AgenticCyber Frameworks

• AgenticCyber Frameworks are security architectures designed to protect autonomous, adaptive AI systems throughout their lifecycle using multilayer controls.
• They integrate the CIAA model with seven-layer defense strategies and MITRE ATLAS tactics to address novel attack surfaces and risk modalities.
• Practical implementations use hardened toolchains, dynamic risk assessments, and red-teaming methods to validate controls and reduce vulnerabilities.

AgenticCyber Frameworks encompass architectural, methodological, and governance patterns for securing agentic AI systems—autonomous, adaptive software capable of iterative decision-making—within enterprise and critical digital environments. The emergence of agentic behaviors introduces new attack surfaces and risk modalities not adequately covered by legacy AI security paradigms. This article synthesizes the principles, multilayer architectures, attack taxonomy, and deployment guidance from multiple leading research efforts, with a central focus on the MAAIS framework and its integration of lifecycle-wide security and governance (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025).

1. Foundations and Lifecycle Security Principles

AgenticCyber frameworks are premised on the recognition of autonomy, tool use, and environmental adaptation as security-critical characteristics. The defining autonomy of agentic AI requires controls for unauthorized actions, adversarial manipulation, and runtime misalignment, across all phases of the AI lifecycle—data collection, preprocessing, training, deployment, inference, operation, and decommissioning (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025).

MAAIS introduces the CIAA principle, extending the classic Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability (CIA) model to encompass Accountability. The CIAA model is implemented across all lifecycle stages:

• Confidentiality: Key management for datasets, encryption of model parameters, and access limitation.
• Integrity: Validation of raw and processed data, integrity-checks on models (checksums, poisoning detectors), and enforcement of runtime invariants.
• Availability: Redundant compute/storage provisioning, auto-scaling clusters with health checks, and quality-of-service constraints on inference.
• Accountability: Immutable action logs, provenance capture, and requirement of human sign-offs for exceptional or policy-violating actions.

Importantly, the CIAA model is lifecycle-wide and maps controls to each system evolution phase, ensuring full-chain coverage.

2. Seven-Layer Multilayer Security Architecture

The MAAIS architecture establishes a seven-layer defense-in-depth schema to realize zero-trust for agentic AI (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025):

Layer	Key Technical Controls
Infrastructure Security	Secure hardware (TPM, HSM), network segmentation, supply-chain attestation, minimal OS, CI/CD validation
Data Security	Encryption at rest/in transit, RBAC/ABAC, diff. privacy, provenance, tamper-proof hashes/logs
Model Security	Input sanitization, robust/adversarial training, model obfuscation and encryption, signed deployment, poisoning/backdoor detection
Agent Execution & Control	OS and language-level sandboxing, behavioral policy engines, runtime invariance verification, secure API integration
Accountability/Trust	XAI for decision tracing, bias mitigation, system documentation (data/model cards), human-governance checkpoints
User & Access Management	Identity governance, least-privilege policies, MFA, role segregation, behavioral analytics for anomalies
Monitoring & Audit	Immutable logs, SIEM/UEBA, agent behavioral analytics, threat intel/policy adaptation, automated IR playbooks

This layered model is comprehensive: it integrates with infrastructure (Kubernetes, Vault, SPIFFE/SPIRE), data pipelines (NiFi/Airflow, AWS Macie), model hardening (Adversarial Robustness Toolbox), runtime controls (Firecracker/gVisor, OPA), and audit/monitoring stacks (ELK, Splunk).

3. Threat Modeling and MITRE ATLAS Mapping

The framework achieves formal threat mapping by explicitly aligning each defense layer with MITRE ATLAS adversarial tactics (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025). The control-to-tactic mapping is summarized below:

MITRE ATLAS Tactic	MAAIS Layer(s)
Reconnaissance	Monitoring & Audit
Initial Access	User & Access Management, Infrastructure Security
Execution	Agent Execution & Control
Persistence	Infrastructure Security, Agent Execution & Control
Privilege Escalation	User & Access Management, Infrastructure Security
Defense Evasion	Monitoring & Audit, Model Security
Credential Access	User & Access Management
Discovery	Monitoring & Audit
Collection	Data Security, Monitoring & Audit
Command & Control	Agent Execution & Control, Infrastructure Security
Exfiltration	Data Security, Infrastructure Security
Impact	Agent Execution & Control, Accountability

This mapping is operationalized in a LaTeX-formatted table in the paper, providing practitioners a direct means to audit coverage against known adversarial playbooks.

4. Formal Models, Security Metrics, and Governance

MAAIS does not specify a quantitative risk-score matrix, but provides schema for mapping controls to adversarial tactics using a binary coverage matrix $M_{L,T}$, and suggests an extension for weighted risk synthesis:

$$\mathrm{Risk} = \sum_{T} w_T \times (1 - \max_{L}(M_{L,T}))$$

where $w_T$ is the criticality of tactic $T$. This approach supports both formal risk aggregation and control auditing.

Governance is enforced via stepwise CISO-centric deployment guidance:

1. Scope/risk appetite definition and compliance mapping (EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST AIRMF)
2. CIAA requirement establishment
3. Infrastructure hardening and supply-chain CI/CD validation
4. Data pipeline encryption/provenance enforcement, poisoning/drift detection
5. Model hardening, signing, periodic red-teaming
6. Agent runtime sandboxing, policy-engines
7. Building explainability and bias-detection measures
8. IAM deployment (centralized auth, just-in-time privilege)
9. Monitoring/incident response playbook rollouts 10. Periodic review: MITRE ATLAS mapping refresh, pen-testing, compliance audits

Governance checkpoints include review board sign-off, SOC playbook validation, and regular compliance reporting.

5. Agentic Risk Taxonomy and Red-Teaming Methodology

Complementing the MAAIS framework, dynamic frameworks incorporate an operational risk taxonomy for agentic AI (Ghosh et al., 27 Nov 2025):

• Tool Misuse: Unauthorized invocation of tools with unrestricted parameters.
• Cascading Action Chains: Sequences that effect outcomes outside design intent.
• Control Amplification: Progressive privilege escalation beyond explicit consent.
• Data Poisoning/Model-Mediated Attacks: Exfiltration or adversarial actions via data injection.
• Information Leakage: Disclosure of sensitive data via model or logs.

A modular architecture includes risk discovery agents (RDA), risk evaluation modules (REM), risk mitigation agents (RMA), and explicit human oversight layers, enabling dynamic risk assessment, contextual mitigation, and red-teaming via isolated sandboxes. Quantitative case studies (AI-Q Research Assistant) demonstrate post-mitigation risk reductions by an order of magnitude (e.g., tool misuse success rates from 45.2% to 4.5%).

Red teaming leverages AI-driven attacker/evaluator agents deployed in sandbox environments, with concrete evaluation on exploit success, stealth, and impact. Released benchmarks (Nemotron-AIQ-Agentic-Safety-Dataset-1.0) support reproducible research.

6. Implementation Considerations and Recommended Toolchain

Practical deployment of agentic security frameworks requires:

• Hardened container and orchestration (Kubernetes with Pod Security, Vault for secrets)
• Provenance-enabled data pipelines (NiFi, Airflow)
• Model security (Adversarial Robustness Toolbox, TensorFlow Privacy)
• Sandboxed execution (gVisor, Firecracker)
• Policy enforcement (OPA)
• XAI and bias detection (AIF360, InterpretML)
• Identity management (Okta, Keycloak)
• Monitoring (ELK, Splunk/QRadar)
• Compliance automation (Chef InSpec, OpenSCAP)

Tool selection enables modular, layered defense, with regular red-teaming and compliance validation as ongoing maintenance requirements.

7. Research Impact and Future Directions

The standardization and operationalization of AgenticCyber frameworks, exemplified by MAAIS, provides a defense-in-depth paradigm specifically adapted to the autonomy, environmental coupling, and procedural complexity of agentic AI (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025). By integrating continuous lifecycle mapping (CIAA), explicit adversarial tactic coverage (MITRE ATLAS), and automated governance workflows, these frameworks enable enterprise CISOs to address the unique governance, technical, and trust challenges of agentic AI. Future research is expected to extend these frameworks with more granular quantitative risk models, adaptive red-teaming pipelines, and integration with emerging ML-based threat intelligence and federated security protocols.

---

References

• "Securing Agentic AI Systems -- A Multilayer Security Framework" (Arora et al., 19 Dec 2025)
• "A Safety and Security Framework for Real-World Agentic Systems" (Ghosh et al., 27 Nov 2025)