arXiv SecurityArchived May 12, 2026✓ Full text saved
arXiv:2605.09115v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Modern security environments generate fragmented signals across cloud resources, identities, configurations, and third-party security tools. Although AI-native security assistants improve access to this data, they remain largely reactive: users must ask the right questions and interpret disconnected findings. This does not scale in enterprise environments, where signal importance depends on exposure, exploitability, dependencies, and business conte
Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary· Claude Sonnet
Computer Science > Cryptography and Security
[Submitted on 9 May 2026]
AI Native Asset Intelligence
Gal Engelberg, Leon Goldberg, Konstantin Koutsyi, Boris Plotnikov, Tiltan Gilat, Ben Benhemo
Modern security environments generate fragmented signals across cloud resources, identities, configurations, and third-party security tools. Although AI-native security assistants improve access to this data, they remain largely reactive: users must ask the right questions and interpret disconnected findings. This does not scale in enterprise environments, where signal importance depends on exposure, exploitability, dependencies, and business context. Repeated AI queries may therefore produce unstable prioritization without a structured basis for comparing assets. This paper introduces AI-native asset intelligence, a framework that transforms heterogeneous security data into a structured intelligence layer for consistent, contextual, and proactive asset-level reasoning. The framework combines a modeling layer, representing assets, identities, relationships, controls, attack vectors, and blast-radius patterns, with a scoring layer that converts fragmented signals into a normalized measure of asset importance. The scoring system separates intrinsic exposure, based on misconfigurations and attack-vector evidence, from contextual importance, based on anomaly, blast radius, business criticality, and data criticality. AI contextualization refines severity and business/data classifications, while deterministic aggregation preserves consistency. We evaluate the scoring system on a production snapshot with 131,625 resources across 15 vendors and 178 asset types. Sensitivity analyses and ablations show that severity mappings control finding sensitivity, AI severity adjustment refines prioritization, attack-vector scoring responds to rare exploitability evidence, and contextual modulation selectively modifies exposed resources based on business or data importance. The results support AI-native asset intelligence as a foundation for stable prioritization and proactive security-posture reasoning.
Comments: 22 pages, 4 figures, 8 tables. Preprint
Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2605.09115 [cs.CR]
(or arXiv:2605.09115v1 [cs.CR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.09115
Focus to learn more
Submission history
From: Gal Engelberg [view email]
[v1] Sat, 9 May 2026 18:56:02 UTC (2,545 KB)
Access Paper:
HTML (experimental)
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CR
< prev | next >
new | recent | 2026-05
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
Export BibTeX Citation
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Demos
Related Papers
About arXivLabs
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)