跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.11340 · v1

Agentic Attribution of Cloud Resource Ownership

首次提交 2026-11-08 20:37
版本更新 2026-11-08 20:37
雷达观测 2026-11-10 12:16
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Security tools raise findings across cloud environments, and AI agents now investigate and prioritize them. A finding is still resolved by people: it has to reach the people responsible for fixing it and accountable for the resource it concerns. Ownership is the organizational context that decides who that is. Where recorded, it is declared by hand in configuration management databases or owner tags and goes stale unless kept current; accounts are shared, and automation creates much of the infrastructure. The knowledge sits in work records, code history, audit logs and identity directories, encoded in each organization's own conventions. Recovering it poses four challenges: the signal is scattered across sources, none of them authoritative; the conventions that carry it differ between organizations; reaching an owner takes multi-hop links; and those related to a resource differ in the strength of their relation. We define ownership as a set of entities, people or teams, each related to the resource by one of five patterns ordered by strength. We present a reference architecture for agentic ownership attribution that derives ownership from these records instead of declaring it: it profiles an organization offline into tested signal procedures and an ownership playbook, then attributes each resource with a coordinator agent and parallel investigators, with confidence computed by rules. On 100 resources of 50 Amazon Web Services (AWS) resource types in one organization, we pool the architecture's candidates with those of an unprimed general-purpose agent and verify every evidence piece against the records. The architecture reaches 92.1% weighted recall and 86.6% weighted precision, against 54.8% and 77.4%, at 0.55 times the agent's cost per unit of coverage. The difference lies in people who build and change resources without an explicit owner, found through work records and code history.

作者备注:14 pages, 2 figures, 5 tables

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只观测到一个版本,无法比较变化。之后收录新版本时,会在这里对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-08 20:37 · 最新观测版本

Agentic Attribution of Cloud Resource Ownership

Security tools raise findings across cloud environments, and AI agents now investigate and prioritize them. A finding is still resolved by people: it has to reach the people responsible for fixing it and accountable for the resource it concerns. Ownership is the organizational context that decides who that is. Where recorded, it is declared by hand in configuration management databases or owner tags and goes stale unless kept current; accounts are shared, and automation creates much of the infrastructure. The knowledge sits in work records, code history, audit logs and identity directories, encoded in each organization's own conventions. Recovering it poses four challenges: the signal is scattered across sources, none of them authoritative; the conventions that carry it differ between organizations; reaching an owner takes multi-hop links; and those related to a resource differ in the strength of their relation. We define ownership as a set of entities, people or teams, each related to the resource by one of five patterns ordered by strength. We present a reference architecture for agentic ownership attribution that derives ownership from these records instead of declaring it: it profiles an organization offline into tested signal procedures and an ownership playbook, then attributes each resource with a coordinator agent and parallel investigators, with confidence computed by rules. On 100 resources of 50 Amazon Web Services (AWS) resource types in one organization, we pool the architecture's candidates with those of an unprimed general-purpose agent and verify every evidence piece against the records. The architecture reaches 92.1% weighted recall and 86.6% weighted precision, against 54.8% and 77.4%, at 0.55 times the agent's cost per unit of coverage. The difference lies in people who build and change resources without an explicit owner, found through work records and code history.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗