Society · Protocols
ThreeLevelCollision
Stub, hash, and homograph collisions are different threats
Definition
Mechanism
Distinguishes three collision classes and assigns specific defenses: (1) Stub Collision (Namespace exhaustion) -> Defended by full-hash verification. (2) Hash Collision (Cryptographic failure) -> Defended by SHA-256 entropy. (3) Homograph Collision (Semantic spoofing) -> Defended by Social Uptake and Reputation. A collision that cannot be resolved at its own level applies FailClosed.
Preconditions
- Sema Hashing Algorithm (SHA-256) is secure
Postconditions
- Appropriate verification logic applied
- Threat level identified
Invariants
- L1 Defense: Stub match is NOT verification. Full hash check is mandatory.
- L3 Defense: Equivalence is decided by Content, not Handle. A 'spoofed' pattern is simply a different pattern with zero reputation.
Risks
Failure modes
Stub Confusion
Relying on 4-char stub (#a1b2) for security instead of convenience.
Homograph Attack
Malicious actor mints a pattern with a trusted Handle but malicious Definition (social engineering).
Pre-image Attack
Theoretical break of SHA-256 (renders Level 2 defense void).
Relationships
Builds on
References
Infrastructure
Sameness decided by canonical content rather than by label
Infrastructure
Default-deny policy for uncertain states
Nothing in this library builds on this pattern yet.