<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Policy-Framework on CuraSec</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/policy-framework/</link><description>Recent content in Policy-Framework on CuraSec</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:10:27 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/tags/policy-framework/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>ToolGuardian: ASP-Based Policy Framework for LLM Agent-Tool Security</title><link>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-07-27-toolguardian-declarative-security-for-ai-agent-tool-interact/</link><pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:10:27 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://curasec.metacog.co.kr/insights/2026-07-27-toolguardian-declarative-security-for-ai-agent-tool-interact/</guid><description>&lt;ul>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Engineer — Learn:&lt;/strong> Academic research presenting a declarative vetting-plus-runtime authorization approach for LLM agent tools using Answer Set Programming; no shipping implementation to adopt today, but the pre-admission characterization pipeline (syscall tracing, mock execution, source analysis) is a useful design reference for teams building or auditing agentic systems with third-party MCP-style tools.&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>SOC/IR — Skip&lt;/strong>&lt;/li>
&lt;li>&lt;strong>Leader — Learn:&lt;/strong> Provides early framing on a governance gap — third-party tool risk in LLM agent deployments — that will become a vendor-risk and audit question as agentic AI adoption grows; no immediate action but useful input for shaping an AI agent usage policy before it&amp;rsquo;s needed.&lt;/li>
&lt;/ul></description></item></channel></rss>