Security Model and Risk Analysis
Security is at the core of Traceva’s protocol design. Given the sensitivity of its use cases ranging from private identity verification to anonymous financial transactions, Traceva adopts a multilayered, cryptography-first security approach. This section outlines the threat models addressed by the system, the defensive strategies employed, and the security guarantees delivered by each component, particularly those involving zero-knowledge proofs, encrypted storage, and autonomous agent interactions.
Threat Models and Risk Mitigation Strategies
Traceva considers and actively defends against the following threat categories:
1. Identity Correlation and Deanonymization
Threat: Adversaries may attempt to correlate identities across different platforms, DApps, or transactions to deanonymize users.
Mitigation: The use of ephemeral addresses, zkProof-based credentials, and strict data compartmentalization ensures no identifiable metadata is exposed across modules.
2. Message Interception or Metadata Leakage
Threat: Even if message content is encrypted, metadata (sender, receiver, timestamp) could leak sensitive information.
Mitigation: Protocols like Waku and Nym obscure metadata through randomized message propagation and mixnet routing, while end-to-end encryption ensures content confidentiality.
3. Transaction Linkability
Threat: Repeated use of static wallet addresses can reveal behavioral patterns and wallet ownership.
Mitigation: Stealth addresses and zkReceipts unlink transaction flows, hiding sender, receiver, and transaction details from public visibility.
4. Agent Hijacking or Misbehavior
Threat: Compromised agents could execute malicious actions or leak sensitive delegated permissions.
Mitigation: Agent behavior is bound by zk-delegation proofs with scope limits and trace restrictions. All actions require zero-knowledge authorization, preventing overreach or impersonation.
5. Credential Forgery or Replay Attacks
Threat: Malicious actors may attempt to forge or reuse expired credentials to access gated services.
Mitigation: Verifiable credentials issued under Traceva include expiration timestamps, revocation checks, and zk validation against current state trees to prevent forgery or misuse.
zkProof Security Considerations and Audit Procedures
Zero-knowledge proofs form the backbone of Traceva’s privacy guarantees. Their implementation follows strict cryptographic standards and undergoes rigorous testing:
Proof Soundness: All zk circuits are designed to prevent false positives. Soundness ensures that proofs can only be generated by entities who genuinely possess the underlying data.
Trusted Setup Management: For zk-SNARKs, trusted setup ceremonies are transparently managed or replaced with universal setups where applicable. Where feasible, zk-STARKs are used to eliminate setup trust assumptions entirely.
Circuit Auditing: All zero-knowledge circuits undergo formal verification, peer review, and third-party audits to validate correctness, efficiency, and resistance to cryptographic attacks.
Upgrade Strategy: Traceva implements upgradeable zk circuits through governance-driven proposals, with backwards compatibility layers and formal migration procedures to ensure seamless security evolution.
Storage and Encryption Standards
Traceva enforces industry-grade encryption and distributed storage security practices:
File Encryption: Uses AES-256 for symmetric encryption and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) for key sharing and identity-based encryption.
Data Sharding and Redundancy: Files are fragmented and distributed across decentralized networks (IPFS, Filecoin, Arweave), ensuring censorship resistance, redundancy, and tamper-proof permanence.
Access Control via zkProofs: File access is not gated by public keys or centralized authorization servers, but by verifiable zero-knowledge conditions such as role membership, credential ownership, or proof-of-identity.
Access Expiry and Destruction: Optional self-destruct, time-lock, and one-time-access parameters provide granular control and minimize persistent exposure.
Agent Security and Delegation Safety Measures
Traceva Agents, though autonomous, operate under strict cryptographic boundaries to preserve user control and trust.
zk-Verified Delegation: All agent permissions are granted via zero-knowledge delegation proofs, specifying the exact scope (e.g., only vote, only transfer under X value) and time constraints of the granted authority.
Non-Custodial Design: Agents cannot access user keys or funds directly. They interact via signed, pre-approved instructions, maintaining full custody with the user unless explicitly permitted through smart contracts.
Behavior Constraints: Agents are sandboxed with enforced action thresholds and trace limits. Misbehavior triggers automated revocation of delegation authority.
Auditability: Though agents minimize traceability, their cryptographic actions are verifiable (when required) through proof logs and time-bound attestations, allowing secure audits without revealing user identity.
Last updated