Am I undertanding this correctly? The idea is to have ultimately an AI decide if I can have access to a resource based on dynamic inference, identity , intent and service signals that can easily be manipulated?

Unless I gravely misunderstood the text, this seems like a terrible idea (fancy non-scifi, but still terrible)

▲

insanitybit 24 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

This would be paired with deterministic controls. So you have, for example, "engineers can only read from the database, and only after they've perform a 2FA" but then there's context like "why is this engineer reading from the payments table when their IP is in a weird location and they're supposed to be on PTO?" and perhaps that's something a model decides.

It's possible to turn that second thing into a sort of "risk score" but it's very hard and a model is going to potentially be better at it.

▲

prmph 3 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

[delayed]

▲

billyp-rva 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The engineer could be fixing an emergency issue while on vacation. For financial data, that would hopefully be an auto-deny anyway until someone on-site whitelists their IP. And this is if they aren't using VPNs. Adding AI to this party feels like it wouldn't really help.

▲

cyanydeez 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

Non of it really matters if the end product is just going to be ignored because there's zero people who want to be the guard in the panopticon and therefore, it'll still be given to an AI to watch and make it's dumb decisions about how trust worthy you are to do X, Y and Z.

Even if the middle is deterministic, if one end is just going to be lazily hooked up to an AI, it's the shitty dystopian future.

	▲	oscarcp 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That just gave me shivers down my spine of people eventually becoming so lazy that the AI will decide who to fire based on a massive amount of circumstantial data that very likely has tiny cumulative errors that will lead to classifying your best personnel as a bums and liabilities.

▲

oscarcp an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Just to make my point: can I really trust humans to keep up with the required identity data that will give me enough "credibility" so the AI will give me access?

Let's say I had a promotion, who changes my title in the system, who changes my responsibilities and my place in the org chart, more importantly, will they do it or is <HR_NAME_HERE> on leave and forgot? those are data points required by the agent to determine if I'm "good enough" to access a certain resource.

What if... someone spoofed my address and did a flood in one of the resources that are lateral to what I'm allowed to access (let's say I don't have access to company sales but I do to department sales and the attacker floods company sales with requests under my address), would the AI determine that I'm a high-threat actor and not allow me to access legitimate files going forward?

Will exceptions be made by humans? In which case we go back to human-managed permissions.

Sorry, I might be barking up the wrong tree but I think these are questions that are not meant to be solved during implementation. And they add to what @firasd said about legitimate-but-odd behaviour

	▲	firasd 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I think the dynamic risk signals is already an assumed part of the system. The proposal here seems to be shrinking the trust boundary from "can Alice use Google Drive?" to "should this specific read/write/export API call on this specific resource be allowed right now?" So yeah you're right in that it does add more probabilistic randomness just by virtue of changing the boundary of when the permission gate kicks in

▲

luma 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Having a non-deterministic network device in path sounds fun for troubleshooting. AI firewall team about to become the new ticket sponge in every org.

▲

modo_mario 29 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

It does sound like something that could be easily exploited. Hello HAL, I am martha from accounting.