dearsky/wifi-densepose
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 20 Pull Requests 5 Actions Packages Projects Releases 1 Wiki Activity

Merge commit 'd803bfe2b1fe7f5e219e50ac20d6801a0a58ac75' as 'vendor/ruvector'

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
ruv
2026-02-28 14:39:40 -05:00
parent 7885bf6278 d803bfe2b1
commit cd5943df23
7854 changed files with 3522914 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

565
vendor/ruvector/examples/edge-net/docs/security/README.md vendored Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,565 @@
# @ruvector/edge-net Security Review
## Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive security analysis of the edge-net distributed compute network. The system enables browsers to contribute compute power and earn credits, creating a P2P marketplace for AI workloads.
**Security Classification: HIGH RISK**
A distributed compute network with financial incentives presents significant attack surface. This review identifies threats, mitigations, and remaining risks.
---
## Table of Contents
1. [Threat Model](#1-threat-model)
2. [Attack Vectors](#2-attack-vectors)
3. [Security Controls](#3-security-controls)
4. [QDAG Currency Security](#4-qdag-currency-security)
5. [Cryptographic Choices](#5-cryptographic-choices)
6. [Remaining Risks](#6-remaining-risks)
7. [Security Recommendations](#7-security-recommendations)
8. [Incident Response](#8-incident-response)
---
## 1. Threat Model
### 1.1 Assets at Risk
| Asset | Value | Impact if Compromised |
|-------|-------|----------------------|
| **User credits** | Financial | Direct monetary loss |
| **Task payloads** | Confidential | Data breach, IP theft |
| **Compute results** | Integrity | Incorrect AI outputs |
| **Node identities** | Reputation | Impersonation, fraud |
| **Network state** | Availability | Service disruption |
| **QDAG ledger** | Financial | Double-spend, inflation |
### 1.2 Threat Actors
| Actor | Capability | Motivation |
|-------|------------|------------|
| **Script kiddie** | Low | Vandalism, testing |
| **Fraudster** | Medium | Credit theft, fake compute |
| **Competitor** | Medium-High | Disruption, espionage |
| **Nation-state** | Very High | Surveillance, sabotage |
| **Insider** | High | Financial gain |
### 1.3 Trust Boundaries
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ UNTRUSTED ZONE │
│ │
│ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Malicious │ │ Network │ │ Rogue │ │
│ │ Client │ │ Traffic │ │ Worker │ │
│ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ └──────┬──────┘ │
│ │ │ │ │
├──────────┼──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┼────────────────┤
│ │ TRUST BOUNDARY │ │
├──────────┼──────────────────────┼──────────────────────┼────────────────┤
│ ▼ ▼ ▼ │
│ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │
│ │ EDGE-NET NODE │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ Identity │ │ QDAG │ │ Task │ │ Security │ │ │
│ │ │ Verify │ │ Verify │ │ Verify │ │ Checks │ │ │
│ │ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ │
│ │ │ WASM SANDBOX (Trusted) │ │ │
│ │ │ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ ┌────────────┐ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Compute │ │ Credit │ │ Crypto │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ Execution │ │ Ledger │ │ Engine │ │ │ │
│ │ │ └────────────┘ └────────────┘ └────────────┘ │ │ │
│ │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ │
│ │
│ TRUSTED ZONE │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 2. Attack Vectors
### 2.1 Sybil Attacks
**Threat:** Attacker creates many fake identities to:
- Claim disproportionate compute rewards
- Manipulate task verification voting
- Control consensus outcomes
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// Browser fingerprinting (privacy-preserving)
BrowserFingerprint::generate() -> unique hash
// Stake requirement
const MIN_STAKE: u64 = 100_000_000; // 100 credits to participate
// Rate limiting
RateLimiter::check_allowed(node_id) -> bool
// Sybil defense
SybilDefense::register_node(node_id, fingerprint) -> bool (max 3 per fingerprint)
```
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM
- Fingerprinting can be bypassed with VMs/incognito
- Stake requirement helps but motivated attackers can acquire credits
- Recommendation: Add proof-of-humanity (optional) for high-value operations
### 2.2 Free-Riding Attacks
**Threat:** Attacker claims compute rewards without doing real work:
- Returns random/garbage results
- Copies results from honest workers
- Times out intentionally
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// Redundant execution (N workers verify same task)
task.redundancy = 3; // 3 workers, majority wins
// Spot-checking with known answers
SpotChecker::should_check() -> 10% of tasks verified
SpotChecker::verify_response(input, output) -> bool
// Execution proofs
ExecutionProof {
io_hash: hash(input + output),
checkpoints: Vec<intermediate_hashes>,
}
// Reputation consequences
ReputationSystem::record_penalty(node_id, 0.3); // 30% reputation hit
```
**Residual Risk:** LOW-MEDIUM
- Redundancy provides strong protection but costs 3x compute
- Spot-checks effective but can be gamed if challenges leak
- Recommendation: Implement rotating challenge set, consider ZK proofs
### 2.3 Double-Spend Attacks (QDAG)
**Threat:** Attacker spends same credits twice:
- Creates conflicting transactions
- Exploits network partitions
- Manipulates cumulative weight
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// DAG structure prevents linear double-spend
tx.validates = vec![parent1, parent2]; // Must reference 2+ existing tx
// Cumulative weight (similar to confirmation depth)
cumulative_weight = sum(parent_weights) + 1;
// Proof of work (spam prevention)
pow_difficulty = 16; // ~65K hashes per tx
// Cryptographic signatures
tx.signature_ed25519 = sign(hash(tx_content));
```
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM
- DAG is more complex than blockchain, edge cases possible
- No formal verification of consensus properties
- Recommendation: Model with TLA+ or similar, add watchtower nodes
### 2.4 Task Injection Attacks
**Threat:** Attacker submits malicious tasks:
- Exfiltrate worker data
- Execute arbitrary code
- Denial of service via resource exhaustion
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// Task type whitelist
match task.task_type {
TaskType::VectorSearch => ..., // Known, safe operations
TaskType::CustomWasm => Err("Requires explicit verification"),
}
// Resource limits
WasmTaskExecutor {
max_memory: 256 * 1024 * 1024, // 256MB
max_time_ms: 30_000, // 30 seconds
}
// Payload encryption (only intended recipient can read)
encrypted_payload = encrypt(payload, recipient_pubkey);
// Signature verification
verify_signature(task, submitter_pubkey);
```
**Residual Risk:** LOW
- WASM sandbox provides strong isolation
- Resource limits prevent DoS
- CustomWasm explicitly disabled by default
- Recommendation: Add task size limits, implement quota system
### 2.5 Man-in-the-Middle Attacks
**Threat:** Attacker intercepts and modifies network traffic:
- Steal task payloads
- Modify results
- Impersonate nodes
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// End-to-end encryption
task.encrypted_payload = aes_gcm_encrypt(key, payload);
// Message authentication
signature = ed25519_sign(private_key, message);
// Node identity verification
verify(public_key, message, signature);
```
**Residual Risk:** LOW
- E2E encryption prevents content inspection
- Signatures prevent modification
- Recommendation: Implement certificate pinning for relay connections
### 2.6 Denial of Service
**Threat:** Attacker overwhelms network:
- Flood with fake tasks
- Exhaust relay resources
- Target specific nodes
**Mitigations Implemented:**
```rust
// Rate limiting
RateLimiter {
window_ms: 60_000, // 1 minute window
max_requests: 100, // 100 requests max
}
// Stake requirement (economic cost to attack)
min_stake: 100_000_000
// PoW for QDAG transactions
pow_difficulty: 16 // Computational cost per tx
// Task expiration
expires_at: now + 60_000 // Tasks expire in 1 minute
```
**Residual Risk:** MEDIUM
- Distributed nature helps absorb attacks
- Relays are still centralized chokepoints
- Recommendation: Deploy multiple relay providers, implement circuit breakers
---
## 3. Security Controls
### 3.1 Control Matrix
| Control | Type | Status | Effectiveness |
|---------|------|--------|---------------|
| Ed25519 signatures | Cryptographic | Implemented | High |
| AES-256-GCM encryption | Cryptographic | Implemented | High |
| WASM sandboxing | Isolation | Implemented | High |
| Rate limiting | Availability | Implemented | Medium |
| Stake requirement | Economic | Implemented | Medium |
| Reputation system | Behavioral | Implemented | Medium |
| Sybil defense | Identity | Implemented | Low-Medium |
| Spot-checking | Verification | Implemented | Medium |
| Audit logging | Detection | Implemented | Medium |
### 3.2 Defense in Depth
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Layer 1: Network (Rate limiting, PoW, Geographic diversity) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 2: Identity (Ed25519, Fingerprinting, Reputation) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 3: Economic (Stake, Credits, Penalties) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 4: Cryptographic (AES-GCM, Signatures, Hashing) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 5: Isolation (WASM sandbox, Resource limits) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 6: Verification (Redundancy, Spot-checks, Proofs) │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Layer 7: Detection (Audit logs, Anomaly detection) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
---
## 4. QDAG Currency Security
### 4.1 Consensus Properties
| Property | Status | Notes |
|----------|--------|-------|
| **Safety** | Partial | DAG prevents simple double-spend, but lacks formal proof |
| **Liveness** | Yes | Feeless, always possible to transact |
| **Finality** | Probabilistic | Higher weight = more confirmations |
| **Censorship resistance** | Yes | No miners/validators to bribe |
### 4.2 Attack Resistance
| Attack | Resistance | Mechanism |
|--------|------------|-----------|
| Double-spend | Medium | Cumulative weight, redundancy |
| 51% attack | N/A | No mining, all nodes equal |
| Sybil | Medium | Stake + fingerprinting |
| Spam | Medium | PoW + rate limiting |
| Front-running | Low | Transactions are public |
### 4.3 Economic Security
```
Attack Cost Analysis:
Scenario: Attacker wants to double-spend 1000 credits
1. Stake requirement: 100 credits minimum
2. PoW cost: ~65K hashes × transaction fee (0) = ~$0.01 electricity
3. Detection probability: ~90% (redundancy + spot-checks)
4. Penalty if caught: Stake slashed (100 credits) + reputation damage
Expected Value:
Success (10%): +1000 credits
Failure (90%): -100 credits (stake) - reputation
EV = 0.1 × 1000 - 0.9 × 100 = 100 - 90 = +10 credits
PROBLEM: Positive expected value for attack!
Mitigation needed:
- Increase stake requirement to 200+ credits
- Add delayed finality (1 hour) for large transfers
- Require higher redundancy for high-value tasks
```
### 4.4 Recommended Improvements
1. **Increase minimum stake to 1000 credits** for contributor nodes
2. **Implement time-locked withdrawals** (24h delay for large amounts)
3. **Add transaction confirmation threshold** (weight > 10 for finality)
4. **Watchdog nodes** that monitor for conflicts and alert
---
## 5. Cryptographic Choices
### 5.1 Algorithm Selection
| Use Case | Algorithm | Key Size | Security Level | Quantum Safe |
|----------|-----------|----------|----------------|--------------|
| Signatures | Ed25519 | 256-bit | 128-bit | No |
| Encryption | AES-256-GCM | 256-bit | 256-bit | Partial |
| Hashing | SHA-256 | 256-bit | 128-bit | Partial |
| Key exchange | X25519 | 256-bit | 128-bit | No |
### 5.2 Quantum Resistance Roadmap
Current implementation is NOT quantum-safe. Mitigation plan:
**Phase 1 (Current):** Ed25519 + AES-256-GCM
- Sufficient for near-term (5-10 years)
- Fast and well-tested
**Phase 2 (Planned):** Hybrid signatures
```rust
pub struct HybridSignature {
ed25519: [u8; 64],
dilithium: Option<[u8; 2420]>, // Post-quantum
}
```
**Phase 3 (Future):** Full post-quantum
- Replace X25519 with CRYSTALS-Kyber
- Replace Ed25519 with CRYSTALS-Dilithium
- Timeline: When NIST standards are finalized and WASM support available
### 5.3 Key Management
| Key Type | Storage | Lifecycle | Rotation |
|----------|---------|-----------|----------|
| Identity private key | localStorage (encrypted) | Long-term | On compromise only |
| Task encryption key | Memory only | Per-task | Every task |
| Session key | Memory only | Per-session | Every session |
**Recommendations:**
1. Add option to export/backup identity keys
2. Implement key derivation for sub-keys
3. Consider hardware security module integration
---
## 6. Remaining Risks
### 6.1 High Priority
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Status |
|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
| QDAG double-spend | Medium | High | Partial - needs more stake |
| Relay compromise | Medium | High | Not addressed - single point of failure |
| Fingerprint bypass | High | Medium | Accepted - layered defense |
### 6.2 Medium Priority
| Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation Status |
|------|------------|--------|-------------------|
| Quantum computer attack | Low (5+ years) | Critical | Planned - hybrid signatures |
| Result manipulation | Medium | Medium | Implemented - redundancy |
| Credit inflation | Low | High | Implemented - max supply cap |
### 6.3 Accepted Risks
| Risk | Rationale for Acceptance |
|------|--------------------------|
| Browser fingerprint bypass | Defense in depth, not sole protection |
| Front-running | Low value per transaction |
| Denial of service on single node | Network is distributed |
---
## 7. Security Recommendations
### 7.1 Immediate (Before Launch)
1. **Increase minimum stake to 1000 credits**
- Current 100 credits allows profitable attacks
- Higher stake increases attacker cost
2. **Add time-locked withdrawals for large amounts**
```rust
if amount > 10_000 {
withdrawal_delay = 24 * 60 * 60 * 1000; // 24 hours
}
```
3. **Implement relay redundancy**
- Use 3+ relay providers
- Implement failover logic
- Monitor relay health
4. **Add anomaly detection**
- Monitor for unusual transaction patterns
- Alert on reputation drops
- Track geographic distribution
### 7.2 Short-Term (1-3 Months)
1. **Formal verification of QDAG consensus**
- Model in TLA+ or similar
- Prove safety properties
- Test with chaos engineering
2. **Bug bounty program**
- Engage external security researchers
- Reward vulnerability disclosure
- Range: $500 - $50,000 based on severity
3. **Penetration testing**
- Engage professional red team
- Focus on economic attacks
- Test at scale
### 7.3 Long-Term (3-12 Months)
1. **Post-quantum cryptography migration**
- Implement Dilithium signatures
- Implement Kyber key exchange
- Maintain backward compatibility
2. **Hardware security module support**
- WebAuthn integration for identity
- Secure key storage
- Biometric authentication
3. **Decentralized relay network**
- Run relay nodes on-chain
- Incentivize relay operators
- Eliminate single points of failure
---
## 8. Incident Response
### 8.1 Incident Categories
| Category | Examples | Response Time |
|----------|----------|---------------|
| P1 - Critical | Double-spend, key compromise | < 1 hour |
| P2 - High | Relay outage, spam attack | < 4 hours |
| P3 - Medium | Reputation manipulation, minor bugs | < 24 hours |
| P4 - Low | Performance issues, UI bugs | < 1 week |
### 8.2 Response Procedures
**P1 - Critical Incident:**
1. Pause network (if possible)
2. Assess damage scope
3. Identify root cause
4. Deploy fix
5. Restore service
6. Post-mortem
**Contacts:**
- Security lead: security@ruvector.dev
- Emergency: See internal runbook
- Bug bounty: hackerone.com/ruvector (pending)
### 8.3 Disclosure Policy
- **Private disclosure preferred** for critical vulnerabilities
- **90-day disclosure window** before public release
- **Credit and bounty** for responsible disclosure
- **CVE assignment** for significant vulnerabilities
---
## Appendix A: Security Checklist
### Pre-Launch
- [ ] Minimum stake increased to 1000 credits
- [ ] Time-locked withdrawals implemented
- [ ] Multi-relay support tested
- [ ] Rate limits tuned for production
- [ ] Audit logs reviewed for gaps
- [ ] Key backup/recovery tested
- [ ] Incident response tested
### Post-Launch
- [ ] Bug bounty active
- [ ] Penetration test completed
- [ ] Formal verification started
- [ ] Monitoring dashboards live
- [ ] On-call rotation established
---
## Appendix B: References
1. NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography: https://csrc.nist.gov/Projects/post-quantum-cryptography
2. Ed25519 specification: https://ed25519.cr.yp.to/
3. AES-GCM: NIST SP 800-38D
4. DAG-based consensus: IOTA Tangle, Avalanche
5. Sybil attack mitigation: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/586110.586124
---
*This document should be reviewed quarterly and updated after any security incident.*
*Last reviewed: [DATE]*
*Next review: [DATE + 90 days]*