Skip to content

Security: aruintelligence/aml-core

Security

SECURITY.md

ĀML™ Security Policy

ĀML is a working research prototype with compiler, policy, receipt, interoperability, trust, and official-authorization surfaces. Security review is encouraged.

Reporting vulnerabilities

For a potentially exploitable security issue, please use a private channel first.

Contact: Office@aruintelligence.com

Please do not post active private keys, confidential customer information, exploit details that create immediate harm, or unreleased credential material in a public issue.

This repository does not currently promise a bug bounty or payment for reports unless a separate written program explicitly says otherwise.

Security scope

High-value areas include:

Compiler and parser

  • malformed-input crashes
  • parser confusion
  • output injection
  • unsafe HTML emission
  • compiler-state corruption
  • inconsistent AST/AMT interpretation

Policy and accountability

  • policy bypasses
  • incorrect ALLOW/SUPPRESS outcomes
  • missing-vs-zero semantic regressions
  • falsified policy identity or rationale
  • receipt forgery or mutation that still verifies
  • signed policy-pack verification bypass
  • audit-chain mutation that remains accepted
  • attention-ledger or consent-ledger tampering

Cryptographic integrity

  • invalid Ed25519 signatures accepted as valid
  • public-key fingerprint mismatches not detected
  • canonicalization disagreements that change signatures/hashes
  • Merkle inclusion proof forgery
  • threshold-authorization signer duplication/bypass
  • trust-delegation chain bypass

Wire and federation

  • replay-protection bypass
  • capability downgrade or negotiation confusion
  • incompatible runtimes silently treated as compatible
  • malformed wire envelopes accepted
  • content-addressed bundle mutation not detected
  • causal graph cycles/missing parents accepted

Capability and authority security

  • capability-token scope escalation
  • audience/subject confusion
  • expired authority accepted
  • revoked artifacts accepted as active
  • revocation-registry tampering

Official AML authorization

  • self-signed credentials treated as official
  • untrusted signing keys treated as active ĀRU trust roots
  • revoked trust roots accepted
  • trust-root/public-key fingerprint drift
  • credential scope/expiration bypass

The canonical production public trust root is published in BRAND_TRUST_ROOTS.json. Production private key material must never be committed to GitHub.

HTTP service

The reference AML HTTP service is intentionally minimal. Review areas include:

  • request-size enforcement
  • malformed JSON handling
  • unsafe default CORS behavior
  • denial-of-service paths
  • receipt/authorization verification mismatches

The reference service does not replace production authentication, authorization, TLS, rate limits, logging, secret management, network isolation, or normal application-security controls.

Browser surfaces

For View Meaning™ and the browser-extension prototype:

  • permission expansion
  • unintended page-content collection
  • remote upload of inspected page data
  • credential leakage
  • incorrect local receipt verification
  • incorrect official-brand trust verification

The extension prototype is designed around user-invoked activeTab inspection rather than persistent browsing-history access.

What to include in a report

Please include, when possible:

  • affected version/commit
  • affected file or protocol surface
  • reproduction steps
  • expected behavior
  • actual behavior
  • security impact
  • proof-of-concept input with sensitive data removed
  • suggested mitigation, if known

Coordinated disclosure

For issues with realistic exploitation risk, allow reasonable time for reproduction, remediation, tests, and release coordination before public disclosure.

A security report does not grant permission to access systems, accounts, credentials, or data you are not authorized to access.

Evidence boundary

Breaking a current policy assumption is not automatically a cryptographic vulnerability. Likewise, a cryptographically valid artifact is not automatically ethically correct or institutionally trustworthy.

Security claims should distinguish among:

  • software integrity
  • policy semantics
  • key possession
  • trust-root membership
  • institutional authorization
  • human-outcome claims

Stewardship

Created by Daniel Jacob Read IV and stewarded by ĀRU Intelligence Inc.™.

There aren't any published security advisories