Skip to content

Security: identities-ai/ratify-protocol

SECURITY.md

Security Policy

Reporting a vulnerability

Please do not open public GitHub issues for security reports.

Email: security@identities.ai

We commit to:

  • Acknowledging receipt within 48 hours.
  • Providing an initial severity assessment within 5 business days.
  • Keeping you updated on remediation progress.
  • Crediting you in the advisory unless you prefer otherwise.

Supported versions

Version Supported
v1.0.0-alpha.* ⚠️ Active development; security fixes forward-ported
< v1.0.0-alpha.1 ❌ Not supported

Once v1.0.0 stable is released, the support policy will specify which major/minor versions receive backported security fixes.

Embargo and disclosure

  • We follow a 90-day embargo from the initial report to public disclosure as the default.
  • For actively-exploited vulnerabilities, we may shorten the embargo after coordinated patching.
  • The full coordinated advisory (CVE, scope, impact, mitigation) will be published in the security/ directory of this repository and on our public advisories channel.

Scope

In scope:

  • Cryptographic correctness of the reference implementation (Go) and published SDKs (TypeScript, others as released).
  • The canonical serialization implementation — any interop-breaking behavior where implementations produce divergent signable bytes.
  • The verifier algorithm — any case where Verify() returns an incorrect result.
  • The scope-vocabulary implementation — any privilege-escalation path.
  • The cmd/ratify CLI's handling of private key material.
  • Resource-exhaustion or DoS against the verifier.

Out of scope (report to the relevant party, not us):

  • Vulnerabilities in third-party dependencies that are already known and patched upstream. Report to the dependency, then open a PR here to bump the version.
  • Operational issues at any Identities AI-hosted service (Registry, Verify API). Those are reported via security@identities.ai with the service name in the subject line — a separate handling path.
  • Attacks against out-of-protocol concerns listed in docs/EXPLAINED.md §5.2 (endpoint malware, social engineering of delegators, etc.). These are real risks but are not protocol defects.

Responsible disclosure examples

Scenario Handling
You find a way to verify a maliciously-crafted proof bundle In scope — email us first. Classic responsible disclosure.
You find a way to produce canonical JSON bytes that differ from the Go reference for a valid v1 data model In scope — email us first. Interop breaks trust.
You notice the recommended challenge window is too long Not a vulnerability — open a GitHub issue or PR. Policy discussion is public.
You find a logic bug in an Identities AI-hosted service Email us with [hosted-service] in subject. Separate from the protocol project.

Hall of fame

Reporters who responsibly disclose verified vulnerabilities will be credited here (with consent) once the first advisory is published.

There aren't any published security advisories