←back to thread

40 points ciphernomad-org | 4 comments | | HN request time: 1.04s | source

Hello HN, we're CipherNomad, the research initiative behind this project.

The Ariadne Protocol is our exploration of a different cryptographic model. The work began with an observation of primitives like the Lion transform, which use a static, hardcoded sequence of operations. This led us to ask: What if the cryptographic "program" wasn't a constant, but a dynamic, history-dependent variable?

Our first step was a "Cryptographic Virtual Machine" that took an explicit list of operations (a "Path"). This worked, but required sharing the Path object—an explicit dependency that needed to be managed.

The Ariadne Protocol is the maturation of that idea. It eliminates the explicit Path by making it implicit and emergent.

The core design is:

The Labyrinth: A large, deterministically-generated binary tree of cryptographic rounds.

The Thread: The secret path taken through the Labyrinth. This path is not stored or transmitted. It's rediscovered for each block of data by computing a keyed hash of the CVM's secret state and the public ciphertext chunk: hash(key, state, chunk).

This makes the cipher aperiodic: because the state ratchets forward after every block, the sequence of operations is guaranteed to never repeat. It also creates inherent tamper evidence—any modification to the ciphertext "snaps the thread" and turns subsequent output into noise.

This is experimental, unaudited alpha software. We are publishing it under CC0 because we believe foundational work like this should be an unrestricted public good.

1. kennethallen ◴[] No.44353274[source]
I have a few questions after reading the README.

First, if it uses PRNG with a fixed-size state, it isn't accurate to say it never repeats, correct? It will be periodic eventually, even if that takes 2^256 operations or more.

Second, can you go more into the potential practical or theoretical advantages? Your scheme is certainly more complicated, but I don't see how it offers better tamper protection or secrecy than a block cipher operating in an authenticated mode (AES+GCM, for instance). Those have a number of practical advantages, like parallel encryption/decryption and ubiquitous hardware support.

replies(1): >>44353309 #
2. ciphernomad-org ◴[] No.44353309[source]
You are correct. The probability of a state collision is cryptographically negligible, on the order of breaking a 256-bit hash function.

You're also right that AES-GCM is faster and has hardware support. Ariadne explores a different trade-off. Its primary advantage is its architectural agility.

Instead of a fixed algorithm, the sequence of operations in Ariadne is dynamic and secret, derived from the key and data history. An attacker doesn't just need to break a key; they have to contend with an unknown, ephemeral algorithm.

This same flexible structure allows the core CVM to be reconfigured into other primitives. We've built concepts for programmable proofs-of-work, verifiable delay functions, and even ring signatures.

replies(1): >>44353341 #
3. jeroenhd ◴[] No.44353341[source]
FYI your comments seem to be showing up as dead (dead comments don't show up by default, only when people logged into HN have them enabled), I think something may have triggered a shadowban on your account. Might want to send a message to the moderators.

I hit 'vouch' for the comment I'm responding to so it should be visible, but the other response you gave (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44353277) is still listed as dead.

replies(1): >>44356545 #
4. johnisgood ◴[] No.44356545{3}[source]
It does not show up as dead for me, but your comment was made 7 hours ago.