AMATELUS Protocol Spec

7 Cryptographic Foundations

7.1 Security Assumptions

Definition 14
#

AMATELUS relies on the following cryptographic security assumptions:

  • Collision-resistant hash: SHA3-512 provides 128-bit security against quantum adversaries

  • Unforgeable signatures: Dilithium2 provides 128-bit security against quantum adversaries

  • ZKP soundness: Standard zero-knowledge properties (completeness, soundness, zero-knowledge)

7.2 Threat Model and Mitigations

7.2.1 Impersonation Attack (Different Secret Key)

Theorem 15
#

Impersonation attacks with different secret keys are cryptographically prevented.

If an attacker uses a different secret key to forge a ZKP, the signature verification will fail because DIDComm makes the sender’s public key known to the recipient.

7.2.2 Replay Attack (Same ZKP, Same User)

Proposition 16
#

Replay attack prevention (preventing legitimate users from reusing the same ZKP) is NOT a responsibility of AMATELUS protocol. This is an application-layer responsibility.

Important distinction:

  • Impersonation attacks (attacker with different secret key): PREVENTED by AMATELUS through DIDComm

  • Replay attacks (legitimate user reusing same ZKP): NOT handled by AMATELUS. Applications requiring single-use semantics must implement nonce mechanisms.

Applications that require ZKP single-use guarantees should implement nonce handling at the application layer:

  • Generate unique session nonces for each verification

  • Record and verify nonce freshness (checking that the nonce has not been used before)

  • Maintain nonce history in application database

Applications where ZKP reuse is acceptable (e.g., age verification, permission checks, one-time access grants) do not require additional replay prevention mechanisms.

7.2.3 Man-in-the-Middle Attack

Proposition 17
#

Man-in-the-Middle attacks are mitigated at the transport layer.

While AMATELUS provides cryptographic identity verification, ECDH-1PU authenticated encryption and TLS/HTTPS are the responsibility of service providers.

7.2.4 Sybil Attack (Multiple DIDs)

Proposition 18
#

Multiple DID possession is intentional protocol design for privacy protection.

While a single entity can control multiple DIDs, Anonymous Hash Identifiers (AHI) restrict per-audit-domain abuse through cryptographic binding to national identity systems.