DoubleTrack Browser is experimental privacy software with specific security considerations:

In Scope:

• Privacy data leakage (real browsing data mixed with simulated)
• Storage injection attacks (malicious data in chrome.storage)
• WASM sandbox escapes
• Content script injection vulnerabilities
• Extension permission abuse
• Timing side-channels revealing real vs. simulated activity

Out of Scope:

• Physical access attacks
• Browser zero-days (rely on browser vendor patches)
• Social engineering of users
• Cryptographic attacks (we don't use cryptography)

1. Data Separation: Real and simulated browsing must NEVER mix
2. Local-Only: No network calls, all data stays on device
3. Minimal Permissions: Only request necessary browser APIs
4. Type Safety: Rust + TypeScript strict mode prevent classes of bugs
5. Memory Safety: Rust ownership model prevents memory corruption
6. Reversibility: User can disable and clear all data instantly

If you discover a vulnerability that could:

• Leak real user browsing data
• Enable remote code execution
• Bypass browser sandboxing
• Compromise user privacy

Please report IMMEDIATELY via:

Email: security@example.com (PGP key below) Response Time: Within 48 hours Coordinated Disclosure: 90 days

For lower-severity issues:

• Open a private GitHub Security Advisory
• Or email: security@example.com

Please provide:

1. Description: What is the vulnerability?
2. Impact: What can an attacker do?
3. Reproduction: Step-by-step PoC
4. Environment: Browser, OS, extension version
5. Suggested Fix (optional): How to remediate

## Vulnerability Report

**Title**: [Brief description]

**Severity**: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]

**Description**:
[Detailed explanation of the vulnerability]

**Impact**:
- Privacy: [Yes/No - describe]
- Availability: [Yes/No - describe]
- Integrity: [Yes/No - describe]

**Reproduction Steps**:
1. Install extension version X
2. Enable simulation with profile Y
3. Open developer console
4. Execute: [code/actions]
5. Observe: [vulnerability manifestation]

**Environment**:
- Extension Version: 0.1.0
- Browser: Chrome 120.0.6099.109
- OS: Ubuntu 22.04 LTS

**Suggested Fix** (optional):
[Your recommendation]

**Disclosure Preference**:
- Public credit: [Yes/No]
- Name/handle: [If yes to credit]

1. T+0 hours: Report received, acknowledge within 48 hours
2. T+7 days: Initial assessment and severity classification
3. T+14 days: Patch development begins (or explanation if won't fix)
4. T+30 days: Patch testing and validation
5. T+60 days: Coordinated release (or earlier if urgent)
6. T+90 days: Public disclosure (or earlier if exploited in wild)

Depending on severity:

• Critical/High: Emergency release + blog post + CVE
• Medium: Regular release + changelog entry
• Low: Bundled in next release

We run:

• Cargo audit for Rust dependency vulnerabilities
• npm audit for JavaScript dependency vulnerabilities
• TypeScript strict mode for type safety
• Rust borrow checker for memory safety
• ESLint security rules for common JS vulnerabilities

We encourage:

• Code review of all changes
• WASM sandbox boundary audits
• Storage injection testing
• Permission escalation attempts

Planned:

• cargo-fuzz for Rust core
• WASM boundary fuzzing
• Storage API fuzzing

1. WASM Integration Incomplete: Mock implementations in use

   • Risk: Type mismatches could cause runtime errors
   • Mitigation: TypeScript strict mode, extensive testing
   • Timeline: Full integration by v0.2.0

2. No Rate Limiting: Simulated activities could be excessive

   • Risk: Resource exhaustion, browser slowdown
   • Mitigation: User-configurable noise levels, activity caps
   • Timeline: Rate limiting in v0.3.0

3. Experimental Software: Not security-audited by third party

   • Risk: Unknown vulnerabilities may exist
   • Mitigation: Open source for community review
   • Timeline: Professional audit planned for v1.0.0

Why no encryption?

• All data is local-only
• Browser already provides storage encryption
• Adding crypto increases attack surface
• KISS principle

Why TypeScript instead of Rust for extension?

• Browser APIs are JavaScript-native
• WASM has limitations with async Chrome APIs
• TypeScript provides sufficient type safety
• Performance not critical for UI

Why allow activity simulation at all?

• Core feature of the extension
• User explicitly enables it
• Activities are sandboxed (no actual tab opening by default)
• Reversible (can clear all data)

• Storage Isolation: chrome.storage.local (per-extension isolation)
• No External Calls: Zero network requests, fully offline
• Type Safety: Rust + TypeScript prevent injection
• Memory Safety: Rust ownership prevents corruption

• Content Security Policy: Restrictive CSP in manifest
• Sandboxed WASM: No direct system access
• Permission Minimization: Only required APIs
• User Consent: Explicit enable required

• Open Source: All code public on GitHub
• Reproducible Builds: Deterministic compilation (planned)
• Signed Releases: GPG signatures (planned)
• Build Provenance: SLSA attestation (planned)

• Privacy Policy (TODO)
• User Security Guide (TODO)
• FAQ

• Secure Coding Guidelines
• Threat Model (TODO)
• Security Architecture (TODO)

• OWASP Browser Extension Security
• Chrome Extension Security Best Practices
• WebAssembly Security

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: DoubleTrack Browser Security Team
Comment: security@example.com

[TODO: Add actual PGP public key]

-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

We gratefully acknowledge security researchers who responsibly disclose vulnerabilities:

Note: We currently do not offer monetary bounties but will provide:

• Public credit (if desired)
• Acknowledgment in release notes
• Co-authorship credit for significant findings
• Eternal gratitude and good karma

• Security Email: security@example.com
• GPG Fingerprint: [TODO]
• Security Advisory: https://github.com/yourusername/double-track-browser/security/advisories
• Response SLA: 48 hours

Last Updated: 2025-11-22 Version: 1.0 Next Review: 2026-05-22 (6 months)