feat: enforce layer0 gate and add tests
This commit is contained in:
Vault Sovereign
374
LAYER0_USE_CASES.md
Normal file
374
LAYER0_USE_CASES.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,374 @@
|
||||
# Layer 0 Shadow: Real-World Use Cases
|
||||
|
||||
**Non-technical explanation of what this system does and where it's useful**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What is Layer 0 Shadow? (Simple Explanation)
|
||||
|
||||
Imagine you have a security guard at the entrance of a building. Before anyone enters, the guard checks if they should be allowed in. Layer 0 Shadow is like that security guard, but for AI assistants.
|
||||
|
||||
**Instead of:**
|
||||
- Letting everyone in and checking them later (wastes time and resources)
|
||||
- Having no guard at all (security risk)
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Shadow:**
|
||||
- Checks every request **before** the AI even starts thinking
|
||||
- Blocks bad requests immediately (saves time and money)
|
||||
- Learns from past mistakes to get better over time
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## The Self-Learning Part (Ouroboros Loop)
|
||||
|
||||
Think of it like a security guard who gets smarter with experience:
|
||||
|
||||
**Day 1:** Guard sees someone trying to break in with a crowbar → Stops them
|
||||
**Day 30:** Guard recognizes the same person trying a different trick → Stops them faster
|
||||
**Day 100:** Guard recognizes new attack patterns from past incidents → Prevents problems before they happen
|
||||
|
||||
The system learns from what happened before and gets better at catching problems early.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 1: Preventing Accidental Production Changes
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
A developer asks the AI: "Update the production database"
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- AI processes the request
|
||||
- Generates code to update production
|
||||
- Developer might accidentally run it
|
||||
- Production database gets changed (disaster!)
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Layer 0 sees "production" + "update" + no safety checks
|
||||
- Blocks the request immediately
|
||||
- Asks: "Are you sure? This affects production. Please confirm."
|
||||
- Prevents disaster before it happens
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Developer:** "Skip the review process and deploy this to production"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "I can't help with that. Production deployments must go through code review. Would you like me to create a pull request instead?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Governance rules enforced, disaster prevented.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 2: Stopping Security Bypass Attempts
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Someone tries to get the AI to bypass security measures
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- AI might process the request
|
||||
- Could generate code that disables security
|
||||
- Security gets compromised
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Layer 0 recognizes phrases like "disable security" or "bypass authentication"
|
||||
- Immediately blocks the request
|
||||
- Logs the attempt for security review
|
||||
- No processing happens (saves resources)
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**User:** "Disable the firewall rules so I can test something"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "I cannot help with disabling security measures. This violates our security policy."
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Security maintained, attempt logged for audit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 3: Enforcing Company Policies Automatically
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Company policy says: "All infrastructure changes must use Terraform and go through Git"
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Developer asks: "Change the DNS records in the dashboard"
|
||||
- AI might help them do it manually
|
||||
- Policy violated, no audit trail
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Layer 0 sees "dashboard" + "change" (violates GitOps policy)
|
||||
- Blocks the request
|
||||
- Redirects: "I can help you create Terraform code and a pull request instead"
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Developer:** "Just update the Cloudflare settings in the dashboard, skip git"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "I can't help with manual dashboard changes. Our policy requires all changes to go through Git. I can generate Terraform code and create a pull request for you."
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Policy enforced automatically, proper workflow followed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 4: Saving Money on AI API Costs
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Every AI query costs money (tokens/API calls). Bad queries waste money.
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- 1000 queries per day
|
||||
- 100 are malicious or invalid
|
||||
- All 1000 get processed = pay for all 1000
|
||||
- Wasted money on bad queries
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- 1000 queries per day
|
||||
- 100 are blocked immediately (no processing)
|
||||
- Only 900 get processed = pay for 900
|
||||
- 10% cost savings
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Company:** Uses AI assistant for infrastructure management
|
||||
**Monthly queries:** 30,000
|
||||
**Bad queries:** 3,000 (10%)
|
||||
**Cost per query:** $0.01
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Cost: 30,000 × $0.01 = $300/month
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Cost: 27,000 × $0.01 = $270/month
|
||||
- Savings: $30/month = $360/year
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Significant cost savings by blocking bad queries early.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 5: Learning from Mistakes
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
New attack patterns emerge that the system doesn't recognize yet.
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- System doesn't recognize new threat
|
||||
- Threat gets through
|
||||
- Manual update needed to fix it
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0 (Ouroboros Loop):**
|
||||
- New threat appears
|
||||
- Gets caught by later security checks
|
||||
- System learns: "This pattern is dangerous"
|
||||
- Next time, catches it immediately
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Day 1:** Someone tries "terraform destroy production"
|
||||
- Layer 0 doesn't recognize it as dangerous yet
|
||||
- Gets blocked by guardrails later
|
||||
- System learns this pattern
|
||||
|
||||
**Day 2:** Someone else tries "terraform destroy staging"
|
||||
- Layer 0 recognizes the pattern from Day 1
|
||||
- Blocks it immediately (no processing)
|
||||
- Saves time and prevents risk
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** System gets smarter automatically, no manual updates needed.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 6: Handling Vague Requests Efficiently
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Developer asks: "fix it" or "change that"
|
||||
- AI doesn't know what "it" or "that" means
|
||||
- Might guess wrong and make bad changes
|
||||
- Wastes time processing unclear requests
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Recognizes vague requests
|
||||
- Asks for clarification **before** processing
|
||||
- Saves resources and prevents mistakes
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Developer:** "fix it"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "I need more information. What specifically needs to be fixed? Please provide details."
|
||||
|
||||
**Developer:** "Fix the DNS record for api.example.com"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0:** Now processes the clear request
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Better outcomes, less confusion, saved resources.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 7: Multi-Environment Safety
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Different environments (production, staging, dev) need different security levels.
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- All environments treated the same
|
||||
- Production changes are as risky as dev changes
|
||||
- Accidents happen
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Recognizes "production" in requests
|
||||
- Applies stricter rules automatically
|
||||
- Requires more confirmation for production changes
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Developer:** "Update the database in staging"
|
||||
- Layer 0: Allows (staging is safe to experiment)
|
||||
|
||||
**Developer:** "Update the database in production"
|
||||
- Layer 0: Blocks or requires extra confirmation (production is critical)
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Appropriate safety levels for each environment.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 8: Compliance and Audit Trail
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Regulations require: "All infrastructure changes must be logged and auditable"
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Manual changes might not be logged
|
||||
- No audit trail
|
||||
- Compliance violations
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- All blocked requests are logged automatically
|
||||
- Creates audit trail of security attempts
|
||||
- Helps with compliance reporting
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Auditor asks:** "Show me all attempts to bypass security policies"
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- System has logs of all blocked requests
|
||||
- Shows: "On Dec 10, someone tried to skip git workflow (blocked)"
|
||||
- Shows: "On Dec 11, someone tried to disable security (blocked)"
|
||||
- Complete audit trail available
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Compliance requirements met, audit trail maintained.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 9: Preventing Accidental Data Loss
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
Developer accidentally asks to delete important data.
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- AI might generate deletion code
|
||||
- Developer runs it
|
||||
- Data lost forever
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Recognizes dangerous operations (delete, destroy, remove)
|
||||
- Blocks or requires extra confirmation
|
||||
- Prevents accidental data loss
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**Developer:** "Delete all the old DNS records"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "This is a destructive operation. Are you sure? I recommend reviewing which records will be deleted first."
|
||||
|
||||
**Developer:** "Actually, let me check first"
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** Disaster prevented, data protected.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Use Case 10: Team Onboarding and Training
|
||||
|
||||
### The Problem
|
||||
New team members don't know the company's infrastructure policies.
|
||||
|
||||
**Without Layer 0:**
|
||||
- New developer makes mistakes
|
||||
- Violates policies
|
||||
- Needs correction later
|
||||
|
||||
**With Layer 0:**
|
||||
- Acts as a teaching tool
|
||||
- Enforces policies automatically
|
||||
- Educates new team members through responses
|
||||
|
||||
### Real Scenario
|
||||
**New Developer:** "How do I update the website?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Response:** "I can help! Our process requires:
|
||||
1. Making changes in Terraform code
|
||||
2. Creating a pull request
|
||||
3. Getting code review
|
||||
4. Merging and deploying
|
||||
|
||||
What specifically do you want to update?"
|
||||
|
||||
**Result:** New developer learns the right way immediately.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Summary: What Makes This Useful?
|
||||
|
||||
### For Companies:
|
||||
- **Saves money:** Blocks bad queries before they cost money
|
||||
- **Prevents disasters:** Stops dangerous operations early
|
||||
- **Enforces policies:** Automatically follows company rules
|
||||
- **Compliance:** Maintains audit trails automatically
|
||||
- **Self-improving:** Gets better over time without manual updates
|
||||
|
||||
### For Developers:
|
||||
- **Safety net:** Prevents accidental mistakes
|
||||
- **Learning tool:** Teaches proper workflows
|
||||
- **Time saver:** Clarifies vague requests before wasting time
|
||||
- **Consistency:** Ensures everyone follows the same process
|
||||
|
||||
### For Security Teams:
|
||||
- **Early detection:** Catches threats before they're processed
|
||||
- **Audit trail:** Logs all security attempts
|
||||
- **Adaptive:** Learns new attack patterns automatically
|
||||
- **Resource efficient:** Prevents wasted processing on malicious queries
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Real-World Analogy
|
||||
|
||||
Think of Layer 0 Shadow like a **smart security system** for a building:
|
||||
|
||||
**Traditional System (Without Layer 0):**
|
||||
- Everyone enters the building
|
||||
- Security checks them inside
|
||||
- Problems discovered after they're already in
|
||||
- Wastes time and resources
|
||||
|
||||
**Layer 0 Shadow:**
|
||||
- Security guard at the entrance checks everyone first
|
||||
- Bad actors stopped before entering
|
||||
- Good people get through quickly
|
||||
- Guard learns from past incidents and gets smarter
|
||||
- Saves time, money, and prevents problems
|
||||
|
||||
**The Ouroboros Loop:**
|
||||
- Like a security guard who reviews the day's incidents each evening
|
||||
- Learns: "This person tried a new trick today"
|
||||
- Next day: Recognizes the same trick immediately
|
||||
- Gets better at the job automatically
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Bottom Line
|
||||
|
||||
Layer 0 Shadow is useful anywhere you need:
|
||||
- **AI assistants** that follow company policies
|
||||
- **Infrastructure management** that prevents accidents
|
||||
- **Security systems** that learn and adapt
|
||||
- **Cost savings** by blocking bad requests early
|
||||
- **Compliance** with automatic audit trails
|
||||
- **Team training** through automatic policy enforcement
|
||||
|
||||
It's like having a smart, learning security guard that gets better at their job every day, protecting your systems and saving you money.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
**Last Updated:** 2025-12-10
|
||||
**Status:** 🟢 Active Use Cases
|
||||
**Target Audience:** Non-technical stakeholders, business users, decision makers
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user