<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>InfoQ - Security - Articles</title>
    <link>https://www.infoq.com</link>
    <description>InfoQ Security Articles feed</description>
    <item>
      <title>Article: Securing Autonomous AI Agents on Kubernetes: Trust Boundaries, Secrets, and Observability for a New Category of Cloud Workload</title>
      <link>https://www.infoq.com/articles/securing-autonomous-ai-agents-kubernetes/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&amp;utm_source=infoq&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_term=Security-articles</link>
      <description>&lt;img src="https://res.infoq.com/articles/securing-autonomous-ai-agents-kubernetes/en/headerimage/securing-autonomous-ai-agents-kubernetes-header-1777378848477.jpg"/&gt;&lt;p&gt;Autonomous AI agents break Kubernetes security assumptions with dynamic dependencies, multi-domain credentials, and unpredictable resource use. This article covers production-tested patterns: Job-based isolation, Vault for scoped short-lived credentials, a four-phase trust model from shadow mode to autonomous operation, and observability for non-deterministic reasoning cycles.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;i&gt;By Nik Kale&lt;/i&gt;</description>
      <category>Agents</category>
      <category>Kubernetes</category>
      <category>Security</category>
      <category>Observability</category>
      <category>Cloud</category>
      <category>Development</category>
      <category>Architecture &amp; Design</category>
      <category>AI, ML &amp; Data Engineering</category>
      <category>DevOps</category>
      <category>article</category>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2026 09:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.infoq.com/articles/securing-autonomous-ai-agents-kubernetes/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&amp;utm_source=infoq&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_term=Security-articles</guid>
      <dc:creator>Nik Kale</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-05-01T09:00:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:identifier>/articles/securing-autonomous-ai-agents-kubernetes/en</dc:identifier>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Article: The DPoP Storage Paradox: Why Browser-Based Proof-of-Possession Remains an Unsolved Problem</title>
      <link>https://www.infoq.com/articles/dpop-key-storage-unsolved-problem/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&amp;utm_source=infoq&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_term=Security-articles</link>
      <description>&lt;img src="https://res.infoq.com/articles/dpop-key-storage-unsolved-problem/en/headerimage/dpop-key-storage-unsolved-problem-header-1777296488937.jpg"/&gt;&lt;p&gt;DPoP closes a real gap in OAuth 2.0. Sender-constrained tokens are a meaningful upgrade over bearer tokens for any client that can implement them. But RFC 9449's silence on browser key storage creates the need for an architectural decision that each team must confront deliberately — there is no safe default that works everywhere.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;i&gt;By Dhruv Agnihotri&lt;/i&gt;</description>
      <category>Backend For Frontend</category>
      <category>IndexedDB</category>
      <category>Web Development</category>
      <category>Cloud Security</category>
      <category>Cryptography</category>
      <category>Web Browser</category>
      <category>Development</category>
      <category>Architecture &amp; Design</category>
      <category>article</category>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Apr 2026 09:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.infoq.com/articles/dpop-key-storage-unsolved-problem/?utm_campaign=infoq_content&amp;utm_source=infoq&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_term=Security-articles</guid>
      <dc:creator>Dhruv Agnihotri</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2026-04-30T09:00:00Z</dc:date>
      <dc:identifier>/articles/dpop-key-storage-unsolved-problem/en</dc:identifier>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
