Jun 2026· arXiv.org· Vol abs/2606.29142· 0 citations· 21 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
Securing agents under regulation is less about novel attack classes than about making auditability, least-privilege authorization, and boundary policy enforcement real at production scale -- requirements current agent frameworks leave to the deploying engineer.
Abstract
Large language model agents are entering regulated financial systems, yet the security literature characterizing their attack surface is almost entirely laboratory-based, and the practitioner guidance on regulated deployment is neither peer-reviewed nor connected to a formal threat model. We bridge the two from production experience. We map six established agentic threat categories namely prompt injection, identity and authorization, action auditability, tool abuse, data residency, and boundary policy enforcement onto the specific control obligations imposed by the US and the EU financial regulation (ECOA and Regulation B, the EU AI Act, GDPR Article 22, and FINRA's 2026 agent guidance), showing how legal accountability amplifies each threat relative to an unregulated deployment. We then document four architectural patterns from a production Know Your Customer deployment for a consumer credit product (A2A compliance choreography, grounded-RAG-for-audit, case-ID propagation, and an inference-boundary redaction proxy) that moved a multi-day manual process to same-day automated resolution for roughly four in five cases. Finally, we report three negative results, including two control failures surfaced only by internal audit and a population of legitimate applicants the automated pipeline cannot serve. Securing agents under regulation, we conclude, is less about novel attack classes than about making auditability, least-privilege authorization, and boundary policy enforcement real at production scale -- requirements current agent frameworks leave to the deploying engineer.
Cyber-capable AI agents combine language models with tools, memory, and execution environments to perform multi-step offensive-security tasks. Existing work separately measures cyber capability and catalogs attacks against agent components, but provides less guidance on containing a capable agent within the environment...
GUARD — Governance-Unified Agentic Runtime Detection and Response — extending the prior enterprise agentic AI lifecycle governance framework of Anuguthala (2026), providing the runtime enforcement layer that completes the governance-to-enforcement architecture initiated in the peer-reviewed prior governance framework.
Sandeep Kumar Anuguthala· International Journal of AI,...· 0 citations
This paper argues that the introduction of agentic AI requires a substantial expansion of traditional enterprise architecture principles to address new behavioral, security, and governance risks emerging from non-deterministic AI systems interacting with heterogeneous operational platforms-ERP, HCM, CLM, asset manageme...
Elizabeth Koumpan, Vimal Dimpi· AHFE International· 0 citations
This paper provides an action-relative method for deriving which trust-domain coalitions are sufficient to cause protected execution, defined as the occurrence of a designated protected state transition.
LATTICE (Layered Agentic Triad Topology for Intelligent Coordinated Execution), a governance-first architecture that reframes the authorization question from “do the authors trust this AI?” to “do they trust this architecture?”
Elias Calboreanu· Frontiers in Artificial Inte...· 2 citations
The Agentic Payments Observatory (APO) is proposed, a dashboard-centred reference architecture that unifies agent identity resolution, scoped permission verification, smart-contract and receipt reconciliation, real-time anomaly detection and policy-breach adjudication into a single operational surface.
J. Roy, David Miller· International Journal for Re...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.