๊ฐ€์ž… ํ›„ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋งํฌ๋ฅผ ๊ณต์œ ํ•˜๋ฉด ๋™์˜์ƒ ์žฌ์ƒ ๋ฐ ์ดˆ๋Œ€ ๋ณด์ƒ์„ ๋ฐ›์„ ์ˆ˜ ์žˆ์Šต๋‹ˆ๋‹ค.

cv usk
@cv_usk
AI / Software Research Notes AI Agent, LLMOps, MLOps, Software Architecture ๆŠ•็จฟใฏๅ€‹ไบบใฎๆ„่ฆ‹ใงใ™ใ€‚
๊ฐ€์ž… May 2026
286 ํŒ”๋กœ์ž‰ ์ค‘    470 ํŒฌ
When securing AI agents, have you asked whether a control makes the attack impossible or merely tedious? Title: Zero Trust for AI Agents URL: ๐Ÿ›ก๏ธ Claude's eBook lays out a Zero Trust framework for deploying autonomous AI agents in the enterprise. I could read only the first 8 pages. ๐ŸŽฏ Highlight 1: Impossible, not tedious Rate limits, non-standard ports, and SMS-based MFA degrade badly against agentic attackers with unlimited patience and near-zero cost per attempt. What survives: hardware-bound credentials, expiring tokens, and network paths that simply don't exist. When in doubt, remove a capability instead of throttling it. ๐Ÿ’ฅ Highlight 2: Blast radius An agent with admin access to cloud infrastructure has an enormous blast radius, while read-only access to one database has a small one. "Design for breach" means assuming every agent's blast radius will eventually be tested. ๐Ÿ”‘ Highlight 3: Least agency A term coined by OWASP that extends least privilege to each agent tool. A database tool gets read-only queries, an email summarizer gets no send or delete rights, an API gets minimal CRUD. Restrict what a tool can do, how often, and where. A ready-to-use yardstick for designing agent permissions. #AISecurity# #ZeroTrust#
๋” ๋ณด๊ธฐ