Architecting Secure AI: A MAESTRO-Driven Deep Dive with a Smart Customer Support Agent

The advent of sophisticated AI agents, capable of autonomous decision-making and interaction, promises to revolutionize industries. However, this power brings novel and complex security challenges that traditional threat modeling methodologies may not fully address [1][2][4][6]. To navigate this landscape, frameworks like MAESTRO (Multi-Agent Environment, Security, Threat, Risk, and Outcome) have emerged, offering a structured, layer-by-layer approach to identify, assess, and mitigate risks specific to agentic AI systems [1][2].

There is another similar article about MAESTRO, There’s another similar article about MAESTRO that offers more detailed information about MAESTRO and the specific case study we’re applying to. This article provides a detailed walkthrough of applying the MAESTRO framework to a hypothetical Smart Customer Support Agent. We will dissect the agent's architecture through MAESTRO's seven layers, identify potential threats and vulnerabilities at each stage, discuss relevant trust boundaries, and propose mitigations. The goal is to offer a comprehensive understanding of how to proactively design and secure AI applications before they can lead to significant enterprise disruption.

Understanding MAESTRO and Its Core Principles

MAESTRO is not just another checklist; it's a comprehensive methodology designed for the intricacies of AI [1]. Its key principles include:

• Extending Existing Frameworks: It builds upon established security frameworks like STRIDE (Spoofing, Tampering, Repudiation, Information Disclosure, Denial of Service, Elevation of Privilege), PASTA, and LINDDUN, augmenting them with AI-specific considerations [1][2][4][6].

• Layered Security: Security is viewed as a property integral to each layer of an agentic AI's architecture, not an afterthought [1][2][4][6].

• AI-Specific Threats: It directly addresses unique AI vulnerabilities, such as adversarial machine learning, prompt injection, data poisoning, and risks tied to autonomous operations [1][2][4][6].

• Multi-Agent and Environment Focus: It explicitly considers interactions between multiple AI agents and their operational environment [1].

• Risk-Based Approach: Threats are prioritized based on their likelihood and potential impact within the specific context of the agent [1][2][4][6].

• Continuous Monitoring and Adaptation: MAESTRO emphasizes the need for ongoing threat intelligence, model updates, and monitoring to address the evolving nature of AI and its associated threats [1][2][4][6].

The Seven Layers of MAESTRO

MAESTRO decomposes an agentic AI system into seven distinct layers for granular analysis [1][2][4][6]:

1. Foundation Models: The core AI models (e.g., LLMs) powering the agent.

2. Data Operations: All data utilized by the agents, including storage, processing, and vector embeddings.

3. Agent Frameworks: The software frameworks, APIs, and protocols enabling agent creation, orchestration, and interaction.

4. Deployment and Infrastructure: The underlying hardware, networks, and cloud services hosting the agents.

5. Evaluation and Observability: Systems and processes for monitoring, assessing, and debugging agent behavior.

6. Security and Compliance: Security controls, policies, and regulatory measures protecting the system.

7. Agent Ecosystem: The broader environment where multiple agents might interact.

Trust Boundaries in AI Systems

Before diving into the case study, it's crucial to understand trust boundaries. A trust boundary is a logical demarcation where the level of trust changes within a system [5]. Data crossing a trust boundary should be treated with scrutiny, often requiring validation, authentication, and authorization [3][5].

In AI systems, a critical trust boundary exists between the application code and the AI model it utilizes [3]. AI models, especially LLMs, can be non-deterministic and their outputs, even if seemingly benign, must be treated as untrusted data originating from outside the application's primary security perimeter [3]. Failing to establish and enforce this boundary can lead to significant vulnerabilities like prompt injection or leakage of sensitive data through model responses. MAESTRO's layered approach helps identify these boundaries implicitly-interactions between layers often signify a trust boundary crossing. For example, when the Agent Framework (Layer 3) sends a request to the Foundation Model (Layer 1), this is a critical trust boundary.

While STRIDE is often applied at trust boundaries to identify threats, MAESTRO provides the architectural framework within which these boundaries and STRIDE-like threat categories can be considered in an AI-specific context.

Case Study: Applying MAESTRO to a Smart Customer Support Agent

Let's consider a "Smart Customer Support Agent" designed to:

• Understand customer queries via natural language.

• Access a knowledge base (e.g., product FAQs, troubleshooting guides stored in a vector database).

• Retrieve customer account information from a CRM.

• Potentially execute simple actions (e.g., initiating a password reset process).

• Interact with users via a web chat interface.

We'll now apply MAESTRO's seven layers to this agent.

System Decomposition (MAESTRO Step 1):

• User Interface: Web chat.

• Backend Application: Processes requests, orchestrates agent logic.

• LLM API: (e.g., OpenAI Responses API [2]) for natural language understanding and generation.

• Vector Database: Stores embeddings of knowledge base documents.

• CRM System: Stores customer data.

• Logging & Monitoring System: Tracks agent performance and errors.

Layer-Specific and Cross-Layer Threat Modeling (MAESTRO Steps 2 & 3):

Layer 1: Foundation Models

• Components: The LLM (e.g., GPT-4o) used by the support agent.

• Trust Boundary Note: The interface between the Agent Framework (Layer 3) and the Foundation Model (Layer 1) is a critical trust boundary. User input, even if sanitized at Layer 3, could still be crafted to exploit the LLM at Layer 1. Model outputs returning to Layer 3 also cross this boundary and must be validated.

• Threats:

  • T1.1: Prompt Injection: Attacker crafts input to bypass the agent's intended instructions, causing it to reveal sensitive information, execute unauthorized actions, or generate inappropriate content [2].

    • Vulnerability: Insufficient input sanitization before sending prompts to the LLM; overly permissive system prompts.

    • Attack Vector: Maliciously crafted customer queries.

    • Risk: High (Confidentiality, Integrity).

    • Mitigation (M1.1): Implement robust input validation and output filtering. Use instructional system prompts that clearly define boundaries. Employ techniques like output parsing to ensure responses adhere to expected formats.

  • T1.2: Model Evasion/Jailbreaking: Attacker uses specific phrasing to make the LLM ignore its safety guidelines.

    • Vulnerability: Gaps in the LLM's safety training.

    • Attack Vector: Adversarial user prompts.

    • Risk: Medium (Integrity, Reputational).

    • Mitigation (M1.2): Regularly update to the latest model versions. Implement an additional safety layer that inspects prompts and responses for known jailbreaking techniques.

Layer 2: Data Operations

• Components: Customer query data, vector database with knowledge base embeddings, customer data retrieved from CRM, conversation logs.

• Trust Boundary Note: Data flowing from user input (external) into this layer is untrusted. Data retrieved from the CRM, while internally sourced, should be handled with care, especially when combined with LLM outputs.

• Threats:

  • T2.1: Data Poisoning of Knowledge Base: Attacker compromises the source documents used to create vector embeddings, leading the agent to provide incorrect or malicious information.

    • Vulnerability: Lack of integrity checks on data sources for the vector database.

    • Attack Vector: Modifying publicly accessible FAQs that are scraped, or internal compromise of document repositories.

    • Risk: Medium (Integrity).

    • Mitigation (M2.1): Implement data validation and integrity checks for all data ingested into the knowledge base. Use trusted sources and version control for documents. Regularly audit embeddings.

  • T2.2: Sensitive Data Leakage via Conversation Logs: Agent inadvertently logs PII or other sensitive data from customer interactions in an insecure manner.

    • Vulnerability: Insufficient data masking or redaction in logging mechanisms.

    • Attack Vector: Agent processes sensitive data which then gets logged.

    • Risk: High (Confidentiality, Compliance).

    • Mitigation (M2.2): Implement PII detection and redaction in the logging pipeline. Ensure logs are stored securely with strict access controls.

Layer 3: Agent Frameworks

• Components: The backend application logic orchestrating the agent, the API used to interact with the LLM (e.g., OpenAI Responses API [2]), and any custom tool/function calling mechanisms.

• Trust Boundary Note: This layer mediates between untrusted user input, the external LLM, and internal systems (CRM, knowledge base). All interactions crossing into or out of this layer are critical.

• Threats:

  • T3.1: Insecure Function/Tool Calling: If the agent can call custom functions (e.g., to initiate a password reset), an attacker might trick the LLM into calling a function with malicious parameters or calling an unintended function.

    • Vulnerability: Insufficient validation of parameters provided by the LLM to custom tools; overly broad permissions for tools.

    • Attack Vector: Crafted user input leading the LLM to generate harmful tool calls [2].

    • Risk: High (Integrity, Availability, Confidentiality).

    • Mitigation (M3.1): Strictly validate all parameters before executing any tool/function call. Implement the principle of least privilege for tools. Require human confirmation for sensitive actions.

  • T3.2: API Key Leakage: Hardcoded or improperly managed API keys for the LLM service are compromised.

    • Vulnerability: Storing API keys in code or insecure configuration files.

    • Attack Vector: Code repository leak, server compromise.

    • Risk: High (Financial, Availability).

    • Mitigation (M3.2): Use secure secret management solutions (e.g., HashiCorp Vault, AWS Secrets Manager). Rotate keys regularly.

Layer 4: Deployment and Infrastructure

• Components: Servers (cloud or on-premise), network configurations, containerization (if used).

• Trust Boundary Note: The boundary between the organization's internal network and the public internet is paramount here.

• Threats:

  • T4.1: Denial of Service (DoS) Against Agent Infrastructure: Attacker overwhelms the servers hosting the agent application, making it unavailable [4].

    • Vulnerability: Insufficient server capacity, lack of DDoS protection.

    • Attack Vector: Botnet flooding the agent's endpoint with requests.

    • Risk: High (Availability).

    • Mitigation (M4.1): Implement robust DDoS protection services. Use auto-scaling infrastructure. Implement rate limiting [4].

  • T4.2: Misconfigured Cloud Services: Improperly configured S3 buckets, IAM roles, or network security groups expose data or allow unauthorized access.

    • Vulnerability: Human error in cloud configuration.

    • Attack Vector: Scanning for common misconfigurations.

    • Risk: Medium-High (Confidentiality, Integrity).

    • Mitigation (M4.2): Regularly audit cloud configurations. Use Infrastructure as Code (IaC) with security checks. Employ cloud security posture management (CSPM) tools.

Layer 5: Evaluation and Observability

• Components: Logging systems, monitoring dashboards, tools for debugging agent behavior.

• Trust Boundary Note: Access to these systems themselves should be strictly controlled, as they contain sensitive operational data.

• Threats:

  • T5.1: Manipulation of Logging Data: Attacker with access modifies or deletes logs to hide malicious activity or mislead investigators [4].

    • Vulnerability: Insecure logging infrastructure, weak access controls on log data.

    • Attack Vector: Compromise of a system with log write access.

    • Risk: Medium (Repudiation, Integrity).

    • Mitigation (M5.1): Use a secure, tamper-evident logging system. Implement strong access controls and audit trails for log access. Use log integrity monitoring (checksums, signatures) [4].

  • T5.2: Failure to Detect Harmful Agent Behavior: Monitoring systems do not adequately detect when the agent is consistently giving bad advice, being offensive, or being manipulated.

    • Vulnerability: Lack of metrics or alerts for harmful outputs or anomalous behavior.

    • Attack Vector: Subtle, ongoing manipulation of the agent.

    • Risk: Medium (Reputational, Integrity).

    • Mitigation (M5.2): Implement comprehensive monitoring for key performance indicators (KPIs), error rates, and sentiment of agent responses. Use anomaly detection techniques to flag unusual patterns [4].

Layer 6: Security and Compliance

• Components: Authentication mechanisms, authorization policies, data privacy controls (e.g., GDPR adherence), security patching schedules.

• Trust Boundary Note: This layer underpins the security of all other layers and their interactions.

• Threats:

  • T6.1: Weak Authentication/Authorization: Attacker gains unauthorized access to backend systems or sensitive agent management functions due to weak credentials or flawed access control logic.

    • Vulnerability: Use of default passwords, lack of multi-factor authentication (MFA), overly permissive roles.

    • Attack Vector: Credential stuffing, phishing, exploiting access control flaws.

    • Risk: High (Confidentiality, Integrity, Availability).

    • Mitigation (M6.1): Enforce strong password policies and MFA. Implement role-based access control (RBAC) with least privilege. Regularly review access rights.

  • T6.2: Non-Compliance with Data Privacy Regulations: Agent handles or stores PII in a way that violates GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, etc.

    • Vulnerability: Lack of awareness of data privacy requirements; insufficient data handling policies.

    • Attack Vector: Agent collects or processes PII without proper consent or security.

    • Risk: High (Legal, Financial, Reputational).

    • Mitigation (M6.2): Conduct Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs). Implement data minimization principles. Ensure mechanisms for consent, data access, and deletion requests are in place.

Layer 7: Agent Ecosystem

• Components: While our Smart Customer Support Agent might primarily operate solo, this layer considers interactions if it were to collaborate with other agents (e.g., a billing agent, a technical support escalation agent).

• Trust Boundary Note: Each inter-agent communication channel is a trust boundary.

• Threats:

  • T7.1: Malicious Agent Interaction: A compromised or inherently malicious agent in the ecosystem interacts with our support agent to exfiltrate data, disrupt its operation, or propagate an attack [4].

    • Vulnerability: Lack of strong authentication and authorization between agents; insecure communication channels.

    • Attack Vector: An attacker deploys a malicious agent or compromises an existing one.

    • Risk: High (if other agents are involved).

    • Mitigation (M7.1): Implement secure inter-agent communication protocols (e.g., mTLS). Use robust agent authentication and authorization. Consider agent reputation systems and sandboxing if the ecosystem is open [4].

Cross-Layer Threats (MAESTRO emphasizes these):

• C1 (Agent Frameworks -> Data Operations -> Foundation Model): An attacker injects a malicious payload through the customer query (Layer 3), which is then stored (Layer 2) and later used in a prompt to the Foundation Model (Layer 1) to extract sensitive data from the vector DB. MAESTRO highlights how the agent's autonomous decision to fetch and use this data, potentially due to non-deterministic behavior circumventing simple checks, leads to the breach [4].

• C2 (Security & Compliance -> Deployment & Infrastructure): Weak credential management (Layer 6) allows an attacker to compromise a server (Layer 4), then use that access to tamper with the agent's configuration or data.

Risk Assessment, Mitigation Planning, Implementation & Monitoring (MAESTRO Steps 4-6): Once threats are identified:

1. Risk Assessment: Evaluate the likelihood and impact of each threat (e.g., using a High/Medium/Low scale) to prioritize [1]. For example, T1.1 (Prompt Injection) might be High Likelihood, High Impact.

2. Mitigation Planning: Develop a plan to implement the identified mitigations, focusing on the highest-risk threats first [1].

3. Implementation and Monitoring: Implement the security controls. Continuously monitor for new threats, vulnerabilities, and effectiveness of mitigations. The threat model is a living document and should be updated as the agent or threat landscape evolves [1][2][4].

Conclusion

The MAESTRO framework provides an essential, AI-centric methodology for dissecting and securing complex agentic systems like our Smart Customer Support Agent [1][6]. By systematically analyzing each layer, understanding the critical trust boundaries (especially concerning the AI model itself [3]), and considering AI-specific threats, organizations can move beyond traditional security paradigms. This proactive, layered approach, coupled with continuous monitoring and adaptation, is paramount to building robust, secure, and trustworthy AI applications, ensuring they serve as assets rather than liabilities in the enterprise.

Sources [1] Agentic AI Threat Modeling Framework: MAESTRO | CSA https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2025/02/06/agentic-ai-threat-modeling-framework-maestro [2] Threat Modeling OpenAI's Responses API with MAESTRO | CSA https://cloudsecurityalliance.org/blog/2025/03/24/threat-modeling-openai-s-responses-api-with-the-maestro-framework [3] Trust Boundaries in AI Systems - LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/trust-boundaries-ai-systems-sachin-joglekar-ppjxc [4] Threat Modeling Google's A2A Protocol with the MAESTRO ... https://kenhuangus.substack.com/p/threat-modeling-googles-a2a-protocol [5] Overview of Threat Modeling - Tufts Security and Privacy Lab https://tsp.cs.tufts.edu/tmnt/threatmodeling.html [6] Building A Secure Agentic AI Application Leveraging Google's A2A ... https://arxiv.org/html/2504.16902v1 [7] Threat modeling for agentic systems - The SAS Data Science Blog https://blogs.sas.com/content/subconsciousmusings/2025/04/24/threat-modeling-for-agentic-systems/ [8] Agentic AI Threat Modeling Framework: MAESTRO | Mike Towers https://www.linkedin.com/posts/michaelatowersjr_agentic-ai-threat-modeling-framework-maestro-activity-7327691694798245888-F4S2 [9] [PDF] for Large Language Model applications - GovTech https://www.tech.gov.sg/files/products-and-services/Cybersecurity_Playbook_for_Large_Language_Model_LLM_Applications.pdf [10] Orchestrating Agentic AI Securely - by Chris Hughes - Resilient Cyber https://www.resilientcyber.io/p/orchestrating-agentic-ai-securely [11] Building A Secure Agentic AI Application Leveraging Google's A2A ... https://arxiv.org/html/2504.16902v2 [12] Securing Multi-Agent AI Systems: An Offensive Perspective ... - ZioSec https://www.ziosec.com/blog-4-25-25-multi-agent-security.html [13] Threat Modelling for LLM Applications - LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/threat-modelling-llm-applications-amit-kumar-srivastava-vvfjc [14] Better performance from reasoning models using the Responses API https://cookbook.openai.com/examples/responses_api/reasoning_items [15] awesome-azure-openai-llm/README_all_in_one.md at main - GitHub https://github.com/kimtth/awesome-azure-openai-llm/blob/main/README_all_in_one.md [16] dr sec] #271 - Threat Modeling (+ AI), Backdoored GitHub Actions ... https://tldrsec.com/p/tldr-sec-271 [17] linddun.org | Privacy Engineering https://linddun.org [18] OpenAI Responses API: The Ultimate Developer Guide | DataCamp http://www.new.datacamp.com/tutorial/openai-responses-api [19] Threat Modeling Process - OWASP Foundation https://owasp.org/www-community/Threat_Modeling_Process [20] Securing AI Systems - IriusRisk https://www.iriusrisk.com/resources-blog/securing-ai-systems [21] Attack Surface Determination: Understanding Trust Boundaries In ... https://www.ituonline.com/comptia-securityx/comptia-securityx-1/attack-surface-determination-understanding-trust-boundaries-in-threat-modeling/ [22] Secure By Design - Microsoft https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/securityengineering/sdl/practices/secure-by-design [23] Leveraging LLMs for STRIDE Threat Modeling - Pure Storage Blog https://blog.purestorage.com/purely-technical/leveraging-large-language-models-for-stride-threat-modeling/ [24] AI Security Posture Management (AISPM): How to Handle AI Agent ... https://www.permit.io/blog/aispm-how-to-handle-ai-agent-security [25] STRIDE model - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STRIDE_model