Cybersecurity
The Problem
The threat model stops at the first plausible vulnerability. The analysis is written from the defender's perspective because that dominates the training corpus. Social engineering attacks succeed because the agent complies with fabricated authority. And the attack trajectory across 20 turns goes undetected. Four harnesses. Reasoning forces exhaustive path enumeration. Anti-Deception detects social engineering at Turn 6. Memory tracks the attack trajectory across the conversation. Code audits security-critical code paths.
How Ejentum Solves It
One API call forces your model to enumerate every exploit pathway exhaustively before concluding the analysis is complete. The agent models the attacker's perspective, not just the defender's. Social engineering attempts get detected and named, not complied with.
How Four Harnesses Protect Your Agents
Anti-Deception Harness
primaryDetects social engineering attacks by Turn 6 in 20-turn adaptive adversarial conversations. Names specific techniques: authority fabrication, policy forgery, urgency exploitation. Blocks compliance with fabricated credentials. 27/30 vs 13/30 blind evaluation on adversarial resistance.
Reasoning Harness
Forces exhaustive attack surface enumeration. Models attacker perspective, not just defender perspective. Traces causal chains across log sources by temporal sequence, not surface similarity. +14.1pp on causal tasks.
Memory Harness
Tracks attack trajectory across multi-turn interactions. Accumulates evidence of social engineering patterns turn by turn. Detects when an attacker's requests form a coherent exploitation sequence that individual turns don't reveal.
Code Harness
Audits security-critical code paths for TOCTOU races, injection vulnerabilities, and credential handling. Produces atomic fixes at the architectural level, not symptom-level patches.
Run your next threat model through the API. See how the injection forces exhaustive enumeration instead of stopping at the first plausible vulnerability.