Transferable and Local Evidence in Agent Reputation: Why a Missing Proof Must Not Travel

An agent that detects a compromised counterpart knows something other agents would benefit from knowing. Sharing it is reputation, and reputation systems are historically attackable because they aggregate assertions, which an adversary can author. A natural fix is to aggregate only facts an agent verified itself, by a check any other agent could reproduce. Continuity verifications, from the companion paper, are such facts. We argue that fix is not sufficient. When a counterpart presents a wrong proof, the observer holds a failing value any agent can recheck: a commission fault, with self-contained evidence. When a counterpart presents no proof, the observer has only its own view: an omission fault, for which Haeberlen and Kuznetsov proved no self-contained proof exists. The companion work measured legitimate counterparts producing exactly this signal in 60.7% of sessions under ordinary message reordering. A naive rule that propagates both network-wide turns the disqualification rule into a denial-of-service weapon. We measure the cost precisely: under the naive rule, one adversarial participant disqualifies an honest counterpart in 100.0% of trials, and ordinary 5% delivery loss disqualifies a legitimate counterpart with 20 correspondents in 63.0% of trials, with no adversary present. Under the revised rule, which propagates commission-class events and confines omission-class events to the observing agent, both failures fall to zero, structurally rather than statistically. We report the price of the correction in the same breath: an attacker who takes over an address and never emits a token is undetectable network-wide, measured at 0.0% versus 100.0% under the naive rule. We also measure what accumulation actually buys once a proof does propagate, between 58% and 90% advance protection for seed-holding peers, depending on contact frequency, in a stochastic network simulation, and state plainly what that simulation does not establish: that independently-operated agents would run the protocol faithfully. Related work by the author: Agent-Identity Continuity: Detecting Counterpart Takeover After Authentication Succeeds (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22119416), which supplies the events aggregated here. And Context References Over Payloads: Authority Scoped to the Predicate, Not the Principal (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21860668).

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-08-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22133570
Primary Topic
Access Control and Trust
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Transferable and Local Evidence in Agent Reputation: Why a Missing Proof Must Not Travel

Yao Elom Emmanuel Tsakpo
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Access Control and Trust
preprint

Transferable and Local Evidence in Agent Reputation: Why a Missing Proof Must Not Travel

Yao Elom Emmanuel Tsakpo
preprint en

Abstract

An agent that detects a compromised counterpart knows something other agents would benefit from knowing. Sharing it is reputation, and reputation systems are historically attackable because they aggregate assertions, which an adversary can author. A natural fix is to aggregate only facts an agent verified itself, by a check any other agent could reproduce. Continuity verifications, from the companion paper, are such facts. We argue that fix is not sufficient. When a counterpart presents a wrong proof, the observer holds a failing value any agent can recheck: a commission fault, with self-contained evidence. When a counterpart presents no proof, the observer has only its own view: an omission fault, for which Haeberlen and Kuznetsov proved no self-contained proof exists. The companion work measured legitimate counterparts producing exactly this signal in 60.7% of sessions under ordinary message reordering. A naive rule that propagates both network-wide turns the disqualification rule into a denial-of-service weapon. We measure the cost precisely: under the naive rule, one adversarial participant disqualifies an honest counterpart in 100.0% of trials, and ordinary 5% delivery loss disqualifies a legitimate counterpart with 20 correspondents in 63.0% of trials, with no adversary present. Under the revised rule, which propagates commission-class events and confines omission-class events to the observing agent, both failures fall to zero, structurally rather than statistically. We report the price of the correction in the same breath: an attacker who takes over an address and never emits a token is undetectable network-wide, measured at 0.0% versus 100.0% under the naive rule. We also measure what accumulation actually buys once a proof does propagate, between 58% and 90% advance protection for seed-holding peers, depending on contact frequency, in a stochastic network simulation, and state plainly what that simulation does not establish: that independently-operated agents would run the protocol faithfully. Related work by the author: Agent-Identity Continuity: Detecting Counterpart Takeover After Authentication Succeeds (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.22119416), which supplies the events aggregated here. And Context References Over Payloads: Authority Scoped to the Predicate, Not the Principal (DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21860668).

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Access Control and Trust
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.