The Index implements multiple security layers to ensure the integrity, authenticity, and privacy of scientific claims and evidence. This document outlines our security principles, implemented measures, and vulnerability reporting process.

Every claim, piece of evidence, and link must be backed by cryptographic attestations.

Core data structures are designed to be immutable once created, with only computed fields (like status) being updateable.

All security mechanisms are open and auditable. No security through obscurity.

No single authority controls the system. Security emerges from cryptographic guarantees and community consensus.

Support for selective disclosure and zero-knowledge proofs to protect sensitive information while maintaining verifiability.

Status: ✅ Implemented (Placeholder for BitRep integration)

Implementation:

• RSA-based digital signatures for attestations
• PSS padding with SHA-256 hashing
• 2048-bit key size for production use

Code Location: app/core/security.py::SignatureVerifier

Usage:

from app.core.security import signature_verifier

# Generate keypair (for testing)
private_key, public_key = signature_verifier.generate_keypair()

# Sign data
signature = signature_verifier.sign_data(private_key, data.encode())

# Verify signature
is_valid = signature_verifier.verify_signature(public_key, signature, data.encode())

Future Integration:

• Integration with BitRep identity system
• Hardware security module (HSM) support for key management
• Multi-signature support for critical operations

Status: ✅ Implemented

Implementation:

• Pydantic models for all API inputs
• Type checking and validation at the API boundary
• Automatic sanitization of user inputs

Protected Against:

• SQL injection (when database is added)
• XSS attacks
• Buffer overflow
• Type confusion
• Malformed data

Example:

class ClaimCreate(BaseModel):
    canonical_text: str = Field(..., min_length=1, max_length=10000)
    domains: List[str] = Field(default_factory=list, max_items=20)
    created_by: str = Field(..., regex=r'^[a-zA-Z0-9_-]+$')

Status: 🟡 Placeholder Implementation

Current Implementation:

• Placeholder ZK proof generation and verification
• Framework for future integration with ZK libraries (zk-SNARKs, zk-STARKs)

Code Location: app/core/security.py::ZKProofPlaceholder

Planned Features:

• Private evidence submission without revealing sensitive data
• Verifiable computation of epistemic status
• Selective disclosure of claim metadata
• Privacy-preserving reputation proofs

Status: 🟡 Placeholder (BitRep integration pending)

Current State:

• Placeholder authentication headers
• All operations require identity specification
• No actual cryptographic verification yet

Future Implementation:

• BitRep identity verification
• Challenge-response authentication
• Token-based session management
• Role-based access control (RBAC)

Planned Token Flow:

1. Client requests challenge
2. Server provides challenge
3. Client signs challenge with private key
4. Server verifies signature against public key
5. Server issues JWT token
6. Client includes token in subsequent requests

Status: ❌ Not Yet Implemented

Planned Implementation:

• IP-based rate limiting
• Identity-based rate limiting
• Reputation-weighted limits (higher reputation = higher limits)
• Adaptive rate limiting based on system load

Proposed Limits:

• Standard users: 100 requests/minute
• High-reputation users: 1000 requests/minute
• Proposal creation: 10 per day
• Vote casting: 100 per hour

Status: 🟡 Partial (via BitRep integration)

Mechanisms:

• Reputation-weighted voting (quadratic scaling)
• Identity verification through BitRep
• Quality scoring for evidence based on submitter reputation
• Cost of creation for claims and proposals

Quadratic Voting Formula:

Weighted Vote = sqrt(Reputation Score)

This reduces the impact of high-reputation voters and makes Sybil attacks economically unfeasible.

Status: ✅ Implemented

Measures:

• Content-addressed storage (IDs derived from content)
• Timestamping of all operations
• Immutable audit trail
• Provenance tracking for all attestations

Data Flow:

Claim → Evidence → Link → Attestation → Signature → Verification

1. Always Validate Input: Use Pydantic models for all user input
2. Avoid SQL Injection: Use parameterized queries (when database is added)
3. Secure Secret Keys: Never commit secrets to version control
4. Use HTTPS: Always use TLS in production
5. Regular Updates: Keep dependencies up to date
6. Code Review: All security-related code requires review
7. Security Testing: Run security tests before deployment

1. Protect Private Keys: Never share or expose private keys
2. Verify Responses: Always verify signatures on critical data
3. Use Secure Connections: Only connect via HTTPS
4. Implement Timeouts: Prevent hanging connections
5. Handle Errors: Don't expose error details to end users
6. Monitor Usage: Watch for unusual patterns

1. Secure Environment: Run in isolated environment
2. Regular Backups: Backup data regularly
3. Monitor Logs: Watch for suspicious activity
4. Update Regularly: Apply security patches promptly
5. Restrict Access: Limit who can access the server
6. Use Firewalls: Configure proper firewall rules

Risk: Data loss on restart, no persistence

Mitigation (Planned):

• PostgreSQL database for production
• Regular automated backups
• Replication for high availability

Risk: No actual identity verification

Mitigation:

• BitRep integration for cryptographic identity (in progress)
• Short-term use of placeholder for development only

Risk: Potential for abuse/DoS

Mitigation (Planned):

• Implement rate limiting before public release
• Progressive throttling based on behavior

Risk: Single point of failure

Mitigation (Planned):

• Distributed deployment across multiple nodes
• Peer-to-peer synchronization
• Byzantine fault tolerance

We take security vulnerabilities seriously. If you discover a security issue, please report it responsibly.

1. Do NOT open a public GitHub issue
2. Email security reports to: [security@example.com] (TBD)
3. Include:
   • Description of the vulnerability
   • Steps to reproduce
   • Potential impact
   • Suggested fix (if any)

• 24 hours: Acknowledgment of report
• 72 hours: Initial assessment
• 7 days: Status update
• 30 days: Fix or mitigation plan

We recognize security researchers who responsibly disclose vulnerabilities:

• [List of contributors] (Coming soon)

• Input validation with Pydantic
• Cryptographic signature framework
• Placeholder ZK proofs
• Basic security documentation

• Identity verification
• Signature verification for all operations
• Reputation-based access control
• Challenge-response authentication

• Rate limiting
• DDoS protection
• Security audit
• Penetration testing

• Full ZK proof implementation
• Privacy-preserving evidence
• Selective disclosure
• Multi-party computation

• Distributed deployment
• Peer-to-peer synchronization
• Byzantine fault tolerance
• Governance over security parameters

• OWASP Top 10: Protection against common web vulnerabilities
• CWE/SANS Top 25: Mitigation of most dangerous software errors
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework: Adherence to security best practices

• SOC 2 Type II (planned)
• ISO 27001 (planned)
• GDPR compliance (in progress)

# Run security-focused tests
pytest tests/ -v -k security

# Check dependencies for known vulnerabilities
pip-audit

# Static analysis
bandit -r app/

• Regular code reviews
• Penetration testing (before production release)
• Security audits by third parties

1. Contain: Isolate affected systems
2. Assess: Determine scope and impact
3. Notify: Inform affected users within 72 hours
4. Remediate: Fix the vulnerability
5. Document: Post-mortem analysis
6. Improve: Update security measures

For security concerns:

• Email: [security@example.com] (TBD)
• GitHub: Create security advisory

Security researchers who have contributed to The Index's security:

• [List to be populated]

• OWASP Security Guidelines
• CWE Top 25
• NIST Framework
• BitRep Security Model (TBD)

Last Updated: 2024-01-23

Version: 1.0

Next Review: 2024-04-23