logoalt Hacker News

krirotoday at 12:36 PM5 repliesview on HN

""" Beyond Zero shifts the trust boundary from the application to the action being performed on a piece of data in realtime—and from after-the-fact investigation to in-the-moment evaluation and containment. It augments BeyondCorp’s foundational identity with a “brain” capable of reasoning about the context and intent of a specific request in realtime. """

Doesn't this simply shift the attack vector? Compromising this overlord brain now becomes a new target.


Replies

thesuitonymtoday at 1:08 PM

All security measures "simply shift the attack vector." The idea is to shift it to something that is more difficult to compromise.

srousseytoday at 3:18 PM

Google already has a system where data and access control are combined as part of shared docs. I think Zanzibar for docs themselves on GDrive. Not sure the name of the system that manages a portion of a document in a shared doc which colocates data and access data. This seems like a next generation of that?

zobzutoday at 2:55 PM

these are just fluff words, not a revolutionary change.

zero trust helped a lot because it forced vendors to stop relying on people magically doing the right thing ina centralized system. it decentralized boundaries.

this paper just says you still need deterministic boundaries and access control, not just have an llm say safe or unsafe. cool thanks google haha.

ps: hi guys, i know yall reading. sometimes its not the concept, its the implementation. else active shield or whatever would have worked too. not everyone can be the T7-9 thinker if implementing is seen as "for peasants"

thomascgalvintoday at 1:02 PM

This is a layer on top of normal security, so this isn't a matter of compromising the "brain" instead of RBAC, etc, but in addition to.

Attribute-based access control is already a thing. User X logs in the US East between the hours of 6am and 6pm. If User X logs in from Russia at 3am, deny access. This seems like an evolution of that pattern

butterclaw-techtoday at 1:02 PM

One partial answer is to not make it a single brain. If the reasoning layer that evaluates a request is independently audited by a second pass at lower temperature with an explicit skepticism mandate, compromising the evaluator requires compromising both passes simultaneously — and they're running the same local model with different system prompts and no shared state between them. Doesn't eliminate the attack surface but raises the cost considerably compared to a single inference gate.