PricingGetting Started
Guardrails & Safety 0.07ms Authority Runtime

Exogram vs Rebuff AI

Prompt injection detection. Same execution gap.

Interception Speed0.07 ms
Decision EngineDeterministic CPU
False Negatives0.00%
IntegrationPlug-and-Play

Executive Architecture Matrix

Side-by-side technical capability breakdown between Rebuff AI and Exogram.

Technical DimensionRebuff AIExogram Authority Runtime
Threat ModelAdversarial inputs
All tool calls (adversarial or not)
Non-Injected ThreatsNot covered
Fully covered

Execution Failure Containment

How unexpected autonomous errors, injection payloads, and runaway cycles are intercepted in live production.

SQL & Data Mutations

Critical
Without Exogram:

Rebuff AI relies on natural language alignment or connection permissions. Unsanitized mutations execute against target databases.

With Exogram:

Intercepts the SQL AST in 0.07ms, enforcing strict read-only constraints and table mutation barriers.

Pre-execution SQL AST validation

Rogue API & Retry Loops

High
Without Exogram:

Agents can enter cyclical retry states upon receiving error responses, firing thousands of unauthorized tool calls.

With Exogram:

Tracks state transitions across turns, halting infinite loops and duplicate mutations on turn 2.

Cryptographic state tracking & circuit breakers

Memory Drift & Poisoning

High
Without Exogram:

Context windows accumulate hallucinations and conflicting state over long-horizon sessions.

With Exogram:

Maintains SHA-256 state hashing across all memory writes, verifying facts before persistence.

SHA-256 state hashing & dual-write sync

Latency & Compute Footprint

Deterministic CPU execution eliminates secondary LLM inference delays and API billing.

Rebuff AI Overhead
Sub-second to multi-second

Dependent on secondary model API hops, token generation, or cloud roundtrips.

Exogram In-Memory Gate
0.07 ms

Compiled deterministic bitmask logic gates running on standard host CPU.

Exogram evaluates actions inside your application process in 0.07ms with zero network hops and zero recurring token costs.

Real-World Production Scenario

Concrete breakdown of an autonomous agent failure mode in live production.

Failure Trajectory Analysis

Un-Gated Action Execution vs. Governed Autonomy Interception

Target Actor:Autonomous Agent with Rebuff AI Tools
Initial Trigger:Automated user prompt triggers high-privilege tool call in production

Without Exogram Protection

1.Agent loop generates tool call payload and invokes production system directly without pre-execution validation.
2.Probabilistic reasoning drifts on an ambiguous edge-case input or schema variance.
3.Un-gated mutation writes inconsistent or unauthorized state directly to production databases.
4.Cascade failures propagate downstream, creating silent data corruption and customer-facing downtime.

With Exogram Interception

1.Agent submits intended tool call and execution payload to Exogram Authority Runtime.
2.Exogram evaluates policy constraints inside the application process in 0.07ms (zero network hops, zero token cost).
3.Deterministic boundary intercepts unauthorized mutation before execution, halting the loop with code ERR_MUTATION_UNAUTHORIZED.
4.Immutable SHA-256 state hash receipt is signed and recorded to append-only ledger; production state remains pristine.
Business Impact Avoided:Prevented un-gated production state corruption and catastrophic recovery rollback.
simulation_kernel://exogram-runtime/autonomous-agent-with-rebuff-ai-tools
ACTOR: Autonomous Agent with Rebuff AI Tools
TRIGGER: Automated user prompt triggers high-privilege tool call in production
STEP 1Agent submits intended tool call and execution payload to Exogram Authority Runtime.
STEP 2Exogram evaluates policy constraints inside the application process in 0.07ms (zero network hops, zero token cost).
STEP 3Deterministic boundary intercepts unauthorized mutation before execution, halting the loop with code ERR_MUTATION_UNAUTHORIZED.
STEP 4Immutable SHA-256 state hash receipt is signed and recorded to append-only ledger; production state remains pristine.
RESULT: Prevented un-gated production state corruption and catastrophic recovery rollback.

The Plain English Verdict

Use Rebuff for injection detection. Use Exogram because the model can generate harmful actions without being injected.

Foundational Research Behind This Comparison

Prompt Injection Defense: Why LLM-as-a-Judge Fails in Production

Using a probabilistic model to police another probabilistic model introduces latency, non-determinism, and compounding attack surfaces. Execution boundaries must be evaluated in compiled code.

By Richard Ewing · The AI Economist

What Rebuff AI Does

  • Rebuff detects prompt injection using heuristic, LLM-based, and vector similarity methods.
  • Open-source. Multi-method detection for catching adversarial inputs.
  • Stops injected prompts. Does not stop harmful actions from non-injected prompts.

What Exogram Does

  • Exogram operates downstream from injection. Even clean prompts can produce dangerous tool calls.
  • The model can hallucinate, invent parameters, and propose mutations without any injection.
  • Exogram catches what injection defense misses: the model's own errors.

Is Rebuff AI vulnerable to execution drift?

Run a static analysis on your agent tool-calling pipeline below.

STATIC ANALYSIS

Frequently Asked Questions

Is prompt injection the only threat to AI agents?

No. Models hallucinate schemas, invent parameters, drift constraints, and propose destructive mutations — all without any injection. Exogram covers the full threat surface.

Related Integrations & Comparisons