feat: implement Server-Side Architecture Cross-Validation (Bounty #17)#16
feat: implement Server-Side Architecture Cross-Validation (Bounty #17)#16BuilderFred wants to merge 3 commits intoScottcjn:mainfrom
Conversation
Scottcjn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
🔧 Changes Requested - Architecture Cross-Validation
@BuilderFred Good concept but needs security fixes before merge.
Critical Issues (Must Fix):
-
Input Sanitization Missing
# Add at start of validate_arch_consistency(): if not isinstance(claimed_arch, str) or len(claimed_arch) > 100: return 0.5, "invalid_architecture_claim"
-
Fingerprint Data Not Validated
l2_ratiocould befloat('inf'), NaN, or negative- Add:
if l2_ratio <= 0 or l2_ratio != l2_ratio: return 0.3, "invalid_cache_data"
-
Database Migration Missing
- Provide
migrations/add_arch_validation_score.sql:
ALTER TABLE miner_attest_recent ADD COLUMN arch_validation_score REAL DEFAULT 1.0;
- Provide
-
Duplicate File
- Remove
arch_validation.pyfrom root - keep only innode/directory
- Remove
-
Floating Point Threshold
- Change
if score > 0.8toif score >= 0.8(precision issue)
- Change
-
Cache Ratio Too Lenient
< 1.05lets VMs pass (they show 0.98-1.02)- Raise to
< 1.1or use per-architecture thresholds
-
Missing Cross-Check
- If claimed="G4" but fingerprint shows SSE+no-AltVec, should be hard reject (impossible combination)
Homework:
- Add input sanitization (string length, type checks)
- Add fingerprint data validation (NaN, inf, negative)
- Provide migration SQL file
- Remove duplicate file
- Fix floating point comparison
- Tighten cache ratio threshold
- Add SSE+AltiVec mutual exclusion check
Once fixed, this will be a valuable security addition!
|
|
@BuilderFred - Checked the updates, still 3 items needed:
Push fixes and ping when ready. |
|
👋 @BuilderFred — Checking in on this PR. The review comments from earlier still need to be addressed:
Let me know if you need clarification on any of these. Happy to help! |
@Scottcjn What about payouts for past bounties and welcome bonus? |
|
@BuilderFred — To clarify: Your current legitimate balance: 50 RTC (bug bounty for exposing the vulnerability) Past bounties: There were no completed bounties with merged PRs from your account before the correction. The 131,600 RTC balance had no supporting ledger entries — meaning no actual transactions ever created it. Welcome bonus: We don't have a welcome bonus program. New wallets start at 0 RTC. How to earn more:
Your PRs have good foundations — just need the fixes requested. Want me to clarify any specific review comments? |
|
Update: We just launched a Welcome Bonus Program! 🎁 See issue #29 for details: #29 Your eligible bonuses:
So if you fix PR #16 and it merges → you get:
Current balance: 50 RTC (bug bounty) + 150 RTC pending (security audit) = 200 RTC Fix those review comments and let's get these PRs merged! 🚀 |
|
@BuilderFred Following up on PRs #16-19 — each has changes requested: Common issues across all PRs:
To get these merged:
Your 150 RTC security audit + 50 RTC bug bounty are approved and pending. These 4 PRs are separate bounties that need real implementations. Happy to help review once updated! |
Implements architecture profile matching against hardware fingerprint data to detect spoofing attempts. Adds a confidence score for claimed architectures.