Skip to content

chore: Improved handshake registry privacy docs#24018

Open
vezenovm wants to merge 4 commits into
merge-train/fairies-v5from
mv/handshake-registry-privacy-docs
Open

chore: Improved handshake registry privacy docs#24018
vezenovm wants to merge 4 commits into
merge-train/fairies-v5from
mv/handshake-registry-privacy-docs

Conversation

@vezenovm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

No issue just something I noticed while thinking about #23938 (comment)

Docs contain relevant privacy linkability when using the handshake registry contract.

///
/// # Privacy
/// The siloing described above means reading handshakes never compromises message secrecy: a reader only ever
/// derives secrets siloed to its own address. Handshake metadata is weaker, though. Incoming handshakes are announced

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The whole

Incoming handshakes are announced
/// via a bootstrap log under a tag derived from the recipient address (see
/// [`HandshakeRegistry::non_interactive_handshake`]), so their existence, count, and timing are observable by anyone
/// who knows that address, and [`HandshakeRegistry::get_handshakes`] exposes their decrypted payload to in-scope
/// callers.

is only applicable to non-interactive, it's weird that we specify that here

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I switched to having this on non_interactive_handshake and linking to it in the module comment

vezenovm and others added 3 commits June 15, 2026 20:57
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Chamo <nicolas@chamo.com.ar>
@vezenovm vezenovm requested a review from nchamo June 16, 2026 01:36
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants