Threat Vectors

Enumerating and Mitigating the Core Threat Classes Targeting Verifiable Governance Systems

9.2.1 Overview of NSF’s Threat Surface

As a protocol mediating verifiable simulation, credential issuance, and treaty-scale governance, NSF faces attacks targeting:

• Code integrity (e.g., tampering with executable clauses or simulation models)

• Credential trust (e.g., forged or revoked VCs used to bypass governance thresholds)

• Governance processes (e.g., capture of DAOs, simulation falsification, or voter manipulation)

• Data integrity (e.g., poisoned telemetry, rogue digital twins, or AI hallucinations used in decision logic)

NSF classifies these into three primary threat classes:

1. Clause Tampering

2. Verifiable Credential (VC) Forgery or Misuse

3. DAO Capture and Misgovernance

Each is addressed by a combination of cryptographic proofs, protocol-level audits, and zero-trust enforcement mechanisms.

---

9.2.2 Threat Vector 1: Clause Tampering

Attack Vector: An adversary modifies a clause to:

• Weaken or eliminate policy triggers

• Insert alternative execution logic

• Bypass simulation validation

• Subvert jurisdictional or credential boundaries

• Insert malicious fallback paths

Mitigation Mechanisms:

Mechanism	Implementation
Clause Hash Anchoring	All clause versions are hashed, signed, and stored in the Clause Registry
Fork Traceability	Parent-child version lineage enforced; all forks must register simulation-equivalence tests
Execution Bundle Audits	CAC-enforced attestation of original clause hash before execution
Multisig Clause Review	Critical clause upgrades require 2/3 DAO quorum and simulation verification
Trusted Simulation Test Suites	Simulated clause behavior vs. previous versions; divergence analysis with risk score output

Example: A tampered [email protected] clause removes the capital disbursement trigger. NSF refuses execution due to clause hash mismatch and fork without DAO approval.

---

9.2.3 Threat Vector 2: Verifiable Credential Forgery or Misuse

Attack Vector: An actor:

• Presents a forged or expired VC

• Constructs a valid-looking credential with falsified attributes

• Reuses an otherwise valid VC outside of its policy scope

• Subverts the issuance process to grant credentials to unauthorized entities

Mitigation Mechanisms:

Mechanism	Implementation
VC Issuer Signature Enforcement	All VCs must originate from DAO-approved issuers with DID anchoring
Revocation Registry	VC status verified via Merkle trees, CRLs, and optional ZK revocation proofs
Credential Scoping	Role, time, jurisdiction, and clause-binding scopes enforced at execution
Audit Trail Binding	VC usage history tracked in clause execution logs and DAO votes
Selective Disclosure Proofs	ZK-enabled attribute hiding prevents impersonation while preserving verifiability

Example: A user presents a DisasterAuditorVC with tampered location scope. The NSF verifier checks against the registry and rejects the credential due to missing revocation proof and jurisdiction mismatch.

---

9.2.4 Threat Vector 3: DAO Capture and Governance Manipulation

Attack Vector: A hostile actor (or colluding group):

• Acquires enough stake or credentials to capture voting outcomes

• Disables or bypasses simulation requirements for proposals

• Blocks critical clause updates or delays response protocols

• Approves malicious contracts, issuers, or simulation models

• Undermines system-wide foresight integrity through misgovernance

Mitigation Mechanisms:

Mechanism	Implementation
Stakeholder Diversity Quorums	Votes weighted by multiple credential types, geographic dispersion, or clause domain expertise
Simulation-Gated Proposals	Clause changes and policy votes require valid simulation backing
AppealsDAO Triggers	Minority actors can invoke simulation-based overrides and external audit
Execution Delay Windows	High-risk proposals require time-locked review with audit hooks
Clause-DAO Binding	Execution clauses can require confirmation from multiple independent DAOs

Example: A captured DAO votes to approve an unvetted clause removing refugee coordination triggers. SimDAO refuses execution due to missing forecast validation, triggering a reversion and escalation to AppealsDAO.

---

9.2.5 Additional Emerging Threats and Countermeasures

Threat	Countermeasure
Data Poisoning in Simulations	Input traceability, anomaly detection, quorum-verified data streams
AI-Generated Hallucinated Clauses	Clause origin verification, NLP/semantic validators, GPT output anchoring
Sensor Falsification	Sensor attestation via secure hardware IDs, time-series backtesting
Quorum Collusion in DAO Votes	Dynamic quorum logic, minority veto pathways, historical trust weighting
Credential Overissuance	Issuer rate-limiting, issuance-to-usage ratio scoring, VC lifecycle analytics

---

9.2.6 From Threat Modeling to Protocol Resilience

NSF's approach to threat defense is not reactive—it is architectural. It assumes adversarial conditions from inception, and builds:

• Structural safeguards (version trees, CAC, DAO multipaths)

• Cryptographic attestation flows (ZK, Merkle, multisig)

• Governance-level checks (simulation gating, quorum design, overrides)

• Operational constraints (revocation, access control, runtime scoping)

Together, these transform NSF from a programmable policy platform into a resilient, adversary-tolerant layer for verifiable governance at global scale.