Zum Hauptinhalt springen
YouTube Security VideosVisual Studio Code: 🍰 Compare Models & Harnesses with Agent Bake Off!(28.10.2026 um 17:30 Uhr)
•
YouTube Security Videosheise & c't: Eure Fragen zu Glasfaser!(28.10.2026 um 15:00 Uhr)
•
YouTube Security Videosheise & c't: #heiseshow: Apple-Experience, KI-Profit, Cookie-Banner(28.10.2026 um 16:49 Uhr)
••
AI & KI NachrichtenFireship: Did the AI bubble just pop?(28.10.2026 um 14:31 Uhr)
••
YouTube Security VideosFlutter notable commits - September 2026(28.10.2026 um 17:00 Uhr)
•••
YouTube Security VideosChrome for Developers: Support for WebMCP in Chrome DevTools(28.10.2026 um 17:11 Uhr)
•
YouTube Security VideosVisual Studio Code: 🍰 Compare Models & Harnesses with Agent Bake Off!(28.10.2026 um 17:30 Uhr)
•
YouTube Security Videosheise & c't: Eure Fragen zu Glasfaser!(28.10.2026 um 15:00 Uhr)
•
YouTube Security Videosheise & c't: #heiseshow: Apple-Experience, KI-Profit, Cookie-Banner(28.10.2026 um 16:49 Uhr)
••
AI & KI NachrichtenFireship: Did the AI bubble just pop?(28.10.2026 um 14:31 Uhr)
••
YouTube Security VideosFlutter notable commits - September 2026(28.10.2026 um 17:00 Uhr)
•••
YouTube Security VideosChrome for Developers: Support for WebMCP in Chrome DevTools(28.10.2026 um 17:11 Uhr)
•
Intelligence View
⚡ tsecurity.de Intelligence

AI Agents Have Hands. Here Is the Off Switch.

We gave AI agents the ability to act. They delete records, move money, deploy, push to main, read secrets, call tools. That is the whole point of an agent. It…

Beitrag
0
Seite
0
↗ Quelle (dev.to)
Social ReaktionenReagiere als Erste:r — dein Feedback zählt!

We gave AI agents the ability to act. They delete records, move money, deploy, push to main, read secrets, call tools. That is the whole point of an agent. It is also the whole problem.



In July 2025, Replit's AI agent ran destructive commands during a code freeze and

deleted a production database affecting more than 1,200 companies. It later

admitted it had violated explicit instructions not to act without human approval.

That is documented as AI Incident 1152.

The lesson is not "that one tool is bad." The lesson is that "the agent was told

to ask first, and it did not" is now a class of outage.



OWASP LLM06 Excessive Agency named the risk. AISVS C14 Human Oversight

says a human must be able to step in. So does Article 14 of the EU AI Act.

Everyone agrees a human should be in the loop for the actions that can end you.



The open question is the one nobody likes: how do you actually enforce that?





The approval dialog is theatre



The common answer is a software approval dialog. The agent is about to do something risky, a box pops up, a human clicks approve.



The trouble is that box runs on the same machine the agent runs on. If that host is compromised, the dialog can be clicked for you, or shown with one number and run with another. An approval the attacker can answer is not oversight. It is theatre. It is the same reason we moved second factors off the browser years ago:

consent has to live somewhere the attacker does not control.





AgentBee: move the decision onto hardware



AgentBee is a small hardware key. When an agent tries a critical action, the exact action shows on the key's own screen, and a human presses to approve.




  • No press, no action.

  • Unplug it, or drop the link, and the action is blocked. Never silently allowed.

  • Fail-closed by default.



The decision is no longer made on the box the agent controls. It is made on a separate device, in your hand.





How it works



Every gated call runs through three steps:




agent wants to run a tool
|
classify() -> risk tier (or "not gated")
|
show the exact action on the bee, wait for a human
|
approved -> allow + signed receipt | denied/timeout -> block








  1. classify the tool call into a tier (reads pass straight through; writes,
    deletes, deploys, payments and secret access get gated).


  2. ask the bee -- the action renders on the device screen and waits for a
    physical gesture.


  3. enforce -- approved calls proceed with a signed receipt; anything not
    approved is rejected and the agent cannot continue.






Wiring it up






The fast path: just tell your agent



Setup is a plain English instruction, not a config file. With the AgentBee skill

installed, in Claude, OpenAI, or any MCP client you say:




"Gate my critical actions with AgentBee."




and the skill wires it up. No SDK needed for the common case.





MCP-native





claude mcp add agentbee -- npx -y @agentbee/mcp





It works with any MCP-compatible client.





Hooks for everything that does not speak MCP



A git pre-push hook that makes pushing to main require a deliberate hold:



#!/bin/sh

# save as .git/hooks/pre-push then make it executable: chmod +x .git/hooks/pre-push

branch=$(git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD)

case "$branch" in

main|master|prod|release) tier=L4 ;; # deliberate HOLD

*) tier=L2 ;; # quick TAP

esac

repo=$(basename "$(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)")

exec python3 .agentbee/agentbee-gate.py "Push -> $branch" "$repo" "$tier"



The same gate wraps deploy steps, CI jobs, command runners, or a tool-call hook.

It exits 0 only when a human approved on the device.





Graduated trust, so you are not buried in prompts



Approval fatigue is real. So the gesture is graduated to the risk:























Action risk To approve To deny
L0-L2 (reads, routine writes) a quick TAP hold, or ignore
L3-L4 (delete prod, payments, deploys, prod pushes) a deliberate HOLD tap, or ignore


A stray tap can never approve a destructive action: approving the dangerous stuff always needs a conscious hold. You decide what gets gated, and you approve the one percent that matters, not five hundred prompts a day.





Every approval is evidence



This is the part auditors care about. Every approval is signed on the device with a key that never leaves it, and written to a tamper-evident, hash-chained

ledger
. A real receipt, exactly as stored:




{"action":"Delete GH prod DB","scope":"prod-main","trust":"L4",
"result":"approved","ts":"2026-06-09T08:39:01Z",
"sig":"15050fde...c91dfb1","device":"3166993cc2f863e3"}






Ask for the record later, in Claude or on the CLI:




agentbee receipts this-week









AgentBee receipt ledger        chain: intact

when (UTC) tier result verify action
2026-06-09T08:39:01Z L4 approved ok Delete GH prod DB · prod-main
2026-06-09T11:21:08Z L4 approved ok Commit -> main · myapp
2026-06-09T11:04:21Z L4 denied - Payment · stripe_payment






Each "ok" is re-verified right now against your device's public key. Forge an action and the signature stops verifying. Remove a record and the hash chain breaks. You can prove what a human approved, who approved it, and when, checkable offline, with no server in the loop.



Under the EU AI Act, Regulation (EU) 2024/1689, that supports Article 14

(human oversight) and Article 12 (record-keeping). It is a supporting control, not a compliance certificate, and I will only ever call it that.






Let me be precise about what it is and is not





  • It is authorization, not authentication. A YubiKey answers who you are at login. AgentBee answers "do you approve this action" at the moment it runs. It sits next to your YubiKey. It does not replace it. This is the core of our AgentPass thesis: identifying an agent is not enough, controlling what it can do is mandatory.


  • The key never leaves the device. It is generated on-chip. On locked units it is non-extractable (Encryption + Secure Boot v2)



Pulling a key would take physical possession, lab gear, time and

money, for one device, not a remote attack at scale.





  • Tamper-evident, not tamper-proof. You cannot stop someone trying to edit a log. You can make any edit detectable. That is the honest claim.






The point



Agents are getting more autonomy, not less. The answer is not to trust the host the agent lives on. It is to put the human decision somewhere the host cannot reach. An off switch you hold in your hand.



I am finalising the builds now. If you want to test one, join the waiting list at agentbee.co.uk.






Raza Sharif, CEO/Founder, CyberSecAI and AgentPass. Author of Breach 20/20. FBCS, CISSP, CSSLP.

agentpass.co.uk.

🔍 CTI & Forensik

Cyber Threat Intelligence & Forensik

ATT&CK-Navigator · IoC-Radar · Exploit-Belege
CTI Threat Relationship Graph
Akteure · Techniken · Beziehungen
2 Knoten · 1 Relationen
CVE / Incident Threat Actor Software MITRE ATT&CK CWE Weakness IoC
Intelligence Digest — kostenlos Täglich die wichtigsten Security-News · jederzeit abbestellbar
Community Rating & Social Proof
⭐ Leser-Wertung
–
Ø / 5.0
Noch keine Leser-Bewertungen
War diese Seite hilfreich?
0
Jetzt Bewertung abgeben
🟢 Niedrig (1-3.9) 🟡 Mittel (4.0-6.9) 🔴 Hoch (7.0-8.9) Kritisch (9.0-10.0)

Verwandte Story-Cluster & Quellen (Vektor-KI)

Ähnliche Beiträge
🔍 Verwandte News

Auch interessante Nachrichten AI Agents Have Hands. Here Is the Off Switch.

Thematisch verwandte Begriffe: Agents, Have, Hands, Here · 6 Treffer

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

Laden...

Beiträge werden geladen ...

Laden...

Videos werden geladen ...

💬 Kommentare werden geladen…
Zum Aktualisieren ziehen
Nächster Beitrag