7 ms·

I've posted this as a response but I'll post it again since it seems like a lot of people are confused about the project: This project is not THE digital walle

by f_devd 1y ago

I've posted this as a response but I'll post it again since it seems like a lot of people are confused about the project: This project is not THE digital wallet, it is an early prototype of the wallet (which can be criticized for what it is, but the issue is somewhat orthogonal). The actual infrastructure is not based on attenstation, if you read the guidelines (or the readme) they actually want to implement a double-blind approach with ZKPs, which imo is significantly better than a challenge-response pub key system in term of privacy as some suggested. And allows for cross-platform (and in theory hardware) support. If you're not familiar this would mean the verifier doesn't learn anything except a statement about attributes (age, license, etc); and the EU doesn't learn what attributes have been tried to verify or by who.

NooneAtAll3 1y ago
> This project is not THE digital wallet, it is the wallet ...what?
- maxfurman 1y ago
  GP has edited the comment to make more sense
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
vaylian 1y ago
Thanks for chiming in! Is there some documentation on the Zero-Knowledge-Proof, that this app is supposed to use?
- f_devd 1y ago
  I don't know the specific ZKP variant if that's what you mean, but the general architecture of the system is best described in the 38C3 talk from earlier this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtklN8mOo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtklN8mOo0 There are some choices that are debatable (more on the issuer side iirc), but imho for the goals it has it's a competently made architecture.
- MatteoFrigo 1y ago
  See https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk
Confiks 1y ago
> a lot of people are confused about the project This is misleading. They are merely exploring options that may allow for issuer unlinkability, but they are actually implementing a linkable solution based on standard cryptography that allows issuers (member state governments) to collude with any verifier (a website requiring age verification) to de-anonymize users. The solution is linkable because both the issuer and the verifier see the same identifiers (the SD-JWT and its signature). The project is supposed to prove that age verification is viable so that the Commission can use it as a success story, while it completely disregards privacy by design principles in its implementation. That the project intends to perhaps at some point implement privacy enhancing technologies doesn't make it any better. Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. It will also be trivial to circumvent [1], potentially leading to a cycle of obfuscation and weakening of privacy features that are present in the current issuer linkable design. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44458323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44458323
- f_devd 1y ago
  > This is misleading. They are merely exploring options that may allow for issuer unlinkability, but they are actually implementing a linkable solution based on standard ECDSA.. The repository we're commenting on has the following in the spec[0]: "A next version of the Technical Specifications for Age Verification Solutions will include as an experimental feature the Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP)". So given that the current spec is not in use, this seems incorrect. > It will also be trivial to circumvent If you have a key with the attribute of course you can 'bypass' it, I don't think that's bug. The statement required should be scaled to the application it's used for; this is "over-asking" is considered in the law[1]. > The project is supposed to prove that age verification is viable, while it completely disregards privacy by design principles in its implementation. That the project intends to perhaps at some point implement privacy enhancing technologies doesn't make it any better. I agree that in it's current state it is effectively unusable due to the ZKPs being omitted. [0]: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technical-specification/blob/main/docs/architecture-and-technical-specifications.md#71-zero-knowledge-proofs https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic... [1]: https://youtu.be/PKtklN8mOo0?si=bbqtzMhIK7cFLh6S&t=375 https://youtu.be/PKtklN8mOo0?si=bbqtzMhIK7cFLh6S&t=375
11mariom 1y ago
> I've posted this as a response but I'll post it again since it seems like a lot of people are confused about the project Even if it is ZKP still… whole idea is just bad. I mean whole age-veryfication done by gov is bad. And forcing one to use smartphone is even worse.

by f_devd 1y ago

NooneAtAll3 1y ago

> This project is not THE digital wallet, it is the wallet ...what?

maxfurman 1y ago
GP has edited the comment to make more sense
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

vaylian 1y ago

Thanks for chiming in! Is there some documentation on the Zero-Knowledge-Proof, that this app is supposed to use?

f_devd 1y ago
I don't know the specific ZKP variant if that's what you mean, but the general architecture of the system is best described in the 38C3 talk from earlier this year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtklN8mOo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKtklN8mOo0 There are some choices that are debatable (more on the issuer side iirc), but imho for the goals it has it's a competently made architecture.
MatteoFrigo 1y ago
See https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk https://github.com/google/longfellow-zk

Confiks 1y ago

> a lot of people are confused about the project This is misleading. They are merely exploring options that may allow for issuer unlinkability, but they are actually implementing a linkable solution based on standard cryptography that allows issuers (member state governments) to collude with any verifier (a website requiring age verification) to de-anonymize users. The solution is linkable because both the issuer and the verifier see the same identifiers (the SD-JWT and its signature). The project is supposed to prove that age verification is viable so that the Commission can use it as a success story, while it completely disregards privacy by design principles in its implementation. That the project intends to perhaps at some point implement privacy enhancing technologies doesn't make it any better. Nothing is more permanent than a temporary solution. It will also be trivial to circumvent [1], potentially leading to a cycle of obfuscation and weakening of privacy features that are present in the current issuer linkable design. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44458323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44458323

f_devd 1y ago
> This is misleading. They are merely exploring options that may allow for issuer unlinkability, but they are actually implementing a linkable solution based on standard ECDSA.. The repository we're commenting on has the following in the spec[0]: "A next version of the Technical Specifications for Age Verification Solutions will include as an experimental feature the Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP)". So given that the current spec is not in use, this seems incorrect. > It will also be trivial to circumvent If you have a key with the attribute of course you can 'bypass' it, I don't think that's bug. The statement required should be scaled to the application it's used for; this is "over-asking" is considered in the law[1]. > The project is supposed to prove that age verification is viable, while it completely disregards privacy by design principles in its implementation. That the project intends to perhaps at some point implement privacy enhancing technologies doesn't make it any better. I agree that in it's current state it is effectively unusable due to the ZKPs being omitted. [0]: https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technical-specification/blob/main/docs/architecture-and-technical-specifications.md#71-zero-knowledge-proofs https://github.com/eu-digital-identity-wallet/av-doc-technic... [1]: https://youtu.be/PKtklN8mOo0?si=bbqtzMhIK7cFLh6S&t=375 https://youtu.be/PKtklN8mOo0?si=bbqtzMhIK7cFLh6S&t=375

11mariom 1y ago

> I've posted this as a response but I'll post it again since it seems like a lot of people are confused about the project Even if it is ZKP still… whole idea is just bad. I mean whole age-veryfication done by gov is bad. And forcing one to use smartphone is even worse.