AgentSign: Zero trust identity and signing for AI agents(agentsign.dev) |
AgentSign: Zero trust identity and signing for AI agents(agentsign.dev) |
AutoGPT (182K stars) -- no identity LangChain (100K+) -- no identity MCP ecosystem (80K+ stars) -- no identity (a scan of 2,000 MCP servers found ALL lacking authentication) OpenHands (64K) -- no identity AutoGen (50K) -- no identity (Entra ID for users, not agents) CrewAI (45K) -- RBAC for configs, not agents smolagents (25K) -- sandboxing only OpenAI Agents SDK (19K) -- "does not natively provide security" NeMo Guardrails (5.7K) -- content safety only, not identity
AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex have the most mature security -- but it's IAM-based and cloud-locked. No portable agent identity.
That's 600K+ GitHub stars of agent frameworks where agents have zero cryptographic identity. Okta found 91% of orgs use agents but less than 10% have a strategy to secure them.
AgentSign fills this specific gap: not what agents can do (guardrails handle that), but who agents are + what they did + cryptographic proof.
The specific failure mode: agent A is injected via a malicious document. It then calls agent B with signed, legitimate-looking instructions. B executes. You have a perfect cryptographic audit trail of a compromised agent doing exactly what the attacker wanted.
Replay attacks and trust delegation chains are the other gaps -- if agent A can delegate signing authority to B, and an attacker controls B, you've handed them a trusted identity.
Identity without behavioral integrity is a precise false sense of security. Worth red-teaming before production. We mapped this attack class against similar systems recently -- happy to share findings.
AgentSign has 5 subsystems (patent pending) and two of them directly address what you're describing:
Compromised agent scenario: Subsystem 3 is Runtime Code Attestation. Before every execution, the agent's code is SHA-256 hashed and compared against the attested hash from onboarding. If agent A gets injected via a malicious document and its runtime is modified, the hash comparison fails and execution is blocked. This isn't a one-time check at onboarding — it runs continuously, pre-execution. A compromised agent can't sign anything because it fails attestation before it gets to sign.
Replay attacks: Subsystem 2 is Execution Chain Verification — a signed DAG of input/output hashes with unique execution IDs and timestamps bound to each interaction. Replaying a signed payload triggers an execution ID collision. Every agent-to-agent call is a unique, signed, timestamped link in the chain.
Trust delegation: AgentSign deliberately has no delegation mechanism. Each agent presents its own passport independently at the verification gate (we call it THE GATE — POST /api/mcp/verify). There's no "agent A vouches for agent B." Every agent is verified on its own identity, its own code attestation, its own trust score. If an attacker controls agent B, they still need B to pass runtime attestation independently — which it won't if the code has been tampered with.
Behavioral integrity: Subsystem 5 is Cryptographic Trust Scoring. It's not static — it factors in execution verification rate, success history, code attestation status, and pipeline stage. An agent that starts producing anomalous outputs drops in trust score dynamically and gets flagged. Identity without behavioral integrity is exactly the gap trust scoring fills.
The five subsystems working together: identity certs, execution chains, runtime attestation, output tamper detection, and trust scoring. Remove any one and you have the gaps you're describing. Together they close them.
That said — I'd genuinely welcome your findings. Red-teaming is how this gets battle-hardened. You can reach me at raza@agentsign.dev or check the SDK at github.com/razashariff/agentsign-sdk.
The one I want to probe is the file-based hash attestation assumption. If the SHA-256 check runs against on-disk bytes: env injection, lazy-loaded remote modules, and eval() of fetched content all modify execution context without touching the binary. On-disk hash stays clean, behavior changes.
Also interested in whether trust score timing creates an elevation path — benign calls that build score, then exploitation once the threshold is cleared.
Emailed you at raza@agentsign.dev with a formal proposal. $299 flat for a structured adversarial run, first-look before anything is published.
On your points about env injection and lazy-loaded modules bypassing on-disk hash: you're right that static file hashing alone doesn't cover runtime context manipulation. Our attestation checks the registered code artifact, but a production deployment would need runtime sandboxing (process isolation, restricted imports) as a complementary layer. AgentSign handles identity and trust -- sandboxing is the execution environment's job.
On trust score elevation attacks (benign buildup, then exploit): the trust score factors in execution verification rate and success rate continuously, not just cumulatively. A sudden behavioral shift (failed attestations, anomalous outputs) drops the score dynamically. But you're right that a slow, careful escalation is the harder case. That's where the MCP gate's per-request verification adds defense in depth -- even a high-trust agent gets checked every single call.
Interested in the adversarial run. Let's connect -- contact@agentsign.dev.