CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Apr 07, 2026

Context-Binding Gaps in Stateful Zero-Knowledge Proximity Proofs: Taxonomy, Separation, and Mitigation

arXiv Security Archived Apr 07, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2604.03900v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A zero-knowledge proximity proof certifies geometric nearness but carries no commitment to an application context. In stateful geo-content systems, where drops can share coordinates, policies evolve, and content has persistent identity, this gap can permit proof transfer between application objects unless extra operational invariants are maintained. We present a systems-security analysis of this deployment problem: a taxonomy of context-binding vul

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Cryptography and Security [Submitted on 5 Apr 2026] Context-Binding Gaps in Stateful Zero-Knowledge Proximity Proofs: Taxonomy, Separation, and Mitigation Yoshiyuki Ootani A zero-knowledge proximity proof certifies geometric nearness but carries no commitment to an application context. In stateful geo-content systems, where drops can share coordinates, policies evolve, and content has persistent identity, this gap can permit proof transfer between application objects unless extra operational invariants are maintained. We present a systems-security analysis of this deployment problem: a taxonomy of context-binding vulnerabilities, a formal off-circuit verification model for a transcript-adversary that holds a recorded proof but cannot obtain fresh coordinates, an assumption comparison across five binding strategy classes, and a concrete instantiation, Zairn-ZKP, that embeds drop identity, policy version, and session context as public circuit inputs. Compared with a strong off-circuit alternative based on stored-digest server checking, in-proof binding reduces operational invariants from four to two and adds no measurable proving cost relative to the sound geo-only baseline (-0.12 ms median in our setup). It also removes a correctness pitfall we identify empirically: a plausible off-circuit implementation that omits one server-side check remains vulnerable to cross-drop transfer. Measurements across six network conditions, seven venues in four countries, and an epoch-window simulation indicate that same-epoch transfer is realistic in dense urban deployments unless per-request nonces are maintained. Across five platforms and seven binding strategies, the results support a deployable methodology for reducing assumption surfaces in stateful ZK-backed verification workflows. Comments: 12 pages, 2 figures, 16 tables. Preprint version; submitted to IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:2604.03900 [cs.CR]   (or arXiv:2604.03900v1 [cs.CR] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.03900 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yoshiyuki Ootani [view email] [v1] Sun, 5 Apr 2026 00:10:25 UTC (329 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CR < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-04 Change to browse by: cs References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv Security
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Apr 07, 2026
    Archived
    Apr 07, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗