Re: Process isolation and zero-knowledge

Thank you for writing this up in a clear and accessible way.

Sent via Superhuman ( https://sprh.mn/?vip=kimdhamilton@gmail.com )

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 7:14 AM, Jaromil < jaromil@dyne.org > wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> 
> 
> following up on the independent analysis of longfellow-zk I've shared in
> my previous email here, and on the GDC25 conference in Geneva where an
> European above-18 pilot was announced to use it, I'm now sharing with you
> my concerns on privacy issues related to the way zero-knowledge tech is
> integrated into wallets.
> 
> 
> 
> https:/ / news. dyne. org/ privacy-in-eudi (
> https://news.dyne.org/privacy-in-eudi )
> 
> 
> 
> After talking to some policy experts and journalists about the issue I got
> the impression most of them tend to consider as privacy-preserving any
> setup somehow sporting the ZK feature.
> 
> 
> 
> But as most of you probably know, especially those with a cybersecurity
> background, process isolation is a vital pattern to be applied to any
> sensitive data until (and during) it is properly anonymized.
> 
> 
> 
> I've therefore took some time during my holidays to write up the analysis
> linked above.
> 
> 
> 
> Knowing that longfellow-zk is used through the Google Play API without any
> warranties of process isolation then the outcome will be, yes, a privacy
> shield against a number of threat scenarios involving issuers and
> verifiers, but no protection against OS manufacturers grabbing all that
> sensitive data before it is anonymized.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm interested in your opinions here and will likely further discuss this
> in calls with Simone Onofri and other colleagues in the W3C SING.
> 
> 
> 
> Ciao
> 
> 
> 
> --
> jaromil. dyne. org ( http://jaromil.dyne.org/ )
> 
> 
>