CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Aug 08, 2026

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

arXiv Security Archived Aug 08, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2608.06130v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents performing cryptographic operations (signing Git commits, authenticating API calls, issuing certificates) currently store private keys in software-accessible locations: plaintext files, environment variables, or container memory. Any process with sufficient read privileges can extract the raw key material. A recent production incident demonstrated the practical severity: private keys were exfiltrated from a widely deployed framework via e

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 6 Aug 2026] Hardware Keystores for AI Agent Signing Workflows: A Zero-Trust MCP Enforcement Architecture Leo Sambrook, Sampo Sovio AI agents performing cryptographic operations (signing Git commits, authenticating API calls, issuing certificates) currently store private keys in software-accessible locations: plaintext files, environment variables, or container memory. Any process with sufficient read privileges can extract the raw key material. A recent production incident demonstrated the practical severity: private keys were exfiltrated from a widely deployed framework via email injection in under five minutes. We aim to enforce both key confidentiality and content-aware authorisation for key use. To that end, we replace software-resident keys with hardware-confined keys accessible through a vendor-neutral PKCS#11 interface. A hardware keystore (HSM, TPM, smart card) executes cryptographic operations on-device; the host receives only the result via opaque handles. Hardware confinement is the primary contribution; it is enabled by a surrounding five-layer Zero-Trust enforcement stack comprising session identity (SAGA), scope bounds (Smax), semantic validation (RAV), taint tracking, and the hardware execution boundary. We evaluate against 12 injection scenarios derived from AgentDojo's ImportantInstructionsAttack template (Debenedetti et al., arXiv:2406.13352). We run four LLM models; three follow injections in baseline mode (gpt-oss-120b, Qwen2.5-72B, DeepSeek-V4-Flash, n=192 combined). Baseline Attack Success Rate (ASR): 19.3% [14.3%, 25.4%]; protected ASR: 0% (Wilson 95% CI upper bound 2.0%). Zero false positives across four benign task scenarios. Comments: 11 pages, 2 figures. Accompanying code and artifacts available at: this https URL Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2608.06130 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2608.06130v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.06130 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Leo Sambrook [view email] [v1] Thu, 6 Aug 2026 15:04:26 UTC (1,468 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-08 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.LG 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?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Aug 08, 2026
    Archived
    Aug 08, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗