Blog

Analysis on enterprise AI governance, inline policy enforcement, agentic AI security, and regulatory compliance.

Google Agentspace Security: The Enterprise Answer Boundary

Google Agentspace security requires an access review that follows enterprise retrieval context into the model route used for an answer. This article separates source and identity administration from the HTTP request boundary where policy can inspect model egress and create independent decision evidence.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityzero-trustpolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

Google Agentspace Audit Logs: Evidence for Agent Answers

Google Agentspace audit logs should join the originating employee or agent, retrieved enterprise sources, model route, and authorization decision for one answer. This article maps provider and source events to the independent HTTP request record needed to reconstruct model egress during a security review.

Platform & Architectureauditforensic-auditllm-securitypolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

Glean Audit Logs: Reconstructing an Enterprise AI Answer

Glean audit logs need to join the person who asked, the retrieved enterprise sources, the model route, and the policy decision that governed egress. This article separates source and administration events from a per-decision HTTP record that can reconstruct one AI answer during a security review.

Platform & Architectureauditforensic-auditllm-securitypolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

Figma AI Security: A Design Context Egress Review

Figma AI security requires a concrete review of what design context can be included in a request, which workspace identity initiated it, and what provider route processes it. This article separates Figma workspace administration from the HTTP model-call decision where external policy enforcement and independent evidence can operate.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityai-governancezero-trustpolicy-enforcementaudit
Read post →

Dropbox Dash Security: The Retrieval Permission Review

Dropbox Dash security depends on the permission state of the connected content it retrieves, the identity attached to a request, and the route that carries assembled context to a model. This technical review maps those layers and identifies the HTTP AI decision that an external enforcement layer can inspect.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityzero-trustpolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

DeepSeek Audit Logs: Evidence for Every Routed Model Request

DeepSeek audit logs become useful evidence when they bind an authenticated caller, model route, policy version, prompt classification, and permit or deny outcome to each HTTP request. This article separates provider records from the independent, per-decision evidence a security review needs.

Platform & Architectureauditforensic-auditllm-securitypolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

Amazon Q Security at the AI Request Boundary

Amazon Q teams need evidence that connects each AI request to an authenticated actor, policy decision, and timestamp. This article separates provider administration records from independent request-layer evidence and maps the HTTP controls that regulated enterprises can verify during a security review.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityauditinline-enforcementpolicy-enforcement
Read post →

SR 11-7 and Banking AI Model Risk After SR 26-2

SR 11-7 was superseded by SR 26-2 on 17 April 2026. For banks using LLMs and agents, SR 26-2 keeps the model-risk-management disciplines of governance, independent challenge plus monitoring and outcomes analysis while expressly placing generative and agentic AI outside its direct scope. This guide explains the governance decision plus production-review evidence and the limits of request-layer controls.

Industry Verticalsbankingfinancemodel-riskai-compliancemodel-validationaudit-trail
Read post →

AI Agent Sandbox: Isolation Controls for Agent Runtime Risk

An AI agent sandbox confines the local process, file paths, network destinations plus credentials, and temporary state available to an agent runtime. This guide maps isolation choices through OS process controls into microVMs, explains the evidence each boundary produces, and separates runtime containment from policy enforcement on routed LLM requests.

Problem-Awareai-agent-securityagentic-aisandboxruntime-isolationblast-radiusdefense-in-depth
Read post →

Agentic AI Permission Control: Per-Action Delegated Authority

Agentic AI permission control evaluates every model request against the person or workflow that delegated it, the allowed model route, data classification, policy version, and expiry. This framework separates a long-lived agent credential from the short-lived authority needed for one action, then records the permit, redaction, or denial decision for review.

Problem-Awareagentic-aiai-securityidentity-and-authorizationnist-ai-rmfinline-enforcement
Read post →

DeepSeek Security at the AI Request Boundary

DeepSeek security depends on controls at several layers. The request boundary needs authenticated identity, delegated authority, prompt classification, route policy, and decision evidence. Provider configuration, local execution, and credential security remain adjacent responsibilities with different owners.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityzero-trustpolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorizationarchitecture
Read post →

Databricks Mosaic AI Security at the HTTP Request Boundary

Databricks Mosaic AI security begins with Unity Catalog permissions and governed AI services, then needs a clear decision point for each HTTP request and response an application sends to an LLM. This article maps the security review to identity context, model routes, policy evaluation, and evidence at the request boundary without overstating proxy coverage.

Platform & Architectureai-securityllm-securityzero-trustinline-enforcementpolicy-enforcementidentity-and-authorization
Read post →