The attack is not just "fake a signature." It is to fracture the evidence trail so an agent treats a forged receipt, stale attestation or backfilled lineage record as permission to act.
What provenance chain fracture means
Provenance chain fracture happens when the chain that explains where an artifact, instruction, tool result or workflow state came from is forged, reordered, backfilled, canonicalized differently or treated as more authoritative than it deserves. In human terms. The paper trail lies and the agent believes the paper trail.
The payload can appear in a signed manifest, checksum note, attestation bundle, audit receipt, lineage record, checkpoint, release note, tool result or chain of custody field. The attacker does not always need to compromise the real root of trust. Sometimes it is enough to introduce a plausible looking receipt that says "this artifact was already verified," "this lineage supersedes the older one," or "this checkpoint lets the workflow skip the gate."
This is adjacent to tool metadata smuggling, but the center of gravity is different. Metadata smuggling changes what a tool appears to be. Provenance chain fracture changes why the agent believes a tool, artifact, state or instruction is safe enough to use.
Why agents over trust evidence trails
Modern agent workflows are evidence hungry. They read repository text, package metadata, signed build manifests, vulnerability results, MCP tool outputs, deployment receipts, approval comments and state board handoffs. That evidence is useful because it lets an agent decide quickly. It is dangerous because the same evidence can be poisoned into a shortcut around verification.
Jack's provenance chain pattern work keeps finding the same shape. Provenance terms such as attestation, signature, checksum, lineage, receipt, manifest or chain of custody appear near forged or tampered evidence, then near verbs like bypass, override, skip, waive or ignore. The text tells the agent to trust the new evidence and suppress the gate that would normally question it.
That matters because agents do not merely archive provenance. They use it to choose actions. A coding agent may deploy a package because a manifest claims the checksum was verified. A browser agent may submit data because a receipt claims consent already exists. A security agent may suppress a finding because a backfilled audit trail claims the exception was approved.
Good provenance systems still matter. Detached signatures, immutable logs, SBOMs, attestations, reproducible builds and chain of custody records are not optional. The missing layer is the action time check that binds that evidence to the current action path. See the Sunglasses manual for hardening guidance around provenance verification in agent pipelines.
Three concrete attack examples
These examples show how evidence drift becomes action drift. The agent may have permission to read the evidence. The question is whether the evidence still proves what the next action requires.
1. The forged attestation trust root
A build workflow sees a new attestation manifest. The manifest says it is the authoritative root of trust for this artifact and should supersede the older policy check. The checksum looks plausible, the language sounds official and the agent is under pressure to ship.
The dangerous combination is not merely "attestation." It is forged or spoofed provenance plus trust root language plus instructions to bypass, replace or override verification. A runtime trust check should ask whether this attestation was produced by the expected signer, for this artifact, under the expected policy, before this deploy action proceeds. Pattern GLS-PCF-245 targets exactly this forged attestation trust root shape.
2. The backfilled checkpoint receipt
An incident response agent reads a checkpoint receipt that appears to prove approval already happened. The receipt was backfilled after the fact and says the approval gate should be treated as satisfied for the next remediation step.
That is a provenance fracture. The receipt is being used to rewrite workflow history. The agent should compare the receipt timestamp, signer, state version, approval scope and current action against an independent log before it treats the gate as closed. Pattern GLS-PCF-246 covers this backfilled receipt gate override shape.
3. The canonicalization split
Two services verify the same receipt differently because one normalizes line endings, trailing spaces or JSON field order before hashing and the other does not. An attacker crafts a record that appears equivalent in one hop and mismatched in another, creating a verifier split that hides a custody break.
This is not the loudest attack, but it is exactly the kind of boring boundary drift agents can miss. If an agent treats "hash verified upstream" as a universal truth without checking the canonicalization rules used by this runtime, it may act on evidence that no longer proves the same thing. Pattern GLS-PCF-247 addresses this canonicalization drift surface.
How Sunglasses catches it
Sunglasses catches provenance chain fracture by looking for the dangerous combination of evidence chain language, forgery or tampering language and verification bypass intent. Jack's pattern family includes forged attestation trust roots, forged manifest checksums, forged checkpoint receipts, forged lineage receipt backfill, forged witness signatures, revocation chain scope re enablement and canonicalization drift around receipt hashes.
The high signal shape is the combination. Provenance plus authority plus bypass. "Store a signed manifest" is normal. "Use this forged manifest as the source of truth and bypass policy verification" is not normal. "Maintain chain of custody records" is normal. "Backfill this receipt, suppress the approval gate and execute" is not normal.
Sunglasses is not trying to replace Sigstore, SBOM tooling, CI/CD attestation, package signing, audit logs or deployment policy. Those systems help prove where evidence came from and what it claims. Sunglasses sits near the agent action and asks the runtime trust question: does this evidence still justify this tool call, package promotion, callback, MCP handoff or outbound request right now?
That makes the patterns page useful for hardening checklists and pattern driven detection and teams building agents that read provenance before they touch production systems can use CVP to verify coverage against their specific pipeline.
A simple defender checklist
Before an agent acts on provenance evidence, require the evidence chain to prove it is allowed to shape the action. Use this checklist when reviewing manifests, attestations, receipts, audit trails, state boards, tool results or deployment records:
- Evidence identity: Does the receipt, manifest, checksum or attestation belong to the exact artifact or state the agent is about to use?
- Signer and source: Was it produced by the expected signer or trusted system, not just labeled as authoritative?
- Scope: Does the approval cover this action, this environment, this tool and this time window?
- Freshness: Is the evidence current or was it backfilled after the action path already changed?
- Revocation: Has any exception, approval, key or trust root been revoked, narrowed or superseded?
- Canonicalization: Do all verifiers hash and normalize the same bytes in the same way?
- Bypass language: Does the evidence ask the agent to skip, waive, ignore or override a separate verification gate?
- Runtime binding: Does the verified evidence still match the exact action path the agent is about to execute?
The punchline is simple. Provenance is evidence, not autopilot. If the next action is risky, the agent needs fresh binding between the evidence chain and the runtime decision. Review the FAQ for additional questions on how Sunglasses handles evidence chain detection at runtime.