AgentReadyHomeAgent Listing

← Internet of Agents

Internet of Agents — agentic threat model

9.6AIVSS 9.6 · Critical

Internet of Agents (IoA) presents a high-risk agentic profile due to its highly autonomous, multi-agent orchestration design and internet-like open architecture, which lacks built-in security boundaries or verification mechanisms for heterogeneous agent interactions.

OWASP AIVSS score rationale

AIVSS = (CVSS_Base + AARS) × Mitigation_Factor, where AARS = (10 − CVSS_Base) × (Factor_Sum / 10) × ThM
CVSS base 8.5AARS uplift 1.07Factor sum 6.5/10Threat ×1.1Mitigation ×1.0
Autonomy of Action
0.80
Goal-Driven Planning
0.80
Self-Modification
0.30
Dynamic Tool Use
0.60
Persistent Memory
0.40
Contextual Awareness
0.60
Dynamic Identity
0.50
Multi-Agent Interactions
1.00
Non-Determinism
0.80
Opacity & Reflexivity
0.70

Scored with the canonical OWASP AIVSS formula (AIVSS calculator reference); agentic risk factors estimated from the agent’s described capabilities.

MAESTRO 7-layer threat model

Per-layer threats for this agent. Layers tagged “not certain from listing” are general, caveated commentary where the public description didn’t pin that layer.

L1 · Foundation Models⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — The framework is model-agnostic and integrates heterogeneous agents, meaning the underlying foundation models are determined by the user, leaving L1 threats like model poisoning or adversarial exploitation dependent on external deployments.

L2 · Data Operations⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — There is no explicit mention of data operations, vector databases, or RAG pipelines within the framework's core description, though data exfiltration risks exist during agent-to-agent communication.

L3 · Agent Frameworks✓ mapped

IoA acts as a complex orchestration framework supporting nested team formation and asynchronous execution. Vulnerabilities here include orchestration bypasses, insecure tool integration across heterogeneous agents, and cascading planning failures.

L4 · Deployment & Infrastructure⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — As an open-source framework, deployment and sandboxing are left to the user. The 'internet-inspired' architecture suggests potential network exposure risks if agents communicate across unencrypted or unauthenticated channels.

L5 · Evaluation & Observability⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — The description does not outline built-in evaluation, logging, or guardrail mechanisms, which may create significant observability blind spots in complex, nested agent conversations.

L6 · Security & Compliance (cross-cutting)⚠ not certain from listing

Not certain from the listing — No security, identity management, or compliance controls are mentioned, raising concerns about how agent authorization and policy enforcement are handled in collaborative environments.

L7 · Agent Ecosystem✓ mapped

This is the primary risk surface. The framework's core value is multi-agent collaboration, creating severe exposure to agent-to-agent trust abuse, rogue agent integration, and cascading failures across nested teams.

MAESTRO — the 7-layer agentic threat-modeling framework (Cloud Security Alliance / Ken Huang).