WiFi Veil — compliant-waveform privacy shield: reference crate, E2E firmware, standalone repo + CI honesty guard

docs/adr/ADR-288-veil-privacy-shield-compliant-waveform.md

@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+# ADR-288: VEIL — a compliant-waveform privacy shield against unauthorized WiFi sensing
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| **Status** | Proposed — implemented (P1 reference model) |
+| **Date** | 2026-08-09 |
+| **Deciders** | ruv |
+| **Codename** | **VEIL** — Verifiable Emission-shaping for Identity-Leakage prevention |
+| **Codebase target** | new leaf crate `v2/crates/wifi-densepose-privshield` |
+| **Parent** | ADR-118 (BFLD — the detection layer VEIL is the countermeasure to), ADR-282 (mandatory L0–L5 evidence ladder) |
+| **Relates to** | ADR-120/121 (BFLD privacy class + identity-risk scoring — the trigger source), ADR-141 (privacy control plane / runtime attestation — the audit consumer), ADR-280 (active sensing / governed actuation — VEIL is a defensive sensing action), ADR-185 §13 (`wifi-densepose-aether` — the pure-compute leaf pattern this crate follows) |
+| **Research bundle** | [`docs/research/privacy-shield/`](../research/privacy-shield/) (9 files) |
+| **Tracking issue** | TBD |
+
+## 0. PROOF discipline
+
+Every defense number this crate produces is **SYNTHETIC / evidence level L0**
+(ADR-282): generated by the crate's own model (`identity::Channel`), attacked by
+the crate's own classifier (`attacker::NearestCentroidAttacker`), and scored
+against its own known labels. Nothing here has been validated against real WiFi
+silicon, and the crate contains no radio integration and cannot emit RF. External
+attack/defense results cited from the literature (BFId, LeakyBeam, DySPAN-2026,
+IRShield, FCC statutes) are **EXTERNAL** evidence and labelled MEASURED/CLAIMED in
+the research bundle. The single measured claim about *our own behavior* is the
+pinned deterministic witness in `proof.rs`.
+
+## 1. Context
+
+### 1.1 The gap
+
+IEEE 802.11ac/ax beamforming feedback (BFI) — the compressed Givens-rotation
+angle matrices (φ/ψ) a client sends the AP — is transmitted **unencrypted on the
+management plane**. Any device in monitor mode can capture it for every station
+at once, no network access, and the target need carry no device. The literature
+establishes the severity: **BFId** (ACM CCS 2025) re-identifies individuals from
+BFI; **LeakyBeam** (NDSS 2025) detects occupancy through walls at 20 m from BFI;
+**BeamSense** recognizes activities at up to 99.28%. IEEE Std **802.11bf-2025**
+(published 26 Sep 2025) standardizes the sensing measurement/feedback surface
+these attacks abuse — and a 2023 proposal for a BFI secure-transmission mechanism
+(802.11-23/0782) was **withdrawn**, so the standard shipped with no privacy
+protections.
+
+RuView already has a *detection* layer for this: **BFLD** (ADR-118/121) measures
+the identity-leakage of each frame and gates what leaves the node. But BFLD
+protects *RuView's own outputs*; it does nothing about a **third-party sniffer**
+capturing the room's plaintext BFI off the air. There is no RuView component, and
+per our market survey no shipping product anywhere, that prevents that.
+
+### 1.2 Constraint: compliant waveform controls, never jamming
+
+The defense must preserve normal communications and must not interfere with any
+other station. Jamming (47 U.S.C. §333/§302a) is defined by *adding energy to
+interfere with others' transmissions*. Any acceptable control must shape only the
+node's **own** standards-conformant emission.
+
+### 1.3 The separability insight
+
+Identity leaks through the *fine* cross-subcarrier phase structure of a
+beamforming report; data throughput rides the *dominant* beam direction. These
+are (mostly) separable subspaces — so a transform confined to the fine subspace
+can wreck re-identification while sparing the beam the link depends on. DySPAN-2026
+independently MEASURED that shaping fine-resolution feedback is near-free in
+throughput, corroborating the insight.
+
+## 2. Decision
+
+Ship **`wifi-densepose-privshield`** (VEIL) as a standalone pure-compute leaf
+crate (the `wifi-densepose-aether`/`nvsim` pattern: dependency-free, deterministic,
+WASM-ready, zero coupling to any radio or ingestion path), implementing:
+
+1. **A SYNTHETIC two-subspace BFI model** (`identity.rs`): each identity owns a
+   stable fine-block signature; sessions add environmental nuisance; the comm
+   block is identity-free and carries throughput.
+2. **The protector** (`protector.rs`): compliant waveform controls, primarily a
+   **per-session keyed orthogonal rotation of the fine subspace, composed from
+   extra Givens rotations** — the report's native primitive. Plus feedback
+   quantization/dither, sounding-cadence randomization, and a `SensingDetector`
+   that engages the shield only when sensing activity is observed.
+3. **The adversary** (`attacker.rs`): a passive nearest-centroid re-identifier
+   modeling the BFId threat, with selectable Euclidean/Cosine metrics.
+4. **A throughput model** (`throughput.rs`):
+   `(1 − sounding − feedback_airtime) · C(SNR·(1−ρ))/C(SNR)`, where the residual
+   `ρ` falls with feedback bits and the feedback airtime rises with them — giving
+   a genuine interior throughput optimum in feedback resolution.
+5. **A compliance audit** (`compliance.rs`): the rotation is orthogonal ⇒
+   energy-preserving ⇒ adds no interfering energy ⇒ **not jamming**, turned into a
+   checked `ComplianceReport` (energy ratio ≈ 1.0).
+6. **The experiment** (`experiment.rs`): runs the attacker against unprotected and
+   protected traffic and reports both accuracies vs. chance, plus throughput and
+   compliance, with a single `passed()` verdict.
+7. **The hyper-optimizer** (`optimize.rs`): derives the shipped shield config
+   rather than hand-picking it — the throughput-optimal feedback resolution and
+   the minimum rotation-mixing budget that collapses re-ID robustly (across both
+   attacker metrics and N∈{16,32}), plus a Pareto frontier.
+8. **A deterministic proof** (`proof.rs`): a pinned FNV-1a witness over the
+   reference experiment (the `nvsim`/`verify.py` discipline).
+
+### 2.1 Why the keyed Givens rotation
+
+It is simultaneously **orthogonal** (energy-preserving ⇒ compliant),
+**key-reversible** (the associated AP shares the session key and recovers the true
+precoder ⇒ throughput preserved), and **fresh per session** (a sniffer sees a new
+random rotation of the signature each session and cannot average it back ⇒ the
+enrollment attack collapses; over unknown rotations the signature carries no
+stable discriminative information ⇒ re-ID → chance). It is the shared-secret
+precoding idea (cf. MIMOCrypt) specialized to the identity-bearing subspace.
+
+### 2.2 Measured behavior (SYNTHETIC / L0)
+
+Reference experiment at the hyper-optimized operating point (§opt), default
+scene, N=16 identities, `cargo test`:
+
+| Metric | Shield off | Shield on |
+|---|---|---|
+| Passive re-ID accuracy | 100.0% | **4.7%** (chance 6.25%) |
+| Link throughput ratio | 100% | **97.6%** |
+| Emission energy ratio | — | **1.000000** (compliant) |
+
+All 35 unit/proof tests + doctest pass; the crate builds for
+`wasm32-unknown-unknown` and is clippy-clean.
+
+### opt. Hyper-optimization (`optimize.rs`)
+
+The shipped shield config is the optimizer's output, not a guess, and
+`ShieldConfig::default()` is asserted equal to it:
+
+- **Feedback resolution = 5 bits.** Throughput has an interior optimum in
+  feedback bits (residual falls, feedback airtime rises); the unconstrained
+  optimum is 3 bits (matching DySPAN-2026), and 5 is the throughput-best value in
+  the spec-allowed 802.11 {5,7,9} set.
+- **Givens passes = 96.** The proven minimum for robust collapse — across both
+  attacker metrics *and* N∈{16,32} — is **48**; the shipped 96 is a free 2×
+  privacy margin, since the keyed rotation is derived from the shared secret and
+  never signaled (extra passes cost compute, not airtime). The original
+  hand-picked 112 was 2.3× over-provisioned.
+
+Net vs. the original hand-picked (112 passes / 7 bits): the optimum is strictly
+better on **both** privacy (re-ID 0.047 vs 0.078) and throughput (0.976 vs 0.974),
+and is now verified rather than assumed. See
+`docs/research/privacy-shield/08-optimization.md`.
+
+### harness. Native terminal harness + TUI (`src/bin/veil.rs`)
+
+A custom, dependency-free binary (`veil`) ships with the crate — the in-repo,
+native counterpart to the npm metaharness (ADR-289). It drives the same public
+API the tests use, as an interactive ANSI dashboard plus scriptable subcommands
+(`report`, `sweep`, `optimize`, `adaptive <N>`, `proof`, `doctor`, `tui`).
+Std-only (no `crossterm`/`ratatui`): the TUI is a command-driven redraw loop, so
+it runs in any terminal, pipe, or CI and keeps the crate a pure leaf. It reports
+only SYNTHETIC/L0 numbers and never relabels them. The wasm leaf story is
+unchanged (validated with `--lib`; the bin is native-only).
+
+### sota. 2025–2026 evidence update (verified)
+
+A cited, adversarially-verified SOTA sweep
+(`docs/research/privacy-shield/09-sota-update-2026.md`) refines the threat and
+positioning. Load-bearing points for this ADR:
+
+- **Threat is broader and cheaper than §1.1 stated.** A passive, keyless,
+  single-antenna sniffer at ~20 m and *through walls* can identify people
+  (BFId, 99.5%/N=197, `MEASURED`), read **breathing** from stationary occupants
+  and **keystrokes/PINs** (LeakyBeam / WiKI-Eve / SThief, `MEASURED`), and —
+  decisively — **reconstruct full CSI from the sniffed BFI** (BFIAttack,
+  ≥93% single-antenna, `MEASURED`). VEIL's obfuscation must therefore degrade
+  *reconstructed-CSI* utility, not merely raw-BFI feature noise; because VEIL's
+  rotation is a **secret orthogonal** transform, the attacker has no key and no
+  closed-form to invert — this is now a claim to **test**, not assume.
+- **VEIL's family is independently validated.** AP-side per-packet random
+  unitary on the LTF (LeakyBeam defense, 89.7%→~51%, `MEASURED`) and RIS
+  obfuscation (PrivISAC, 93%→~30%, robust to a retrained multi-location
+  attacker, `MEASURED`) confirm standard-permitted beamforming-surface
+  obfuscation works; DP-Givens quantization (`SYNTHETIC`) offers a formal ε knob.
+- **Compliance precedent.** BeamDancer (IEEE TWC 2024, `MEASURED`) argues
+  native-beamforming obfuscation is 802.11-compliant while jamming/geofencing
+  are not — cite it as precedent. (Its ">96% PDR" figure was **refuted** in
+  verification; do not cite it.)
+- **Security honesty.** Obfuscation shields have published counter-attacks
+  ("Defeating CSI obfuscation", SnoopFi), so VEIL's own shield security is
+  `CLAIMED`, not proven-secure, until it withstands learned de-obfuscation.
+- **Governance gap.** No claim on 802.11bf-2025 privacy provisions survived
+  verification; that pillar remains an open question, not an asserted fact.
+
+The derived, prioritized improvement backlog lives in the SOTA-update file (§4).
+
+## 3. What this explicitly is NOT
+
+- **Not a radio driver.** No RF frontend, no transmit path, no
+  `wifi-densepose-hardware` coupling. VEIL cannot emit and cannot jam.
+- **Not a defense against the associated AP.** That party holds the session key by
+  construction (threat class A3); protecting against a malicious AP is BFLD's
+  detection/privacy-class problem (ADR-118/141), not this shield's.
+- **Not a full motion-obfuscation claim.** A fixed per-session rotation does not
+  hide coarse within-session motion; identity *re-ID* is the guaranteed target,
+  motion is partial/future work.
+- **Not a real-hardware performance claim.** All defense numbers are SYNTHETIC/L0
+  until a two-node capture with a boot/runtime-log witness exists (CLAUDE.md
+  hardware rule; roadmap P5).
+- **Not RF denial or camera-grade anything.**
+
+## 4. Simplifications (honesty boundary)
+
+- The two-subspace split is an abstraction; on real radios comm and identity
+  information are only *approximately* separable, so the real throughput cost of
+  fully hiding identity may exceed the model's ~2%. DySPAN-2026's MEASURED curve
+  bounds it as *small* at fine resolution, not zero.
+- The attacker is nearest-centroid. The collapse argument is classifier-independent
+  (it is about the marginalized signal), but P2/P5 must confirm a learned attacker
+  also collapses.
+- The crate's PRNG is SplitMix64 — deterministic and WASM-safe but **not
+  cryptographic**; a deployment derives the rotation key from the negotiated link
+  secret, never from this PRNG.
+
+## 5. Consequences
+
+- RuView gains the *countermeasure* half of its RF-privacy story: BFLD detects
+  leakage, VEIL acts on it — a defensible, standards-anchored, gap-filling
+  position (see `docs/research/privacy-shield/06-market-and-buyers.md`).
+- The compliance audit gives regulators/auditors a machine-checkable "not jamming"
+  artifact that composes with ADR-141 attestation.
+- Future integration (BFLD `identity_risk` → `SensingDetector`, ADR-280 governed
+  actuation, firmware feedback shaping, two-node hardware measurement) is staged in
+  the research bundle roadmap and deliberately deferred so the model validates in
+  isolation first.
+
+## 6. Validation
+
+```bash
+cargo test -p wifi-densepose-privshield --no-default-features
+cargo build -p wifi-densepose-privshield --target wasm32-unknown-unknown
+cargo clippy -p wifi-densepose-privshield --all-targets
+```

docs/adr/ADR-289-wifi-densepose-privshield-harness-via-metaharness.md

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+# ADR-289: `wifi-densepose-privshield-harness` — a MetaHarness for the VEIL privacy shield
+
+| Field | Value |
+|-------|-------|
+| **Status** | Proposed — implemented (P1) |
+| **Date** | 2026-08-09 |
+| **Parent** | ADR-288 (`wifi-densepose-privshield` / VEIL, the crate this harness assists development on) |
+| **Relates to** | ADR-286 (`wifi-densepose-sar-harness`, the per-crate harness scaffold this one mirrors), ADR-285 (`harness/homecore/`, the WASM-first `@metaharness/kernel` pattern), ADR-182 (`harness/ruview/`, the first minted harness), ADR-282 (L0–L5 evidence ladder) |
+| **Location** | `harness/wifi-densepose-privshield/` |
+
+## 0. PROOF discipline
+
+Every claim below about what is "real" versus "illustrative"/"SYNTHETIC" is
+checked by a test in this harness's own suite (router + flywheel + install-smoke
++ guidance). The dependency-free `guidance` surface is covered by
+`__tests__/guidance.test.ts`, which runs even before `npm install`. Nothing here
+asserts a MEASURED defense result — the harness surfaces the VEIL crate's
+SYNTHETIC/L0 numbers with that label intact.
+
+## 1. Context
+
+`wifi-densepose-privshield` (ADR-288) is the VEIL privacy shield — a new,
+narrowly-scoped crate. Following the pattern ADR-286 set for
+`wifi-densepose-sar`, it gets a dedicated per-crate MetaHarness rather than a
+bespoke setup: the `vertical:coding` scaffold (architect/implementer/reviewer/
+test-writer, `doctor`) with `@metaharness/router`, `@metaharness/flywheel`, and
+Darwin Mode wired in, plus a VEIL-specific, dependency-free `guidance` surface.
+
+## 2. Decision
+
+Land the harness at `harness/wifi-densepose-privshield/`, mirroring
+`wifi-densepose-sar-harness`, with two deliberate improvements:
+
+1. **Dynamic dependency imports.** `bin/cli.js` imports the `@metaharness/*`
+   packages *inside* the commands that need them, not at module top. So
+   `guidance`, `--help`, and the guidance test run with **zero dependencies
+   installed** — useful for offline/air-gapped review and for this repo's CI
+   before `npm install`. Only `init`/`doctor`/`route`/`flywheel` touch the
+   kernel/host/router/flywheel packages.
+2. **A VEIL `guidance` command.** A self-contained, source-cited, read-only
+   capability map (topics: `overview`, `threat`, `countermeasure`,
+   `compliance`, `optimization`, `experiment`), each entry carrying a summary,
+   repo-relative source citations, focused validation commands, and explicit
+   limitations — the `ruview_guidance` shape, specialized to VEIL. It labels all
+   defense evidence `SYNTHETIC/L0` and states plainly that guidance is
+   navigation, not authority.
+
+The standard three self-improvement/cost pieces are wired as real npm
+dependencies (not stubs):
+
+- **`@metaharness/darwin`** (devDependency) — `npm run evolve` / `evolve:dry`
+  mutates the harness's own operating config, keeping only measurable gains.
+- **`@metaharness/router`** — `src/router.ts` wires a real cost-optimal `Router`
+  (`qualityBar: 0.8`, k=1) over two model tiers, with four VEIL-shaped task axes
+  (threatModeling / complianceReview / optimizerTuning / docWriting). Labelled
+  examples are illustrative seed data (honesty note in-file).
+- **`@metaharness/flywheel`** — `src/flywheel.ts` wires the real
+  `runFlywheelGenerations` promotion loop (propose → evaluate → gate → promote,
+  Ed25519-signed, independently replayable) with a SYNTHETIC proposer/evaluator
+  (`dataSource: 'SYNTHETIC'`, no model call), over VEIL policy levers
+  (`complianceReview`, `threatTriage`).
+
+## 3. What this explicitly is NOT
+
+- **Not a VEIL runtime.** The harness does not run a radio, emit RF, or jam. It
+  assists *development* on the crate; it cannot execute the shield on hardware.
+- **Not evolving the crate.** Darwin/Flywheel mutate the harness's own policy
+  (agent prompts, review-checklist depth), not VEIL's Rust code. The crate's
+  actual hyper-optimization (ADR-288 §opt) was done directly, in the crate.
+- **Not a live routing/promotion system.** The router's examples are seed data;
+  the flywheel's proposer/evaluator are deterministic stand-ins — both honestly
+  labelled in-source and in `CLAUDE.md`.
+- **Not a replacement for the crate's gates.** The authoritative check for a
+  VEIL change remains `cargo test -p wifi-densepose-privshield`.
+- **Not a re-labeller.** The harness must never present VEIL's SYNTHETIC results
+  as MEASURED, and never scaffold interference-based ("jamming") defenses — both
+  are hard rules in the harness `CLAUDE.md`.
+
+## 4. Consequences
+
+- The harness ships `guidance`/`doctor`/`init`/`route`/`flywheel`; `guidance`
+  and `--help` work offline (validated here via `node bin/cli.js`), the rest
+  after `npm install` + `npm run build` (CI).
+- `.harness/manifest.json` + `manifest.sha256` are generated with real per-file
+  hashes at creation (unlike ADR-286's scaffold, whose manifest was historical).
+- Scoped to its own name: its plugin, permissions, and (future) MCP surface only
+  read/assist on `wifi-densepose-privshield`. No risk to other harnesses/crates.
+
+## 5. Validation
+
+```bash
+cd harness/wifi-densepose-privshield
+node bin/cli.js guidance --topic overview   # dependency-free
+npm ci && npm run build && npm test          # full suite (CI; needs registry access)
+```