arXiv:2606.21877cs.AIcs.CR2026-06中稿 · IEEE International…被引 5

为智能体系统设计安全风险清单,揭示其权限与行动能力。

AgentRiskBOM: A Risk-Scoping Security Bill of Materials for Agentic AI Systems

论文配图:AgentRiskBOM: A Risk-Scoping Security Bill of Materials for Agentic AI Systems
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 在SBOM基础上增加运行时权限字段,结构化记录智能体的自主性、工具权限等
  • 13个开源智能体测试中覆盖16维能力,风险可见度达100%(原方案不足21%)
  • 可检测部署变更、生成可读报告,适合安全审计与合规监管人员使用

智能体系统能调用工具、访问私有信息、与其他智能体协作,但现有软件物料清单(SBOM)等无法透明展示其运行时权限。本文提出AgentRiskBOM,作为安全型物料清单,在保留原有SBOM、AIBOM、MLBOM的基础上,新增自主性、工具权限、记忆范围、凭证作用域、审批机制、审计信号、跨智能体通信和外部操作能力等字段。我们以JSON Schema实现该框架,构建包含13个开源智能体的可复现语料库,涵盖编码、RAG及多智能体架构,评估52种风险场景。结果表明,该模型在16项能力维度中平均得分14(满分16),远超传统方案(最高2)。风险类别可见度达100%,相较原方案提升显著。注入33次结构化部署变更后,差分检测器100%识别正确类型。二级评分器与主评分器相关性达0.73,支持排名一致性,但阈值需人工校准。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

Agentic AI systems retrieve private context, invoke tools, write files, call external services, coordinate with other agents, and may act without human approval. Existing bill of materials artifacts improve transparency for dependencies, model metadata, and training provenance, but leave an agentic transparency gap: capability opacity, the absence of a structured account of what a deployed agent can access, remember, change, delegate, and prove afterward. This paper introduces AgentRiskBOM, a security BOM for risk-scoping tool-using AI agents. It is an additive layer over SBOM, AIBOM, and MLBOM artifacts, referencing them where authoritative while adding fields for runtime authority: autonomy, tool permissions, memory, credential scope, approval gates, audit signals, inter-agent communication, and external action capability. We implement AgentRiskBOM as a JSON-schema artifact with a reproducible corpus, risk scenarios, scorer, diff detector, control mapper, and reports. We evaluate AgentRiskBOM on 13 open-source agents spanning coding, RAG, and multi-agent archetypes, plus 52 risk scenarios across 14 categories. The schema validates all 13 corpus artifacts. Coverage analysis gives AgentRiskBOM a native-equivalent score of 14 across 16 capability dimensions, vs. 1 for SBOM, 1.5 for AIBOM and 2 for MLBOM. Across modeled risk categories, AgentRiskBOM exposes 100% risk-category visibility vs. 10.5% for SBOM-like and 20.9% for AIBOM-like views. To test agentic authority drift, we inject 33 structured deployment mutations; the diff detector identifies the correct change type for all mutations. A secondary penalty-based scorer yields a Spearman correlation of 0.73 with the primary scorer, supporting rank-level consistency while showing that thresholds require human calibration. The results show that agentic AI security needs a machine-readable authority-and-risk artifact before incidents occur.

智能体安全风险清单权限管理AI审计

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。