The What
Autonomous agents are generating huge value within organisations across all sectors, geographies and sizes. Their ability to pursue goals, make decisions, and initiate actions on their own to achieve objectives supports a new era of automation, autonomy and productivity.
They are providing support for range of use cases that both augment and replace human-centric workflows and processes.
However they present unique challenges from an information security and identity point of view.
They present both scale and behaviour challenges and due to the data they are powered by and services they have access to, and are often in a unique position to exploited by adversarial activity.
That adversarial activity is driving data ex-filtration use cases, manipulation use cases and secondary access and elevation patterns.
The Why
Numerous identity and security use cases emerge to protect both the agents behaviour and models and infrastructure that powers them.
The use of large language models (LLMs) with generative capabilities is supporting this focus on agents that can operate independently of a human - or at least act in a way delegated to by a human - and continually learn based on the interactions they are presented with.
To that end security and IAM focus is having to content with two distinct and often competing challenges: scale as identified by typical non-human identity and workload identity platforms as well as human-esque behavioural challenges.
Workloads and NHIs often have relatively small windows of interaction and context. They operate between specific endpoints, services and APIs with relatively well known expected payloads, data formats, timing and context. Developing baseline patterns of life allows for the simple identification of abnormal access patterns, payloads of authX requests.
Human IAM of course is riddled with nuance - from biometric assurance, permissions association, to context and usage.
The agentic-AI era needs to contend with a mixture of both human and non-human characteristics.
Not to mention functions needed with respect to audit, delegation, strong authentication, access enforcement and the principal of least privilege. A main issue that is likely to emerge with agentic-AI systems is how to handle optimisation from both an authentication and authorization point of view.
Agents are expected to continually learn and improve their behaviour based on their stated goal or objective. They will operate within the upper boundaries of their permission set, assurance and trust boundaries - which may well lead to unintended consequences with significant negative system impact in the form of data loss, lack of integrity or availability.
Considerations
The following should be considered with respect to the use of agentic-AI and the protection of both their runtime behaviour, authentication and access control points of view:
Which team is responsible for the design of the agentic-AI system and its components?
Which owner or team is responsible for the management of the agentic-AI system and its components?
How are agents to be authenticated?
How are permissions or capabilities to be identified for an agent?
What access control boundaries are needed within the agentic-AI system?
How are the access control boundaries to be enforced?
How will agents be created and removed?
How will access requirements change as an agent evolves/learns?
What threat model is in place for agent design?
Will multiple-agent systems be needed?
Capabilities
The following capabilities should be considered with respect to agentic-AI identity security management:
Discovery of agents in use
Composable capabilities during AI design/model planning
Strong authentication of agent
ZSP/PoLP for permissions association
Support of delegation, impersonation and behalf-of authorization
Integrity protection for agent communications
Confidentiality protection for agent communications
In-memory protection for agent credentials/authentication
Dynamic assignment of permissions to agent
Agent behaviour monitoring
Agent to owner discovery, recommendation and association
Policy based control for agent access
Ingress/egress filter with respect to agent workload
Industry and Market Resources
The following contains a set of links from industry groups, vendors and solution providers who have published further material in this or related areas.
NB - links subject to change, not associated or endorsed by The Cyber Hut and you follow at your own risk.
Vendor & Industry Articles:
Balbix: Understanding Agentic AI and Its Cybersecurity Applications
Clutch Security: The Modern Workforce is Non-Human: Why Agentic AI Will Change Everything
ConductorOne: The State of Agentic AI in Identity Security
CyberArk: The Agentic AI Revolution: 5 Unexpected Security Challenges
Entro Security: What is Agentic AI?
Google: A2A Launch Blog
Omada: AI Agents and the Evolving Identity Landscape: Why the Right Governance Model Matters
OWASP Dishes Out Key Ingredients for a Secure Agentic AI Future
SC Media: Securing AI: How identity security is key to trusting AI in the enterprise
SecureAuth: Securing the Rise of Agentic AI
Silverfort: Beyond the hype: The hidden security risks of AI agents and MCP
Strata Identity: The identity crisis at the heart of the AI agent revolution
StrongDM: The State of AI in Cybersecurity Report by StrongDM
Token Security: NHI and the Rise of AI agents: The Security Risks Enterprises Can’t Ignore
Industry Frameworks:
Google: Agent 2 Agent Protocol
OWASP: Top 10 for LLMs
Vendor Solutions:
Astrix Security: Secure AI Agent Access
Auth0: Tool Calling in AI Agents: Empowering Intelligent Automation Securely
Britive: Research Report for Agentic Identity Security Platforms
Natoma: MCP and Agent Access
Oasis Security: Protect AI Identities at the Pace of Innovation
Permit.io: Secure AI Collaboration Through A Permissions Gateway
SGNL: Press release: With MCP, AI agents now have power. SGNL makes sure they use it responsibly.
Teleport: Securing Agentic AI
Last Updated: June 2025. Email info@thecyberhut.com for additions and errors.