Open Robustness Benchmark for Jailbreaking Large Language Modelscited by 494
- 2023Detecting Language Model Attacks with Perplexitycited by 411
- 2020Loghub: A Large Collection of System Log Datasets for AI-driven Log Analyticscited by 68
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026In-Context Autonomous Network Incident Response: An End-to-End Large Language Model Agent Approach
- 2023LLMs Killed the Script Kiddie: How Agents Supported by Large Language Models Change the Landscape of Network Threat Testing
- 2026Reachability-Based Capability Confinement for LLM Agents under Indirect Prompt Injection
- 2026BlueSTAR: Tiered Agentic Architecture for Autonomous Cyber Defense
- 2026Hierarchical Agentic Incident Response with Digital-Twin-Validated Attack Inference
- 2026RAIL Guard: Closing the Evaluation-to-Remediation Gap in Responsible AI for LLM Agents
- 2026Autonomous LLM Agents & CTFs: A Second Look
- 2026EvoSafeHarness: Evolving Model- and Domain-Specific Harnesses for Securing Agents