Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

The Cleaner vs Data Leaks: Sanitizing LLM Context

In Part 1 of this series , we laid out the anatomy of an agentic disaster and introduced our in-process tactical squad: The AG-Men . Before an autonomous agent can evaluate a tool call, one crucial event happens first: it receives data. Real-world context is full of sensitive data: credit card numbers, personal emails, IBANs, tax IDs, and private tokens. If you blindly pass this context to your…

In Part 1 of the series, an introduction was provided about the AG-Men, an in-process tactical squad designed to combat the challenges posed by autonomous agents receiving sensitive data. Before an autonomous agent can evaluate a tool call, it first receives data. This data often includes sensitive information such as credit card numbers, personal emails, IBANs, tax IDs, and private tokens.

Passing this context to a model provider can lead to compliance penalties (GDPR, HIPAA, PCI-DSS) and leakage of private data into third-party logs, inference caches, and model contexts.

The first responder in this squad is called The Cleaner. The Silent Egress Problem is a significant issue, as many engineering teams secure their databases behind private VPCs, enforce OAuth authentication, and implement role-based access controls. However, when agents are set up to call these tools, they often pass raw data directly to the agent reasoning loop, exposing private customer data to third-party API providers, contaminating the agent's context with sensitive attributes, and creating opportunities for prompt injection attacks.

To address these concerns, The Cleaner operates on a zero-trust doctrine, ensuring no unscrubbed attribute crosses the network boundary to an external LLM. Unlike a multi-container scanning cluster that adds latency, The Cleaner runs in-process, inspecting ingress queries, masking PII in memory, and enforcing strict boundary isolation on tool returns.

It intercepts payloads at both the front door (AI-WAF ingress) and the tool boundary (Anti-IDOR & Dual-Channel data transfer), masking sensitive information like IBANs, NIRs, emails, and other PII before it reaches the LLM engine or tool calls. This approach prevents data leaks, maintains compliance, and protects sensitive information throughout the agent's workflow.

Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at dev.to →

More in AI

Claude Code Subagents Were 48% of My Bill. Their Output Was 0.9%

I thought my expensive Claude Code habit was long sessions. I was half right. When I finally broke down a month of usage, Claude Code subagents cost 48% of my entire bill , and the tokens they wrote…

  • Claude Code subagents comprised 48% of the budget
  • Subagents' output accounted for only 0.9% of costs
  • Fan-out workflows drove 48% of the expense

In 2018 I hand-wrote a C++ deep learning framework so I'd never pad a batch. In 2023 LLM serving landed on the same structure.

There's a sentence in the README of a library I wrote that I've been thinking about lately: "To summarize, we believe that Padding-free Dynamic Batching is the feature that NLPers will dive into but…

  • In 2018, master's student created C++ deep learning library InsNet
  • InsNet's design eliminated need for padded tensors by using flat buffers
  • Batching in InsNet grouped nodes by type signature, not input shape

Supervise the agents that build your OpenSpec changes

First published on openspec-ui.dev . OpenSpec gives an agent something to build from: a proposal, a design, a list of tasks, and the spec deltas the change will leave behind.

  • OpenSpec Workbench runs agent CLI during changes.
  • Provides real-time updates and stop capability.
  • Supports Claude, GitHub Copilot, Codex, Gemini, DeepSeek agents.

More from Thursday 24 September →