Files
RuView/docs/adr/ADR-290-veil-e2e-hardware-implementation-program.md
Claude b827dc40b1 feat(privshield): E2E hardware program — validated C core + multi-provider firmware scaffolds
Take VEIL from the synthetic Rust reference model toward real WiFi silicon
across multiple hardware providers, around one shared, host-validated core.
Answers the questions "can OpenWRT / open WiFi software implement this?" and
"can ESP32 help scramble signals?" with an honest per-platform feasibility map.

Portable C shield core (firmware/privshield/core/) — VALIDATED (host test):
- veil_shield.{h,c}: keyed Givens-rotation obfuscation of the identity-bearing
  "fine" subspace, C99, no malloc / no libc I/O, only <math.h>. SplitMix64 key
  schedule byte-identical to the Rust crate, so on-air behavior is consistent
  everywhere and every adapter links the same math.
- make test passes: energy conservation (orthogonal => "not jamming"),
  reversibility (recover inverts apply), wrong-key-fails, and PRNG stream parity
  with the Rust crate. This is build/host evidence, NOT silicon.

Per-provider adapters (all SYNTHETIC / L0, build-only, TODO(hw) markers):
- openwifi/  grade B (ceiling A, effort D): only open PHY/MAC (FPGA) that can
  host the full keyed rotation + inverse; needs new HDL + 2nd TX chain. Carries
  the P5 measurement protocol (MEASUREMENT.md) for the first MEASURED result.
- openwrt/   grade C: per-packet keyed unitary is blob-blocked on commodity APs;
  coarse compliant knobs (TX antenna map, sounding-cadence jitter) reachable
  from userspace/hostapd; ath9k is the one credible driver-patch route.
- nexmon/    grade C: reading the compressed-BF angles is solved (nexmon_csi /
  Wi-BFI); shaping the transmitted report is research-grade (D11 ucode-adjacent).
- esp32/     grade F (self) / B (supporting): cannot shape its own BF feedback
  (closed esp-phy-lib blob); legitimate as a sensing detector and external-RIS
  controller — the honest way ESP32 "helps scramble", via an external surface.

Docs:
- firmware/privshield/README.md: architecture, layout, and the feasibility matrix.
- ADR-290: the E2E hardware program, PROOF discipline, and per-provider decision;
  added to docs/adr/README.md index.

Compliant waveform controls only, never jamming. No adapter has run on silicon;
no MEASURED claim is made (that is roadmap P5, gated on a captured log).

Co-Authored-By: claude-flow <ruv@ruv.net>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WEXNqzs7UsfNFBcP5yW21p
2026-08-09 16:34:11 +00:00

95 lines
5.0 KiB
Markdown
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters
This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.
# ADR-290: VEIL end-to-end hardware implementation program (multi-provider firmware)
| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Status** | Proposed — P4 scaffolding (build-only); portable core validated on host |
| **Date** | 2026-08-09 |
| **Parent** | ADR-288 (VEIL shield), ADR-289 (harness), ADR-282 (L0L5 evidence ladder) |
| **Location** | `firmware/privshield/` |
| **Relates to** | `firmware/esp32-csi-node/` (the CSI sensor/attacker node), ADR-280 (governed actuation), ADR-141 (attestation) |
## 0. PROOF discipline
The **only** artifact validated here is the portable C core
(`firmware/privshield/core/`): a host test (`make test`) checks energy
conservation, reversibility, wrong-key failure, and — pinned — that its
SplitMix64 key schedule is **byte-identical to the Rust crate's** PRNG. That is
`build`/host-level evidence, not silicon. Every per-provider adapter is a
**build-only scaffold** with `TODO(hw)` markers: `SYNTHETIC / L0`, no captured
log, no `MEASURED` claim. Nothing in this ADR asserts VEIL works on real
hardware; it asserts a *plan and a shared core* to get there (P5).
## 1. Context
ADR-288 shipped VEIL as a deterministic, no-radio Rust model, and the 20252026
SOTA sweep (ADR-288 §sota) confirmed the mechanism's family is real and
standard-permitted. The open question left was **"does this run on real WiFi
hardware, and on which?"** — including the user asks: *can OpenWRT / open WiFi
software implement it, and can ESP32 help scramble signals?* Answering requires
committing to the platform reality rather than assuming a uniform "firmware"
target.
## 2. Decision
Stand up `firmware/privshield/` as a **multi-provider E2E program** around one
shared, validated core:
1. **A portable C shield core** (`core/veil_shield.{h,c}`) — the keyed
Givens-rotation obfuscation, `no_std`-friendly C99 (no malloc/libc I/O), with
a SplitMix64 key schedule matching the Rust crate so on-air behavior is
identical everywhere and every adapter links the *same* math. Host-tested.
2. **Per-provider adapters**, each built and graded by a hardware research
agent, honest about what its stack can actually touch:
- **`openwifi/`** (open PHY/MAC on SDR/FPGA) — the highest-capability path and
the one that can host the **keyed-reversible** design end-to-end
(protector + AP-side compensation). Carries the **P5 measurement protocol**
(`MEASUREMENT.md`) that yields the first `MEASURED` result with a witness.
- **`openwrt/`** (Linux `mac80211`, mt76/ath9k…) — the commodity path.
Sounding-cadence randomization, MU-group and stream-mapping control are
feasible from the driver/hostapd; the per-packet unitary on the LTF spatial
mapping is firmware-deep on most parts. Partial.
- **`nexmon/`** (Broadcom/Cypress C firmware patches) — the commodity
C-firmware route; the read path is proven (Wi-BFI/nexmon_csi), the transmit
report-shaping path is research-grade/partial.
- **`esp32/`** (ESP-IDF) — **not** a feedback protector (the beamforming path
is a closed blob): ESP32 shapes CSI *read*, not transmitted feedback. Its
legitimate roles are a **sensing detector** (trigger the AP-side shield) and
an **RIS controller** (drive an external reconfigurable surface to scramble
the sensing direction — the honest way ESP32 "helps scramble", via an
external surface, not its own PHY).
3. **Compliance stance carried into hardware:** every control shapes the node's
own standards-conformant emission and preserves energy; the ESP32
decoy/cover-traffic idea is documented as *legally sensitive / not
recommended* precisely because it edges toward the interference line.
Per-provider feasibility grades live in each subdir README and the top-level
feasibility matrix; they are the answer to the "which hardware" question.
## 3. What this explicitly is NOT
- **Not validated firmware.** No adapter has run on silicon; there is no witness.
The scaffolds compile-*shaped*, not compile-*guaranteed* on their toolchains
(which are absent in this environment).
- **Not a claim that ESP32 can shield beamforming feedback** — it cannot; it is a
detector/RIS-controller only.
- **Not jamming, on any platform.** Compliant waveform shaping only.
- **Not a MEASURED result.** That is P5, gated on a captured log.
## 4. Consequences
- One validated core, four honest provider scaffolds, and a concrete P5
measurement plan — a real path from model to silicon, with the effort/blocker
reality made explicit per platform.
- The shared core keeps every future hardware result consistent with the crate
and with each other.
- Scope stays inside `firmware/privshield/`; no other crate/firmware is touched
(the existing `esp32-csi-node` remains the sensor/attacker node).
## 5. Validation
```bash
cd firmware/privshield/core && make test # host: energy/reversibility/PRNG parity
# per-provider builds require their toolchains (ESP-IDF, OpenWRT SDK, Nexmon,
# Vivado) and real hardware — see each subdir's BUILD/INTEGRATION notes.
```