Observed security evidence collected while software is executing, such as process activity, network traffic, and file access. In agent governance, this evidence is more trustworthy than static inspection because it proves how a skill behaved under real permissions and real execution conditions.
Expanded Definition
Runtime behavioural evidence is the operational record of what an NHI or AI agent actually did while executing: processes spawned, network destinations contacted, files read or written, tokens used, and commands invoked. In NHI governance, this matters because static configuration or code review can show intent, while runtime evidence shows exercised authority under real conditions.
The term overlaps with observability and telemetry, but it is narrower in security use. Not every log line qualifies as evidence. To be useful for governance, the data must be attributable to a specific identity, temporally bounded, and strong enough to support decisions about access, containment, or revocation. That makes it a practical complement to NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 concepts for detection and response, while also supporting identity-centric review in NHI operations.
Definitions vary across vendors on whether packet metadata, audit logs, and sandbox traces all count equally. NHI Management Group treats runtime behavioural evidence as security evidence only when it can be tied to a governed identity and a verifiable action path. The most common misapplication is treating generic logs as evidence, which occurs when teams cannot prove which identity caused the activity or under what permissions it ran.
Examples and Use Cases
Implementing runtime behavioural evidence rigorously often introduces collection and correlation overhead, requiring organisations to weigh stronger proof of execution against added storage, analysis, and privacy controls.
- Detecting an agent that unexpectedly calls an external API after receiving a prompt injection, then comparing that traffic with its approved tool scope.
- Proving whether a service account actually read a secrets file during an incident, using process lineage and file-access telemetry rather than assumptions from the codebase.
- Reviewing a CI/CD workload that only becomes risky when executed with elevated permissions, a pattern often discussed in the JetBrains GitHub plugin token exposure research context.
- Validating that a workload followed expected trust boundaries by correlating runtime events with guidance from NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 detection practices.
- Comparing an AI agent’s tool usage against its declared operating constraints after testing in a staging environment or controlled sandbox.
These examples show why runtime evidence is most valuable when it captures actual execution, not just policy intent or declared permissions.
Why It Matters in NHI Security
Runtime behavioural evidence is critical because NHIs frequently hold broad, durable access, and compromised identities can behave legitimately while causing damage. NHI Management Group research shows that only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which means many teams cannot see what those identities are actually doing once they run. That gap turns runtime evidence into a governance control, not just an investigative luxury.
It also helps answer a practical question after an incident: was the identity abused, misconfigured, or behaving within its approved scope but from an unsafe context? This distinction affects containment, rotation, revocation, and whether an agent or service account should be reclassified as higher risk. Runtime evidence is especially important when secrets, API keys, or certificates are used successfully by an attacker because the credential alone no longer explains the impact.
Organisations typically encounter the need for runtime behavioural evidence only after a suspicious action, lateral movement, or data exfiltration event, at which point the term becomes operationally unavoidable to address.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 and OWASP Agentic AI Top 10 address the attack and risk surface, while NIST CSF 2.0 set the governance and control requirements practitioners need to meet.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 | NHI-08 | Runtime evidence supports validating actual NHI behaviour against expected permissions. |
| NIST CSF 2.0 | DE.CM | Continuous monitoring requires evidence of what identities do during execution. |
| OWASP Agentic AI Top 10 | A1 | Agentic controls depend on observing tool use and harmful runtime actions. |
Collect execution telemetry so each NHI action can be verified against approved scope and revoked if it deviates.
