13 comments

  • popkoren an hour ago ago

    Compliance at the gateway is necessary, but the apps those teams deploy still need the same skepticism on the other side of the fence. Auth bypasses, open storage and loose table rules do not show up in a FedRAMP checklist the way a missing control on the model path does. What has helped on small stacks is hitting the live URL as an anonymous visitor and as a second user. I built https://rowly.me to run that pass on AI-built apps automatically (sign-in, APIs, storage, database rules).

  • projectescape 3 hours ago ago

    This is great, question though, since you support coding agents like Claude Code and Codex, they run MCP servers, plugins, web search/fetch and their own telemetry from the dev's machine. Do you give customers guidance or controls for that side, or is it out of scope for the gateway?

    • liquado an hour ago ago

      We had a lot of problems letting finding a balance giving technical coworkers acces to live data and AI tools. And there are multiple companies in this space that solve things in multiple ways, we happen to use https://gluondb.com which is what you describe plus BI.

      • skinfaxi an hour ago ago

        Seems like a pretty crowded space.

    • ericmags 3 hours ago ago

      We do give our customers guidance to make sure they are thinking about this properly. This typically happens during on-boarding.

      We also built out pre-defined controls for common tools so they can click a button and not think about it.

      • projectescape 3 hours ago ago

        Food for thought, tool and MCP calls run locally, but every request carries the tool list and every response carries the model's tool calls, both of which pass through you. You could strip non-approved tools from the request and block calls to them in the response, based on an org allowlist. That gives you org-approved MCP/tool calls without touching the dev's machine.

        • ericmags 2 hours ago ago

          Great call. We already block certain tool schemas and flag URLs in tool-call arguments, and since we enforce org allowlists for models on every request, extending that to tools/MCP is a natural next step.

  • skinfaxi 3 hours ago ago

    How does ZDR work with requests that trip security measures in the model provider? Do the providers retain those requests for analysis or is that too guaranteed?

    • ericmags 3 hours ago ago

      The infra providers call this "abuse monitoring" or "abuse detection" and we've worked with them to turn it off. We don't serve models like Fable that require it. We have one case remaining for OpenAI's GPT-5.x models in AWS. AWS's automated classifier can retain a flagged request for up to 30 days. Per AWS, that review is automated with no human access, the data stays in AWS GovCloud, and it's never shared with OpenAI. We are actively working to turn that off as well. Everything else is covered.

  • runamuck 4 hours ago ago

    I love this. Will this guarantee that proprietary/ sensitive/ CUI data won't leak to model training or other parties?

    • ericmags 4 hours ago ago

      Correct. We have contractual agreements to ensure no data that passes through our platform will be used for model training purposes. In addition, we have in our contracts that we (Consus) will also not use any data for training purposes. We couldn't if we wanted to since we do not store any prompt data.

  • jayonsoftware 3 hours ago ago

    Does this work with HIPAA data ?

    • ericmags 2 hours ago ago

      We've been focused on defense, so we haven't set up HIPAA (BAAs) yet. The underlying controls are essentially FedRAMP High, so it wouldn't be a big lift on our side. If you have a specific use case in mind, drop me a note at founders@consusindustries.co and we can talk more about it.