Kaiza MCP Server

--- title: "ADR-004: Zero-Trust Execution Model" description: "Decision to implement zero-trust architecture for all AI agent operations" version: "2.0.0" last_updated: "2026-01-31" review_date: "2026-04-30" owners: ["security-team"] tags: ["adr", "security", "zero-trust", "architecture"] audience: ["technical", "executive"] --- # ADR-004: Zero-Trust Execution Model ## Status Accepted ## Context Traditional AI agent security models operate with implicit trust assumptions: - AI agents are trusted to operate within defined boundaries - Access controls are applied at session level rather than operation level - Audit trails are often optional or after-the-fact - Code generation is assumed to be well-intentioned These assumptions create significant security risks: - **Unauthorized Operations**: AI agents can perform operations beyond intended scope - **Privilege Escalation**: Agents can attempt to access unauthorized resources - **Data Exfiltration**: Lack of granular controls enables data leakage - **Compliance Violations**: Insufficient audit trails for regulatory compliance Enterprise environments require: - **Zero-Trust Principles**: Never trust, always verify - **Granular Controls**: Operation-level authorization and validation - **Comprehensive Auditing**: Complete, immutable audit trails - **Regulatory Compliance**: Meeting stringent compliance requirements ## Decision Implement a comprehensive zero-trust execution model where every operation requires explicit authorization and verification: ### Core Zero-Trust Principles 1. **Never Trust, Always Verify**: Every operation requires explicit authorization 2. **Least Privilege Access**: Minimum necessary permissions for each operation 3. **Assume Breach**: Design assuming the system is already compromised 4. **Explicit Authorization**: No implicit permissions or trust relationships ### Implementation Components #### Session-Level Zero-Trust - **Mandatory Authentication**: Every session requires explicit authentication - **Role Validation**: Role permissions validated on every operation - **Workspace Boundaries**: Strict workspace isolation and boundary enforcement - **Session Auditing**: Complete session lifecycle auditing #### Operation-Level Zero-Trust - **Plan Authorization**: Every operation requires approved plan authorization - **Content Verification**: Cryptographic verification of all content - **Scope Validation**: Operation scope validated against plan boundaries - **Metadata Validation**: Required metadata validated for completeness #### Resource-Level Zero-Trust - **Path Validation**: All file paths validated against allowed boundaries - **Permission Checks**: Resource access permissions verified on each access - **Content Scanning**: Content scanned for prohibited patterns - **Integrity Verification**: Resource integrity verified before operations #### Audit-Level Zero-Trust - **Immutable Logging**: All operations logged in immutable audit trail - **Cryptographic Verification**: Audit logs cryptographically verified - **Chain of Custody**: Complete chain of custody for all operations - **Tamper Detection**: Any tampering immediately detected and reported ## Rationale ### Security Benefits - **Eliminates Trust Assumptions**: Removes implicit trust from security model - **Granular Control**: Operation-level authorization and validation - **Comprehensive Auditing**: Complete, verifiable audit trails - **Regulatory Compliance**: Meets stringent compliance requirements ### Operational Benefits - **Predictable Behavior**: All operations follow explicit authorization flows - **Clear Boundaries**: Well-defined boundaries and constraints - **Accountability**: Clear responsibility assignment for all operations - **Incident Response**: Detailed information for security incident response ### Enterprise Benefits - **Risk Management**: Significant reduction in security risk - **Compliance Assurance**: Meets enterprise compliance requirements - **Audit Readiness**: Always prepared for security audits - **Governance Support**: Supports enterprise governance frameworks ## Alternatives Considered ### Role-Based Trust Model **Pros**: Simpler implementation, easier to understand **Cons**: Implicit trust assumptions, insufficient for enterprise security ### Session-Based Trust Model **Pros**: Session-level controls, some operational benefits **Cons**: Coarse-grained controls, insufficient operation-level security ### Hybrid Trust Model **Pros**: Balance of security and usability **Cons**: Complex implementation, potential security gaps ### Traditional Security Model **Pros**: Familiar patterns, widely understood **Cons**: Inadequate for AI agent security requirements ## Consequences ### Positive Consequences - **Enhanced Security**: Significant improvement in security posture - **Compliance Assurance**: Meets stringent regulatory requirements - **Operational Control**: Complete control over all operations - **Audit Capability**: Comprehensive audit and forensic capabilities ### Negative Consequences - **Operational Overhead**: Additional steps for all operations - **Complexity**: Increased system complexity and implementation effort - **Performance Impact**: Potential performance impact from verification steps - **Learning Curve**: Requires understanding of zero-trust principles ### Neutral Consequences - **Development Effort**: Significant development effort for implementation - **Maintenance Requirements**: Ongoing maintenance of security controls - **Integration Complexity**: Integration with existing systems may be complex ## Implementation Notes ### Technical Implementation - **Session Management**: Enhanced session management with zero-trust principles - **Authorization Engine**: Comprehensive authorization engine for all operations - **Audit System**: Immutable audit system with cryptographic verification - **Validation Framework**: Multi-layer validation framework for all operations ### Security Considerations - **Performance Optimization**: Optimized verification to minimize performance impact - **Fallback Mechanisms**: Secure fallback mechanisms for verification failures - **Monitoring**: Comprehensive monitoring of zero-trust controls - **Testing**: Extensive security testing of zero-trust implementation ### Integration Considerations - **MCP Protocol**: Enhanced MCP protocol with zero-trust extensions - **Enterprise Systems**: Integration with enterprise identity and access management - **Compliance Tools**: Integration with compliance monitoring and reporting tools - **Security Tools**: Integration with enterprise security tools and platforms ## Related Decisions - [ADR-001: Dual-Role Governance Model](./001-dual-role-governance.md) - [ADR-002: Plan-Based Authorization System](./002-plan-based-authorization.md) - [ADR-003: Cryptographic Audit Logging](./003-cryptographic-audit-logging.md) - [ADR-005: Role-Based Access Control](./005-role-based-access-control.md) --- **Decision Date**: 2026-01-19 **Decision Maker**: ATLAS-GATE MCP Security Team **Review Date**: 2026-04-19 **Status**: Accepted and Implemented