PreprintCited by 1Access Control and TrustAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningSecurity and Verification in Computing

Authenticated Workflows: A Systems Approach to Protecting Agentic AI

Open access

Abstract

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2602.10465

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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.”
  • 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.”

Authors
Rajagopalan, M., & Rao, V.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7128676032
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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