Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

David Mellafe Zuvic

Publications and source records attributed to David Mellafe Zuvic.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Capability Gates Are Not Authorization: Confused-Deputy Failures in LLM Agent Frameworks

Tool-using LLM agents increasingly read untrusted content while holding side-effecting tools such as payments, email, CRM, and infrastructure APIs, yet common framework defaults still conflate tool exposure with authorization. We audit whether LangChain/LangGraph, LlamaIndex, and the Stripe Agent Toolkit re-authorize each model-emitted call, with concrete argument values, before execution. Across pinned public-source commits, all three provide capability gating by default, but none provides a deterministic fail-closed per-call value authorization gate by default. We introduce ScopeGate, a five-stage PDP/PEP for agent tool calls: scope, authorization, money ceiling, idempotency, and default deny. Evaluation shows the identical unauthorized payout call executes under LangChain's default dispatch (with a companion LlamaIndex PoC) but is denied by ScopeGate; the tested control reports 0/48 static bypasses, 0/29 unauthorized attempts (40-iteration adaptive run), 0/10 benign false-denies, and Latam-GPT payment-agent containment at 10/10. ASR denotes attempted unauthorized action, containment is not a cure, deployment-tier claims are inference over measured model classes, and no CVE is asserted.

cs.CR↗

The Coverage Gap: Chile's Cyber Disclosure Framework versus the USA, EU and UK

We introduce the Coverage Gap as a measurable distance between the public exposure of critical-infrastructure operators and their declared capability to coordinate vulnerability disclosure. We instantiate it against the 915 Chilean Operadores de Importancia Vital (OIVs) designated by the National Cybersecurity Agency (ANCI) under Ley 21.663 (Resolucion Exenta No. 87, 2025). Using a passive-only, OSINT-based method consistent with ISO/IEC 29147:2018 and Chile's computer-crimes safe harbour (Ley 21.459), we census the foundational disclosure-capability layer (Layer 1: a verifiable disclosure contact). Only 16 of 915 OIVs (1.7%) publish a verifiable RFC 9116 disclosure channel; all four major banks and both telecommunications incumbents lack one entirely. This compares with over 99% adherence under CISA Binding Operational Directive 20-01 (the U.S. federal Vulnerability Disclosure Policy directive; the email-authentication mandate is the separate BOD 18-01). On the secondary email-authentication axis, Chilean OIVs are comparatively strong: DMARC enforcement (quarantine or reject) is present for 146 of 915 designations (16.0%) -- equivalently 16.6% of the 882 measurable domains -- with any-DMARC at 28.0%, above the ~11% top-1M baseline of Tatang et al. (RAID 2021). End-of-life or known-vulnerable components affect an estimated 23.5% (Wilson 95% CI [12-38%]). We propose a four-stage remediation roadmap and release the open-source tool anci-oiv-resolver v0.6.0 (Apache 2.0) for independent reproduction of the OIV-domain mapping. This is a corrected version 2; the email-authentication re-anchor and benchmark-label fix are documented in the 'Changes in v2' note.

cs.CR↗