Standards Alignment

How IntentGate's agent runtime authorization controls map to the security and AI-governance frameworks security teams, auditors, and procurement reference during evaluation. This page provides the explicit per-standard mapping; the underlying mechanism for each mapping is documented on the individual control pages and in the IntentGate Vendor Security Pack §1.5.

OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025)

Security risks specific to large language model applications.

RiskCoverageIntentGate mechanism
LLM01 Prompt Injection Direct Intent enforcement (-32011)
LLM02 Sensitive Information Disclosure Direct Bidirectional PII filtering (-32015)
LLM03 Supply Chain Out of scope Addressed by SCA tooling and signed-release attestation
LLM04 Data and Model Poisoning Out of scope Training-time concern, not runtime
LLM05 Improper Output Handling Direct Output schema validation (-32016)
LLM06 Excessive Agency Direct Capability tokens + policy engine destructive-verb deny-list (-32010 / -32012)
LLM07 System Prompt Leakage Out of scope Model-internal concern, not in-path
LLM08 Vector & Embedding Weaknesses Direct Tenant scope check (-32017)
LLM09 Misinformation Partial Memory provenance for verified high-stakes reads (-32014); factuality eval is a partner-product layer
LLM10 Unbounded Consumption Direct Budget tracking (-32013)

OWASP Top 10 for Agentic AI Applications (2025)

Security risks specific to multi-step autonomous agent behaviour.

RiskCoverageIntentGate mechanism
AGENT01 Agent Goal Hijack Direct Intent enforcement (-32011)
AGENT02 Tool Misuse & Exploitation Direct Capability tokens + policy engine (-32010 / -32012)
AGENT03 Identity & Privilege Abuse Direct Capability tokens with HMAC binding (-32010)
AGENT04 Agentic Supply Chain Out of scope Addressed by agent code review and orchestrator vendor due diligence
AGENT05 Code Execution (RCE) Out of scope Addressed by sandboxing of code-execution tools
AGENT06 Memory & Context Poisoning Direct (opt-in) Memory provenance (-32014)
AGENT07 Insecure Inter-Agent Communications Direct Capability attenuation across sub-agents
AGENT08 Cascading Failures Direct Per-tool circuit breaker + bulkhead isolation (-32018)
AGENT09 Human-Agent Trust Exploitation Direct Tenant scope check + step-up MFA workflows (-32017)
AGENT10 Rogue Agents Direct Capability tokens as registration; revocation list

NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)

Govern, Map, Measure, Manage — IntentGate implements technical controls under Manage, with audit-chain support for Measure.

MITRE ATLAS — Adversarial Threat Landscape for AI Systems

ATT&CK-style catalogue of tactics and techniques against AI. IntentGate addresses several runtime techniques.

EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689)

High-risk AI systems must implement risk management, data governance, transparency, human oversight, accuracy / robustness / cybersecurity. IntentGate implements the cybersecurity and human-oversight technical surfaces for AI agents.

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 — AI management systems

Requirements for an organisation to establish, implement, maintain, and continually improve an AI management system. IntentGate provides the runtime technical controls referenced in several Annex A objectives.

SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR

The general security and privacy standards that apply to any system processing customer data. IntentGate's controls map to several common-control objectives.

Summary tally

Across the combined OWASP Top 10 for LLM and OWASP Top 10 for Agentic AI (twenty risks total), IntentGate provides:

Source documentation

The per-standard mappings are maintained in the IntentGate Vendor Security Pack and reviewed quarterly. Procurement teams requesting formal evidence for an audit or RFP can request the latest signed version of the Vendor Security Pack via contact. The OWASP coverage page provides the same matrix in a CISO-readable format for the OWASP-specific subset.