Formal Verification (Security Models)
This page tracks Moltbot’s formal security models (TLA+/TLC today; more as needed). Goal (north star): provide a machine-checked argument that Moltbot enforces its intended security policy (authorization, session isolation, tool gating, and misconfiguration safety), under explicit assumptions. What this is (today): an executable, attacker-driven security regression suite:- Each claim has a runnable model-check over a finite state space.
- Many claims have a paired negative model that produces a counterexample trace for a realistic bug class.
Where the models live
Models are maintained in a separate repo: vignesh07/moltbot-formal-models.Important caveats
- These are models, not the full TypeScript implementation. Drift between model and code is possible.
- Results are bounded by the state space explored by TLC; “green” does not imply security beyond the modeled assumptions and bounds.
- Some claims rely on explicit environmental assumptions (e.g., correct deployment, correct configuration inputs).
Reproducing results
Today, results are reproduced by cloning the models repo locally and running TLC (see below). A future iteration could offer:- CI-run models with public artifacts (counterexample traces, run logs)
- a hosted “run this model” workflow for small, bounded checks
Gateway exposure and open gateway misconfiguration
Claim: binding beyond loopback without auth can make remote compromise possible / increases exposure; token/password blocks unauth attackers (per the model assumptions).- Green runs:
make gateway-exposure-v2make gateway-exposure-v2-protected
- Red (expected):
make gateway-exposure-v2-negative
docs/gateway-exposure-matrix.md in the models repo.
Nodes.run pipeline (highest-risk capability)
Claim:nodes.run requires (a) node command allowlist plus declared commands and (b) live approval when configured; approvals are tokenized to prevent replay (in the model).
- Green runs:
make nodes-pipelinemake approvals-token
- Red (expected):
make nodes-pipeline-negativemake approvals-token-negative
Pairing store (DM gating)
Claim: pairing requests respect TTL and pending-request caps.- Green runs:
make pairingmake pairing-cap
- Red (expected):
make pairing-negativemake pairing-cap-negative
Ingress gating (mentions + control-command bypass)
Claim: in group contexts requiring mention, an unauthorized “control command” cannot bypass mention gating.- Green:
make ingress-gating
- Red (expected):
make ingress-gating-negative
Routing/session-key isolation
Claim: DMs from distinct peers do not collapse into the same session unless explicitly linked/configured.- Green:
make routing-isolation
- Red (expected):
make routing-isolation-negative
Roadmap
Next models to deepen fidelity:- Pairing store concurrency/locking/idempotency
- Provider-specific ingress preflight modeling
- Routing identity-links + dmScope variants + binding precedence
- Gateway auth conformance (proxy/tailscale specifics)