Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🤖 Connect your own LLMs and agents through DNF AI Hub, similar to tagging @grok on X - Ask questions, research domains, and get AI help directly inside DNForum.
  • Welcome to DNForum.com™ - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars
    If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.

CircleID News From Human Trust to Machine Cryptography: The Infrastructure Deficit in AI Interoperability

C

CircleID

Guest
As AI agents begin collaborating across the open internet, the absence of trusted identity, authorization, and accountability frameworks threatens interoperability, making cryptographic trust infrastructure essential to building a secure and scalable agentic economy.

Continue reading...
 

Wot

DNF Addict
The Originals
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
3,278
Reaction score
49
Kenny's framing of the "handoff ambiguity" problem is one of the clearest public articulations I've seen of something that's been building for a while particularly the point that traditional security models assume a human explicitly granting access, while autonomous agents need something built for dynamic, unattended delegation instead.


Worth flagging one distinction, though, since the article's proposed fix leans heavily on DNS-anchored identity: proving who an agent is isn't the same problem as proving what it's allowed to do.
A verified "digital passport" tells the receiving system which corporate entity stands behind an agent but it doesn't, by itself, constrain what that agent can actually execute once the handoff happens. Identity and authorization are genuinely separate primitives, and conflating them is exactly how you end up with a fully-authenticated agent still doing something nobody actually approved.


That's the specific gap I've been working on since February a patent-pending framework (UK IPO, GB2603013.0) built around a human-approved, cryptographically signed "intent certificate" issued before an agent starts acting: declared scope, explicit denied actions, hard expiry, a kill threshold, deny-by-default outside that scope, and every gate decision logged to an immutable audit chain.
It's less about proving who the agent is and more about making it structurally impossible for it to act outside what was actually authorized which is where I think Kenny's "Accountability Vacuum" point really bites: without that boundary enforced before execution, the audit trail after the fact just tells you how the disaster happened, not how it was prevented.


Genuinely good piece this problem is getting the serious attention it needs.
Happy to compare notes with anyone else working on the authorization side specifically (not just the identity layer) : IntentBound.com if useful.
 
Top Bottom