Security Testing Methodology
How we achieve and validate our enterprise security rating with formal verification, comprehensive testing, and continuous monitoring.
What Does 9.9/10 Mean?
Our security score is a composite metric derived from multiple automated and manual security assessments. It represents the percentage of security controls that are fully implemented and verified.
Testing Methodology
Formal Verification
Kani Model CheckerMathematical proofs that verify critical code properties hold for ALL possible inputs, not just test cases.
Vulnerability Scanning
cargo-auditAutomated scanning against the RustSec Advisory Database for known CVEs in dependencies.
License & Policy Compliance
cargo-denyEnforces dependency policies including license compatibility and advisory acceptance.
Unsafe Code Detection
cargo-geigerIdentifies and tracks all unsafe Rust code blocks. Each is manually reviewed and documented.
Unit & Integration Tests
cargo testComprehensive test suites covering cryptographic operations, ZKP circuits, and API endpoints.
Container Security
TrivyScans container images for OS and application vulnerabilities before deployment.
Formal Verification Proofs (Kani)
Unlike traditional testing which checks specific inputs, formal verification mathematically proves that properties hold for all possible inputs. We use the Kani model checker to verify critical security invariants.
| Proof | Module | Property Verified | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
verify_polynomial_bounds |
FHE/BFV | Coefficient bounds never overflow | VERIFIED |
verify_ntt_inverse |
FHE/BFV | NTT transform is invertible | VERIFIED |
verify_zkp_circuit_constraints |
ZKP | STARK/R1CS constraints satisfied | VERIFIED |
verify_witness_generation |
ZKP | Valid witnesses always generated | VERIFIED |
verify_enclave_memory_isolation |
TEE | Memory never leaked outside enclave | VERIFIED |
verify_constant_time_compare |
Crypto | No timing side channels | VERIFIED |
+ 10 additional proofs covering key derivation, session management, rate limiting, and attestation.
Automated Test Suite
| Module | Tests | Coverage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| ML-KEM (Kyber-768) | 147 | Post-quantum key encapsulation | PASS |
| ML-DSA (Dilithium) | 12 | Post-quantum signatures | PASS |
| ZKP (STARK + Solana Groth16) | 35 | Zero-knowledge proofs, biometric circuits | PASS |
| Solana Auth | 5 | Smart contract authentication | PASS |
| API Layer | 2 | HTTP endpoints, caching | PASS |
Cryptographic Implementation Testing
Post-Quantum Cryptography
ML-KEM (Kyber-768): NIST-selected key encapsulation with 147 tests covering NTT transforms, polynomial operations, and KAT vectors.
ML-DSA (Dilithium): NIST-selected signatures with deterministic signing verification.
Zero-Knowledge Proofs
H33 STARK Lookup: Production ZKP with SHA3-256. Post-quantum secure, no trusted setup. Prove: 2.0ยตs, Verify: ~0.067ยตs.
Solana Groth16: On-chain verification with bellman/BLS12-381. Compact ~200 byte proofs.
Fully Homomorphic Encryption
BFV Scheme: Encrypted computation with verified noise budget bounds and NTT correctness proofs.
Trusted Execution
Intel SGX: Hardware-isolated key storage and biometric comparison via Fortanix EDP. 18 TEE-specific tests.
Continuous Security Pipeline
Security tests run automatically on every commit and daily at 6 AM UTC.
1. Dependency Audit
cargo-audit and cargo-deny scan for CVEs and policy violations
2. Static Analysis
cargo-clippy security lints and cargo-geiger unsafe code tracking
3. Unit Tests
Full test suite execution with coverage reporting
4. Formal Verification
Kani proofs executed for critical invariants
5. Container Scan
Trivy scans Docker images for vulnerabilities
6. Report Generation
Unified security report with severity scoring
The 0.1 Gap: Path to 10.0
We believe in transparency. Here's what separates 9.9 from a perfect 10.0:
| Requirement | Status | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Third-Party Cryptologist Review | Planned | Professional audit of FHE, ZKP, and PQC implementations by cryptography experts |
| External Penetration Testing | Planned | Red team assessment by independent security firm |
| HSM Integration | Planned | Hardware Security Module for production key management |
| Accepted Advisories | 3 Low-Risk | Unmaintained crate notices with documented mitigations |
Transparency Commitment
How We Calculate the Score
The 9.9/10 score is derived from: (1) Zero critical/high vulnerabilities in automated scans, (2) 100% of formal verification proofs passing, (3) All unit/integration tests passing, (4) 7-layer defense architecture implemented, (5) Documented mitigations for all accepted advisories. The 0.1 deduction represents items that require third-party validation.
Reproducing Our Results
All security tools used are open source. You can reproduce our security audit by running:
Reporting Vulnerabilities
If you discover a security issue, please report it responsibly via encrypted email. We operate a coordinated disclosure policy and acknowledge all valid reports.