Skip to content

RFC: workload-anchored credential binding and layered credential derivation #483

Description

@krokoko

Context: ROADMAP.md → Workload-anchored credential binding + Layered credential derivation
Related: #249, #209, #428, #427


Primary area

Cross-cutting / multiple

Related issue or feature request

#249 (Identity propagation / Token Vault), #209 (per-session IAM scoping), #428 (runtime security telemetry)

Summary

Extend ABCA's credential model beyond per-session IAM tags with (1) workload-anchored binding—credentials usable only inside the attested MicroVM/workload—and (2) layered derivation—progressively narrower tokens at orchestrator → agent runtime → per-tool-call boundaries.

Use case and motivation

Per-session scoping limits what a stolen credential can access but not where it can be exercised. A credential exfiltrated from the VM remains valid until expiry. Layered derivation limits blast radius at every hop: orchestrator task token → agent tool-scoped token → single-use external API token.

Proposal

Workload-anchored binding

  • Bind issued credentials to platform attestation (instance identity document, AgentCore workload identity, or equivalent).
  • Token Vault / STS AssumeRole policies reject calls not originating from the bound workload.
  • Document operator requirements and failure modes when attestation is unavailable (ECS vs AgentCore).

Layered derivation

  • Orchestrator holds task-scoped delegation token.
  • Agent runtime derives further-restricted credentials limited to resolved tools/repos for the current turn.
  • External tool invocations receive time-boxed or single-use tokens where the upstream API supports it.
  • Propagate signed actor chain (user_id → orchestrator → agent) per delegation chain roadmap intent; align with RFC: Delegated-agent handoff contract for cross-system coding tasks #427.

Operator / developer experience

  • Before: one SessionRole assumption per task; broad tool surface within tag scope.
  • After: credentials are non-transferable and monotonically narrower down the stack; audit trail shows full lineage.

Out of scope

Potential challenges

Dependencies and integrations

Alternative solutions


Note: Non-triaged RFCs may not get timely review.

  • RFC PR:
  • Approved by:
  • Reviewed by:

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    RFC-proposalRequest for Comments: design proposalsecurityCedar/HITL, IAM least-privilege, secrets, PII/DLP, guardrails, supply-chain/CVE

    Type

    No type
    No fields configured for issues without a type.

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions