
Cyber Agent Fabric
Proposed specialist agents would share tasks and evidence, while an orchestrator would build a common incident situation model.
KTU / CYBER SUPERINTELLIGENCE VISION
Turn sovereign AI computing capacity into trustworthy, auditable and controlled cyber intelligence.

KTU Cybersecurity Superintelligence and Assurance Hub
SI is a long-term research direction. This is a proposed integration of capabilities.
Connect secure AI, cyber defence, digital forensics, quantum-safe technologies, cyber-physical experimentation and AI governance in an auditable system.
01 / INTEGRATION
Centre capabilities form a loop in which every action has verification, evidence and defined limits on autonomy.
DATA AND COMPUTING / FOUNDATION
Domain data, HPC and a secure AI execution environment.
CENTRE / INTEGRATION
Sandbox, DFIR, the laboratory, Quantum, DigiDefence, human decisions and CAISO.
SI / RESEARCH DIRECTION
Explainable decisions. Verifiable actions. Governed autonomy.
01 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Generate risk scenarios and human decision reference points for studying agentic-system behaviour and the limits of its autonomy.
A risk scenario and a team decision
Scenarios comparing human and AI decisions
02 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Provide evidence for deciding the conditions and degree of autonomy that can be granted to a system developing towards domain superintelligence.
A scenario, model or agentic system
Test evidence and conditions for safe operation
03 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Combine individual model capabilities into coordinated domain intelligence, with permissions defined by Sandbox evidence and CAISO rules.
Incident data and an authorised task
A shared situation model and action sequence
04 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Enable verification of what the system actually did, reconstruction of its action sequence and assessment of its decision explanation against collected evidence.
Prompts, sources, agent and tool actions
A reconstructed chain of action and decision evidence
05 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Experimentally test whether the system's recorded digital action matches its real physical effect, returning evidence for assessment.
A device, sensor or system action
Controlled-experiment evidence and effect validation
06 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Protect critical communication and control channels of the intelligence system and support cryptographic migration planning under quantum risk.
Cryptographic assets and communications channels
Assessment of PQC migration, interoperability and communication security
07 / IN THE SI SYSTEM
Define institutional control rules, agent permissions and permitted autonomy based on risk and assessment evidence.
Test, DFIR and laboratory evidence
Permitted autonomy limits and feedback
Quantum security and human control apply across the whole system. Results return to the Sandbox and inform the next model or agent version.

Proposed specialist agents would share tasks and evidence, while an orchestrator would build a common incident situation model.
02 / CENTRE CAPABILITIES
Existing capabilities would develop into interconnected functions within the cyber superintelligence system.

Assurance gates for models and agents, from security testing to verification of human control.
Assurance gates

Reconstruct agent actions and connect context, tools and outcomes through a verifiable chain of evidence.
A chain of action evidence

Faraday cage and ISO 5 zone for controlled validation of the digital and physical effects of AI decisions.
Physical-effect validation

QKD, PQC and crypto-agility connect long-term communications security with AI infrastructure management.
A secure cryptographic foundation

FinTech, CTI, OT, IoT and information-space research provide domains for specialist models, agents and scenarios.
Domain application scenarios
![[NE]rizikuok AI Edition · ∞](/assets/logos/nerizikuok-ai.png)
AI incident simulations compare team and agent decisions and feed scenarios back into the Sandbox.
Human-AI decision interaction

An AI security governance framework linking risk, agent permissions, incident response and permitted autonomy.
Governance of autonomy limits

Human resilience and decision comparison define the human role in governed agentic defence.
The human role in autonomous defence
03 / EVOLUTION
Three development stages. Capability growth remains tied to evidence, human control and assurance.
01 / STAGE
Can we trust AI?
02 / STAGE
Can we allow AI to act?
03 / STAGE
How much autonomy can safely be granted to a system whose domain capabilities could exceed those of an individual human expert?