CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1Information and Cyber SecurityDigitalization, Law, and RegulationAccess Control and Trust

Who Governs the Machine? A Machine Identity Governance Taxonomy (MIGT) for AI Systems Operating Across Enterprise and Geopolitical Boundaries

Open access
Kurtz, Andrew, Krawiecka, Klaudia·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2604.06148arXiv 2604.06148
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The governance of artificial intelligence has a blind spot: the machine identities that AI systems use to act. AI agents, service accounts, API tokens, and automated workflows now outnumber human identities in enterprise environments by ratios exceeding 80 to 1, yet no integrated framework exists to govern them. A single ungoverned automated agent produced $5.4-10 billion in losses in the 2024 CrowdStrike outage; nation-state actors including Silk Typhoon and Salt Typhoon have operationalized ungoverned machine credentials as primary espionage vectors against critical infrastructure. This paper makes four original contributions. First, the AI-Identity Risk Taxonomy (AIRT): a comprehensive enumeration of 37 risk sub-categories across eight domains, each grounded in documented incidents, regulatory recognition, practitioner prevalence data, and threat intelligence. Second, the Machine Identity Governance Taxonomy (MIGT): an integrated six-domain governance framework simultaneously addressing the technical governance gap, the regulatory compliance gap, and the cross-jurisdictional coordination gap that existing frameworks address only in isolation. Third, a foreign state actor threat model for enterprise identity governance, establishing that Silk Typhoon, Salt Typhoon, Volt Typhoon, and North Korean AI-enhanced identity fraud operations have already operationalized AI identity vulnerabilities as active attack vectors. Fourth, a cross-jurisdictional regulatory alignment structure mapping enterprise AI identity governance obligations under EU, US, and Chinese frameworks simultaneously, identifying irreconcilable conflicts and providing a governance mechanism for managing them. A four-phase implementation roadmap translates the MIGT into actionable enterprise programs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.06148

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Access control frameworks like RBAC and ABAC assign permissions to roles conceived for human actors, not for dynamically spawned, short-lived agents operating across jurisdictional boundaries, complicating regulatory compliance.

    “access control frameworks like RBAC and ABAC assign permissions to roles conceived for human actors, not for dynamically spawned, short-lived agents operating across jurisdictional boundaries Kurtz & Krawiecka (2026).”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Kurtz & Krawiecka, 2026

    In “Gap 2, The Dynamic Access Problem” (page unavailable), the paper says RBAC assumes stable, predefined roles, while agents discover access needs at runtime and can spawn sub-agents. Section 6.4.1 (page unavailable) also identifies limits of ABAC, but describes it as more suitable for agentic environments than RBAC—not as assigning permissions to human-conceived roles. The paper discusses cross-jurisdictional compliance separately; it does not establish the claim’s combined characterization of short-lived agents operating across jurisdictions. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 31

  1. W. Gyure and K. Johnson. The human-machine identity blur: A unified framework for cybersecurity risk management in 2025. arXiv:2503.18255 [preprint], March 2025. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18255. · arXiv
  2. Y. Chun et al. Comparative global AI regulation: Policy perspectives from the EU, China, and the US. arXiv:2410.21279, October 2024. Available: https://arxiv.org/ abs/2410.21279. · arXiv
  3. L. S. Lim. Artificial intelligence regulation matures: Landscapes of the USA, European Union, and China. Journal of Information Technology, 2025.
  4. Communications of the ACM. Three rulebooks, one race: AI regulation in the U.S., EU, and China. Commun. ACM, February 2026. Available: https://cacm.acm.org /news/three-rulebooks-one-race-ai-regulation-in-the-u-s-eu-and-china/.
  5. Z. Deng et al. AI agents under threat: A survey of key security challenges and future pathways. ACM Comput. Surv., 57(7):182, February 2025.
  6. C. Castro et al. A survey of agentic AI and cybersecurity: Challenges, opportunities and use-case prototypes. arXiv:2601.05293, January 2026. Available: https://arxiv. org/html/2601.05293v1. · arXiv
  7. R. Pandey. The agentic AI governance framework: A universal model for risk, ac- countability, and compliance in autonomous systems. SSRN, October 2025. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5652350.
  8. S. Joshi. Framework for government policy on agentic and generative AI: Governance, regulation, and risk management. SSRN, August 2025. Available: https://papers.s srn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5511060.
  9. A. Chan, R. Salganik, A. Markelius, et al. Harms from increasingly agentic algorithmic systems. In Proc. 2023 ACM Conf. Fairness, Accountability, Transparency (FAccT 2023), Chicago, IL, June 2023. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/35930 13.3594033. · DOI · Paper page
  10. NYU Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law. Artificial intelligence and state-sponsored cyber espionage. JIPEL, 2025. Available: https://jipel.law.ny u.edu/artificial-intelligence-and-state-sponsored-cyber-espionage/.
  11. G. Perboli, N. Simionato, and S. Pratali. Navigating the AI regulatory landscape: Balancing innovation, ethics, and global governance. Economic and Political Studies, 13(4):367-397, December 2025.
  12. Z. He et al. The emerged security and privacy of LLM agents: A survey with case studies. ACM Comput. Surv., 2025.
  13. CyberArk. 2025 identity security landscape. CyberArk, April 2025. Available: https: //www.cyberark.com/press/machine-identities-outnumber-humans-by-more-t han-80-to-1-new-report-exposes-the-exponential-threats-of-fragmented-i dentity-security/.
  14. S. Rizvi, A. Kurtz, J. Pfeffer, and M. Rizvi. Securing the Internet of Things (IoT): A security taxonomy for IoT. In Proc. 17th IEEE Int. Conf. Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom/BigDataSE 2018), pages 163-168, New York, NY, August 2018. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/84559 02.
  15. M. A. Coutinho, A. Ashofteh, and Y. Al Helaly. Risk taxonomies and governance frameworks for generative AI: A review of ethical, cybersecurity, and regulatory chal- lenges. In Proc. 20th Iberian Conf. Information Systems and Technologies (CISTI 2025), volume 1717 of Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Cham, 2026. Springer. Available: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-032-10721-3_1. · DOI
  16. D. Kaur et al. AI governance: A systematic literature review. AI and Ethics, January 2025.
  17. J. Moura et al. Prompt injection attacks in large language models and AI agent systems. Information, 17(1):54, 2026.
  18. M. Chmura. Agentic AI: The future and governance of autonomous systems. Bloomsbury Intelligence and Security Institute, February 2026. Available: https://bisi.org.uk/ reports/agentic-ai-the-future-and-governance-of-autonomous-systems.
  19. R. Csernatoni. Global AI governance: Barriers and pathways forward. International Affairs, 100(3):1275-1294, May 2024.
  20. European Commission. EU AI act. Official Journal of the European Union, July 2024. Available: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-f ramework-ai.
  21. Springer AI and Ethics. Waging warfare against states: The deployment of artificial intelligence in cyber espionage. AI and Ethics, 2025.
  22. M. N. Schmitt, editor. Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2nd edition, 2017.
  23. K. Huang, V. S. Narajala, J. Yeoh, R. Raskar, et al. A novel zero-trust identity framework for agentic AI: Decentralized authentication and fine-grained access control. arXiv:2505.19301, May 2025. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19301. · arXiv
  24. V. Gupta. The looming authorization crisis IAM. ISACA Journal, September 2025. Available: https://www.isaca.org/resources/news-and-trends/industry-news/ 2025/the-looming-authorization-crisis-why-traditional-iam-fails-agent ic-ai.
  25. Pau-Chen Cheng, Wojciech Ozga, Enriquillo Valdez, Salman Ahmed, Zhongshu Gu, Hani Jamjoom, Hubertus Franke, and James Bottomley. Intel TDX demystified: A top-down approach. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(9):1-33, 2024.
  26. Teofil Bodea, Masanori Misono, Julian Pritzi, Patrick Sabanic, Thore Sommer, Har- shavardhan Unnibhavi, David Schall, Nuno Santos, Dimitrios Stavrakakis, and Pramod Bhatotia. Trusted AI agents in the cloud. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.05951, 2025. · arXiv
  27. HID Global. Trust standards evolve: AI agents, the next chapter for PKI. HID Global Blog, November 2025.
  28. Sandro Rodriguez Garzon, Awid Vaziry, Enis Mert Kuzu, Dennis Enrique Gehrmann, Buse Varkan, Alexander Gaballa, and Axel Küpper. AI agents with decentralized identifiers and verifiable credentials. In Proceedings of the 18th International Confer- ence on Agents and Artificial Intelligence (ICAART 2026), volume 1, pages 252-259. SCITEPRESS, 2026.
  29. Klaudia Krawiecka, Andrew Paverd, and N. Asokan. Protecting password databases using trusted hardware. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on System Software for Trusted Execution (SysTEX '16), pages 1-6. ACM, 2016.
  30. Pankaj Kumar. Next-generation secure authentication and access control architectures: Advanced techniques for securing distributed systems in modern enterprises. Inter- national Journal of Computational and Experimental Science and Engineering, 11(3), 2025.
  31. Carlos Castro et al. A survey of agentic AI and cybersecurity: Challenges, opportunities and use-case prototypes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.05293, 2026. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kurtz, A., & Krawiecka, K.
ORCID
Kurtz, Andrew
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2604.06148
arXiv
2604.06148
OpenAlex
W7152064359
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Law › Digitalization, Law, and Regulation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
Keywords
AI agents, service accounts, workflow automation, nation-state cyberattacks, EU AI Act, enterprise AI governance

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