Why AI Infrastructure Needs a New Security Model
Traditional IAM secures human users, not AI agents making thousands of calls per minute. Why a connection-centric model is the right foundation.
AI agent security, identity, governance, cost, and the engineering behind the control plane.
Traditional IAM secures human users, not AI agents making thousands of calls per minute. Why a connection-centric model is the right foundation.
A framework for modeling unit economics in agentic products — cost per task as a variable formula, margin sensitivity, and the drivers that move it.
How to discover the AI agents you run, compared: registration, repository scans, telemetry, access logs, consoles and surveys, and what each one misses.
A decision framework for choosing reserved capacity versus on-demand LLM spend, based on workload predictability, volume confidence, and switching cost.
A procurement checklist for evaluating agentic AI tools across cost structure, integration burden, governance fit, and organizational readiness.
Guardrails check what is said; policies govern rate limits and time windows. How the two AI control layers differ, and why neither replaces the other.
The commercial levers in an LLM provider contract — commitment structure, overage treatment, data-use terms, and portability — and how to evaluate each one.
A method for costing AI agent downtime as a formula across direct, cascading, and recovery terms, so availability investment can be sized rationally.
How AI agent governance differs from model governance: runtime controls on what a deployed agent may do, versus checks on the model itself.
Secure multi-agent workflows with authentication at every hop, scoped delegation tokens, and content guardrails on every message—three patterns explained.
A decision framework for choosing chargeback or showback to allocate AI agent costs internally, with the data prerequisites and failure modes of each.
Grant AI agents the minimum MCP tool access they need — no more. Learn how allow-lists, per-tool rate limits, and policy gates prevent blast-radius breaches.
A template and cadence for reporting AI agent risk to the board — exposure, control coverage, incidents, and regulatory posture — in board-appropriate language.
An MCP server security checklist in seven domains, from authentication and tool permissions to tool poisoning and logging, mapped to the OWASP MCP Top 10.
A ready-to-use security questionnaire for AI agent and MCP tooling vendors, covering identity, isolation, audit, retention, subprocessors, and exit.
A TCO model structure for AI agents that covers inference spend, tooling, integration, oversight labor, and failure cost — with a worked illustrative example.
MCP gives AI agents a standard way to call external tools and retrieve context. Learn what it is, how it works, and the security controls it needs.
How to structure an AI agent business case for a CFO — fully loaded cost, risk-adjusted value, payback framing, and the questions engineering teams miss.
The UK governs AI agents through existing sector regulators and cross-cutting principles, not a single AI Act — the control mapping operators need to prepare.
Every platform action is an API call. Learn how Praesidia's OpenAPI-described surface lets you automate governance, integrate tooling, and extend the platform.
The UAE and Saudi Arabia govern AI agents through national strategy bodies, data-protection law, and free-zone rules rather than a single binding AI statute.
Singapore governs AI through a voluntary framework and testing tools rather than binding law — the control mapping agent operators should build anyway.
How Praesidia's platform operators are kept apart from your organization's roles, which changes take two of them, and what they leave in your audit trail.
South Korea's AI Framework Act creates a binding risk-tiered regime for high-impact AI — the obligations agent operators should map to now.