Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI
Open accessAbstract
Agentic AI systems automate enterprise workflows but existing defenses--guardrails, semantic filters--are probabilistic and routinely bypassed. We introduce authenticated workflows, the first complete trust layer for enterprise agentic AI. Security reduces to protecting four fundamental boundaries: prompts, tools, data, and context. We enforce intent (operations satisfy organizational policies) and integrity (operations are cryptographically authentic) at every boundary crossing, combining cryptographic elimination of attack classes with runtime policy enforcement. This delivers deterministic security--operations either carry valid cryptographic proof or are rejected. We introduce MAPL, an AI-native policy language that expresses agentic constraints dynamically as agents evolve and invocation context changes, scaling as O(log M + N) policies versus O(M x N) rules through hierarchical composition with cryptographic attestations for workflow dependencies. We prove practicality through a universal security runtime integrating nine leading frameworks (MCP, A2A, OpenAI, Claude, LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen, LlamaIndex, Haystack) through thin adapters requiring zero protocol modifications. Formal proofs establish completeness and soundness. Empirical validation shows 100% recall with zero false positives across 174 test cases, protection against 9 of 10 OWASP Top 10 risks, and complete mitigation of two high impact production CVEs.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Authenticated Workflows provides deterministic enforcement with the MAPL policy language, achieving 100% recall on 174 test cases.
“Authenticated Workflows [22] provides deterministic enforcement with the MAPL policy language, achieving 100% recall on 174 test cases.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Authenticated Workflows provides engineering guarantees rather than formal proofs and does not address intent preservation or federal-specific compliance.
“However, it provides engineering guarantees rather than formal proofs and does not address intent preservation or federal-specific compliance.”
From SentinelAgent: Intent-Verified Delegation Chains for Securing Federal Multi-Agent AI Systems (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
- Authors
- Rajagopalan, M., & Rao, V.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2602.10465
- OpenAlex
- W7128676032
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Security and Verification in Computing
- Keywords
- agentic AI security, enterprise AI agents, cryptographic attestation, runtime policy enforcement, AI guardrails, OWASP Top 10
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review