alt Hacker NewsI am tackling this using the Lethal Trifecta principle.
The idea is that agents never have all parts of the trifecta, maximum 2: untrusted content, private data or network access.
Harness have network access by default since they are driven by their provider API, unless you use offline models. So that's a problem.
I am then passing around messages that are tagged trusted/untrusted and the engine can monitor if any agent in the project ever completes the Lethal Trifecta and thus, is vulnerable.
Usually this means for most workflows, the "work" gets done by an offline LLM after some input/classification stages. There's not many ways around it.
Yes, it's a difficult problem.
Replies
It’s difficult in theory, impossible in practice. For example: any external code dependency could be a prompt injection, and lock files are only TOFU protection.
But perfect is the enemy of better.
That's a great way to do it.
In terms of agent architecture I'm initially trying to minimise specialisation to make deployment easier on us. Infrastructure is becoming our largest blocker because it's otherwise so quick to get an agent up and running.
With your trifecta, let's say the three musketeers, how do you prevent sensitive data holding A from passing said data to B or C if they all need to collaborate to get a task done?
> Harness have network access by default since they are driven by their provider API
The harness needs network access, but the shell spawned by the harness that runs the agent's commands does not necessarily need it.
Having a bwrap etc managed by the harness (DSH does this, among others) lets you have tighter restrictions on the agent's shell than the harness. Then run the whole thing inside a VM with a private network, so you can add nft rules to let it dial out to your inference machine but not to the internet at large. It takes an afternoon to set up but gives some reasonable defence in depth.
How did you go about it?