browsec/SESSION_NOTES.md

Session continuity notes

These notes preserve the context of Browsec's first design and implementation session. Read this file together with ROADMAP.md, then consult the detailed concept and architecture documents only as needed.

People and repository

• Project creator: sergeych (sergeych <real.sergeych@gmail.com>).
• AI design and implementation collaborator: Codex (OpenAI).
• Repository: ssh://git@gitea.sergeych.net:2291/SergeychWorks/browsec.git.
• Main branch: main.
• The repository was clean and fully pushed when these notes were written.
• Work was intentionally committed in small conceptual milestones.

Why the project exists

The starting problem is that conventional browser TLS trust is governed by a global authority model that users cannot meaningfully replace or refine. A user may need to investigate broken certificates, trust a precise local certificate or CA, distrust an otherwise globally accepted authority, and eventually use community trust without surrendering the final decision to another central operator.

The intended browser is a genuinely independent Firefox downstream. Chromium was considered but rejected as a poorer base for the project's independence and governance goals. TrustLab exists so the security model can be developed and tested browserlessly before modifying Firefox NSS/PSM.

The primary scope remains TLS trust substitution. The plugin API should not grow into a general browser-extension “Swiss army knife” until that narrow security problem is sound.

Naming and character

• Browsec: the browser project.
• Velvet Hammer: the trust engine.
• TrustLab: the browser-neutral research and diagnostic tool.
• Browsec Trust API: the strict plugin contract.

The engine name expresses a deliberate combination: a calm and comprehensible surface around rigid security boundaries. The proposed emblem is a restrained, polished spherical hammer head with a short handle, possibly meeting a certificate-chain link.

Project language established during the session includes Velvet verdict, Hammer rule, and TrustLab powered by Velvet Hammer.

Two sentences capture the project's temperament:

The hammer permits no silent widening of scope.

If one must be struck by security policy, let it be by a respectable velvet hammer: precise, accountable, and courteous enough to explain why.

Core design decisions

The plugin chain contains the decision

There is no hidden “browser god” outside the plugin chain making an unexplained final trust choice. The immutable Browsec final handler is itself the final plugin and cannot be removed or replaced. This keeps the model compositionally honest while preserving a fail-closed terminus.

Every configured plugin has one explicit role:

• observer;
• advisor;
• decision authority;
• veto authority.

Roles are local configuration, not powers self-declared by plugin packages. Plugins may contribute evidence, warnings, and advisory votes as appropriate, but only explicitly authorized roles can return terminal Boolean verdicts.

Facts, interpretation, and decisions remain separate

The TLS connection produces immutable facts. Plugins append attributed entries to a journal; they cannot rewrite the facts or previous entries. A terminal verdict references the journal entries supporting it.

The final trust boundary is Boolean. Nuance and uncertainty remain visible in evidence and votes rather than producing an ambiguous terminal value.

Scope is explicit and rigid

A verdict declares:

• trusted: true | false;
• exact certificate-for-host or exact DER authority-for-host scope;
• port scope;
• optional subdomain scope for an authority;
• connection, session, timed, or persistent lifetime;
• supporting journal entries;
• the exact TLS errors it overrides.

“Trust once” was rejected as ambiguous terminology. The implementation uses explicit connection and session lifetimes.

An authority rule identifies the SHA-256 fingerprint of the exact DER CA certificate, not merely a subject name or public key. The CA must occur in the active chain, have DER-confirmed Basic Constraints, permit keyCertSign, and contain no unsupported critical extensions. Authority trust may repair only trust-anchor failures; it cannot excuse expiry, hostname mismatch, signature failure, or another independent error.

Local distrust has precedence over matching local trust.

Interactive and background work

onBeforeTlsAccept is deliberately synchronous and fast. It may use already available local state but cannot wait for network or UI.

Failed navigation is handled through asynchronous onTlsFailure, where an authorized plugin may present clearly browser-owned UI and then request a fresh connection retry. Background evidence collection is independent of the fast success path.

Plugins may eventually perform community or peer-to-peer background work, but those mechanisms do not receive implicit decision authority.

Security UI cannot look like web content

The future browser-owned decision surface must be unmistakably distinct from ordinary pages and extension content. TrustLab currently simulates this with a fixed security frame and synthetic/live/offline seals. This distinction must be implemented with stronger browser chrome when Firefox integration begins.

What was implemented

Trust runtime

• Strict TypeScript API version 0.1.
• Dependency-free JavaScript reference runner.
• Immutable normalized TLS facts.
• Append-only attributed journal.
• Plugin timeouts, mode enforcement, and immutable final handler.
• In-memory scoped policy overlay exposed as an ordinary plugin.
• Connection/session/timed/persistent rules and explicit rule history.

Live TLS microscope

From trustlab/:

npm run probe -- example.com
npm run probe -- expired.badssl.com --json
npm run ui

The read-only probe records TLS protocol and cipher, conventional OpenSSL trust, certificate DER/SPKI fingerprints, identities, dates, signatures, normalized failure categories, and observed-chain caveats. It never modifies a trust store.

The local UI server binds to 127.0.0.1, accepts a small same-origin JSON POST, and enforces a ten-second probe timeout. A browser can enter a live hostname and use the same TrustLab plugin chain and diagnostic UI as synthetic fixtures.

Node/OpenSSL does not expose a reliable boundary between server-sent certificates and certificates added during construction. The current report therefore labels its chain as an observed peer chain and duplicates it into the API's presented/constructed fields rather than pretending certainty.

DER explorer

The browser-compatible DER reader is dependency-free and enforces definite, minimal lengths, container boundaries, node-count limits, and nesting limits. It retains a byte-offset tree and every extension's original bytes.

Implemented semantic decoders include:

• Basic Constraints;
• Key Usage;
• Extended Key Usage OIDs;
• Subject Key Identifier;
• Authority Key Identifier;
• Subject Alternative Name DNS/IP/email/URI forms.

The UI synchronizes ASN.1 nodes with hexadecimal bytes in both directions and allows original .der export. Recognizing an extension's name is intentionally different from supporting its semantics; an unsupported critical extension fails closed even if its OID has a friendly label.

Explainable path construction

The live probe evaluates every possible issuer pair among observed certificates and records:

• issuer/subject match;
• cryptographic signature verification;
• AKI/SKI match when both identifiers exist;
• issuer CA and signing eligibility;
• critical-extension blockers.

It enumerates acyclic candidate paths and independently records structural termination, provider-attributed trust, validity failures, and path-length constraint violations. Thus “where a path goes” is distinct from “whether the path is valid” and “who trusts its terminus.”

Offline investigation bundles

Versioned .browsec-investigation.json files include original public DER, facts, findings, path analysis, decision journal, verdict, and policy history. They explicitly declare that no private keys or TLS session secrets are present.

Import is capped at 10 MiB, reparses DER, recomputes SHA-256 fingerprints, and rebuilds DER-derived CA, Key Usage, critical-extension, SAN, SKI, and AKI facts. Imported verdicts and policy remain historical evidence and are not activated.

Verification at handoff

The last complete local verification passed:

cd trustlab
npm test
npm run check
npm run build

There were 38 passing tests. Live checks also behaved as intended:

• example.com: one structurally and cryptographically valid path, attributed to the Node/OpenSSL conventional-validation terminus.
• expired.badssl.com: a structurally linked path independently marked invalid because two exact certificates were expired.

Use git status --short before new work. Existing uncommitted changes, if any, must be treated as belonging to the user.

Corrected next implementation seam

The primary goal is the Browsec Firefox host and its privileged security- extension platform. Distributed trust and named trust providers are later extensions that may be implemented by us or the community; they must not delay the browser integration.

Begin with three connected designs:

1. The narrow Firefox NSS/PSM adapter that creates TlsFacts, invokes the trust chain, and performs a fresh scoped retry.
2. The privileged-extension host, package/capability grants, protected UI, and isolated general-purpose storage broker. Extensions may retain any information needed for their security function, subject to explicit capabilities, quotas, inspection, export, deletion, and network controls.
3. A browser-owned Record security concern action that lets the user capture immutable evidence and open Velvet Hammer even when conventional TLS validation succeeded. User-generated concern is an observation trigger, not a pre-written verdict that the service is unsafe.

Then connect the already implemented Velvet Hammer reference extension to this host, add durable policy/investigation storage, and prove an end-to-end failed navigation and retry. Only after the platform works should work resume on named or distributed trust providers.

Files to open first next session

1. ROADMAP.md
2. trustlab/sdk/plugin-api.ts
3. trustlab/src/path-analysis.js
4. trustlab/src/der-explorer.js
5. trustlab/src/investigation-bundle.js
6. trustlab/ui/app.js

The conceptual documents remain authoritative for broader intent: CONCEPT.md, ARCHITECTURE.md, and DESIGN.md.

Second-session correction and discussion

The project reached a clean first milestone tagged trustlab-v0.1.0. During the next session we briefly began treating named or distributed trust providers as the immediate milestone. Sergeych correctly stopped this drift and restored the actual product hierarchy:

1. Browsec is a Firefox-derived host for privileged security extensions.
2. Browsec Trust API is the capability-controlled TLS security interface.
3. Velvet Hammer is the built-in, irremovable root security extension; its browser-neutral substance already exists in TrustLab.
4. Third parties can later build continuity monitors, institutional policies, historical databases, CT/revocation analysers, and community systems.
5. Distributed trust is a later extension family, not a prerequisite for the browser platform.

Two platform requirements were then underlined and added to the authoritative documents:

• A privileged security extension needs isolated, durable, general-purpose storage for any observations, indexes, historical data, intermediate state, user annotations, or other information required by its security function. This is broader than the structured trust-policy database. Storage remains capability-controlled, quota-visible, inspectable, exportable, deletable, migratable, and isolated from other extensions.
• The browser needs an unforgeable user action, provisionally named Record security concern, that starts evidence capture and opens Velvet Hammer on a conventionally successful or failed connection. It records concern and facts; it does not prejudge the resource as insecure. Captures exclude page content, credentials, cookies, authorization headers, private keys, and TLS secrets.

These corrections were committed as 55f614f (Restore security extension platform as primary goal) and pushed to origin/main.

Distributed-trust exploration, deliberately deferred

Before the priority correction, we began exploring what users might benefit from in a future distributed-trust extension. A neutral public interview guide was saved as USER_RESEARCH.md. It asks what people want, tolerate, fear, and would immediately reject without assuming that communities are good or conventional authorities are bad.

Sergeych also described firsthand experience as Cybiko's software director from the beginning through the final production model. Relevant experience—not an architecture to copy—included:

• one or two RF discovery channels plus a region-dependent data-channel band;
• compressed public-profile pings, locally calculated time slots, and a four-dimensional space/time/frequency view of transmission opportunity;
• production-assigned unique device IDs and packet origin/serial idempotency;
• TTL-limited multi-hop forwarding with battery, foreground activity, traffic density, link quality, ACK/reply overhearing, and neighbor density considered;
• direct observations kept distinct from second-hand one-to-two-hop maps;
• age-based topology expiry after missed discovery pings;
• distance-biased delayed relaying, where farther receivers could forward first and nearer candidates suppress duplicates after overhearing;
• an early repeat of an important packet acting as a request that waiting relay candidates transmit sooner;
• adaptive frequency choice based on SNR, BER, and delivery history;
• Reed–Solomon coding for operation near the permitted noise floor;
• optional PC/Internet-connected cells acting as smarter rendezvous and store-and-forward bridges for dial-up/NAT-era networks;
• a memorable testing failure: a one-character Atmel-code error broke the exact two-device topology, which was absent from a development site containing dozens of devices.

The conclusion was not to transplant a 25-year-old mesh design. Its valuable lesson is the experience of deriving a new architecture from goals, physical constraints, failure modes, local observations, ageing, and feedback rather than beginning with an attractive algorithm.

Current resume point

Do not implement distributed trust next. Continue from the Firefox host seam:

1. Select a Firefox revision for the privileged-extension experiment.
2. Map NSS/PSM success and failure into immutable TlsFacts.
3. Define privileged extension identity, capability grants, protected UI, and isolated evidence storage.
4. Define the browser-produced manual security-concern capture record.
5. Connect Velvet Hammer and demonstrate failed navigation, informed decision, durable scoped policy, and a fresh enforced retry.