<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Formal Methods on Joe Bollen Security</title><link>https://joe-b-security.github.io/tags/formal-methods/</link><description>Recent content in Formal Methods on Joe Bollen Security</description><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><copyright>Yes, it's a real three-body problem simulation</copyright><lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://joe-b-security.github.io/tags/formal-methods/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Datalog for Agent Security Analysis</title><link>https://joe-b-security.github.io/posts/2026-04-05-datalog-for-agent-security-analysis/</link><pubDate>Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://joe-b-security.github.io/posts/2026-04-05-datalog-for-agent-security-analysis/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;In an &lt;a
href="https://joe-b-security.github.io/posts/2026-02-28-agent-security-formal-methods/"
target="_blank"
&gt;earlier post&lt;/a&gt; I looked at whether formal methods apply to agent security and concluded that modeling the architecture as a graph and running declarative queries over it was a better fit than state-machine verification. That left the question of which formalism to actually use. After working with this in practice, what I have found is that Datalog is a surprisingly good fit.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>