They hardly fit in with everyone else and things like that. This is where the ironic statement, “ You belong to know one, but you stand for all”, comes to life. Here we are, supposedly blazing the trail or ‘trail-blazing’ ahead of everyone else. We toil all-night to bring meaning to your humanity by breaking down complexities.

We are not always noticed and that is very sad. If you are some how noticed it might have a lot to do with how familiar your face presents to the audience. In my case Lets back it up a bit! I feel that my work is not noticed and I am not going to sit here and tell you that I don’t know why. These are the reasons:

1. I am a tech founder who does not bother with insatiability

2. I am a minority founder with an independent flair or originality.

3. I am of the conviction that following the crowd is not ingenious.

4. I am not of the clout to know a lot of rich and powerful people.

   In my native tongue there is a saying; “the tree that must survive must grow or live in the jungle”. This means fast growth, and away from its kind: That is, removing infighting in the most literal sense of it. More so, one tree cannot make a forest either.-In time success will emerge.

When you are building a very difficult technology piece, as a minority or a person of color it gets really difficult because of many factors which does not preclude funding. You establish a worldview that constantly researches the problem statements because you don’t want to get it all wrong. In this case, you have to go outside the problem’s environment to see the conclusive solutions: Looking in from outside gives you the edge.

We cannot say that you will find all the solutions but we do know that your survival will rely heavily on remaining ever closer to your goal and staying far away from distractions of your comfort zone. Thus, self imposed exile from the crowd is necessary. - You must live in the jungle or grow in it. The bottom line is that, we need the support from everyone.

What I find very disappointing is the fact that, the investors sometimes subscribe to the herder’s mentality. One can almost assume that with a humble sheep-like attitude they will be led away by one or two people to go invest where all their friends invested in. They will always say that it is for the fear of the unknown. While this could be a positive business move. In the hindsight, it could equally add up to the lack of appetite for new things. They forget that without dynamism changes will hardly come. There is no inclusion, equity or diversity here.

In a desired world everyone we met or will meet could have appeared in our imagination as familiar. The truth is that they are not, and we can only relate and invest in the people we like. How is it working our for the unfamiliar face or faces? My answer will be, “It is badly enough on the investment part”. A familiar face is not usually the innovative one.

“There should be a rubric to measure this disparity. This is very unfair to those working really hard.” I am sure there is one, but a reminder won’t hurt just in case.

The fact that minority tech startups find it hard to scale because of the ills of the society is appalling, very shameful, and a poor reflection of the civilized world. -This does not respect the principles of economy of scale which makes for specialization. Pardon me, for I am not here to teach you economics. This seems to be the most fitting analogy I could find.

The notion of profiteering has no clue of the parties (personality and psyche), except for the profits there to be made. -The profiteers understand, and they know the principle behind the aforementioned line very well. The truth is this, while investors decide where to invest or not to invest: This decision is completely business driven if the intent is to optimize profit regardless of the faces.

“I would be in a state of confusion to even agree that the desired (fairness) had been the case most of the time. “ I am also not naive to expect this to change because I wrote a few lines.

Tech founders must maintain their eccentric nature to remain creative: The demand for them to become socialites is not fair. Granted they are doing the best they can to fit in. They cannot be social butterflies at the same time they are trying to give you, a new way of hearing, listening and seeing the material world.

If you are an investor please give minorities a chance. Why? They have been watching as spectators for a very long time and they know a lot about the parties playing the current game. They are not just spectators they have seen the problems (weaknesses) more than once. They have honed their skills with practice and now they are specialized. -Resilience indeed is their last names. Give them a chance to usher a new approach in privacy preservation and information security. We have a voice and a perspective that is not heard as yet. We urge you to do something different with your investment portfolio now.

We humbly ask you to collect this minted publication ( https://mirror.xyz/0xA24877164C2F5f0d4b9E921F98cE09F8B21B53a4/i9BsdU83qsKFD-ODQ1aU6jf9_VLrLSCL6NQZyyGPTc8 ) as a way of supporting a deep tech company.

Don’t forget to share it far and wide.

Almost all the wallets out there require public and private keys. More so, the mnemonic phrases or 12 seed phrases are prevalent for password recovery. This is prone to spear phishing cyber attacks; it is hard to maintain, expensive and it’s a big hassle for the users. A decentralized security model could plug this hole and solve most of the cyber or web3 security problems. Currently, the protocols use a key based system like public/private key pair called public key infrastructure(PKI).

We would like to create a wire frame that could properly and effectively show the current state of the protocols and authentication mechanisms. To this end, we publish this article to improve on them.

2. The data flow diagram for wallet use case

We are quite familiar with the flow for a sufficiently decentralized social network. - ‘Far.caster’, which is a WEB 3.0 solution on beta testing. Fig 2.0 presents possible wallet interaction architecture. The idea behind the diagram is to show what is obtainable today. However, WEB 3.0 relies on wallet for a lot of its networking and financial services. Identification could be carried along this way to quickly prove identity profiles.

Distributed node architecture

• Managed hosting

• Self-hosting

3. Use AWS AMI/Docker image to build the wallet key less security

Server or Node setup

• AWS AMI quick start guide

https://lokdon.com/ami-quickstart-guide/

• Docker images

https://lokdon.com/lokdon-docker-image/

• APIs from ECSMID V 1.0.0 SDK

https://rapidapi.com/search/lokdon

4. Secure the wallet with LokDon ECSMID V 1.0.0

In this article we will present a new direction in securing the wallet using proprietary protocols and advanced authentication in the framework of security of information by encrypted verification, validation, and evaluation. - CyberLocks are identity components for securing information by encrypted, verification, validation, and evaluation. They are powered by ECSMID V 1.0.0 (SDK, JWUT and APIs ) and can support many clients just like any large application SDK. Instead of using the private keys, we established legitimate and secure communication objects to conveniently enable exchange between two entities. If a protocol is good enough to establish the handshake without exposing any private key, then this is a solution worth exploring. The key is encrypted and decrypted on-demand.

Sender (S): One initiating transaction e.g text message, smart contract, and balance.

Verifier: One who verifies the network or communication exchange object sent forth to them.

Provenance: Attributes of verifiable credentials arranged for communication exchange object.

Proof: Is the message and provenance as a function or proof object in the overall process.

Intermediate representation (IR): The encrypted version of the message and the provenance.

Prove: The process of proving the proof as an intermediate representation.

Zero knowledge proof ( ZKP): This is a process where verifier shows insight (in our case identification) without really given out more than necessary information to prove that they know a value without know the function form which the value is derived. Let say a function f(x) =x2 – 64 is the proof, we expect the verifier to submit x=8 without the knowledge of f(x).

Identification: In this process the verifier can not be given access without disclosing who they are without divulging more than the relevant information. This a complementary part of the Zero-knowledge prove and identification ( ZKPI).

Receiver (R ): One responds to transaction e.g text message, smart contract and balance.

We created this protocol with a different flow diagram to show an alternative approach that relies less on keys moving from point A (Sender) to point B (Receiver). This will capture the encryption, attributes from verifiable credentials to build profiles called universal wallet address (UWA): UWA qualified as data nucleus aggregator (DNA). These profiles could be held locally or externally as digital data nucleic authority (DDNA). This arrangement will allow an individual to carry their social profile, and their digital identity from one place to another.

The crux of the matter is that none could obtain authorization to access any data without authentication via zero-knowledge proof of identification (ZKPI). Ultimately this flow is basically for access to be granted. Senders/receivers will have the capability to encrypt all data autonomously using quantum resistant cryptography. The protocol is inclusive and changes human readable information to intermediate representation sufficient to stand as provenance which must be proven by a verifier following a zero-knowledge proof of identification.

DDNA will serve the purpose of a simple smart contract registry (SCR) - [4]. The difference here is that it does contain many DNAs (DNA is an instrument derived from username, address and PIN following SIEVVE)  of more than one entity. Simply put, DDNA holds disparate DNAs. Some examples include biometric, PIN, location, driver license number etc., from different entities covering factors like what you are, what you have, what you know and where you are known as the details of advanced authentication. Once a user gives you one of these attributes used to create the DNA: It is easier to figure out the communications exchange object for that user.

You can easily go to DDNA or validation list below to find out the communication exchange object needed to communicate with an entity. You will have to query with the proper attribute on the DDNA explorer interface.  If successful you should obtain the communication exchange object if they have one.

Preambles:

There will be an update introducing an inclusive mechanism which mimics the silent password of 8 chars used in LokDonX. – Originally, we got the 8 chars from 4-digit PIN mechanism.

*We can add the 4 characters from the public UWA as an update to what we already have. They could be chosen randomly as a set or as 4 singletons to be infused in all communications to secure the message for sender and any recipient. – Same thing we have done with MPIN in LokDonX.

*There is also a set of 11 character derived as a subset from the UWA stripped M3UWA. We must make sure upon decrypting M3UWA to M2UWA that the position of characters matches what the local device has in M2UWA.

Once UWA is successfully created. The encryption of the collected attributes will follow:

Using Universal wallet address (UWA) to solve PKI insecurity problems

Configure Wallet Address-:

PLAIN UWA: LCN77**7838%993%^849938jd*()))abu,!\]}jhjdfkg

Mode 1. LCNÔăĤ³6¤=oÍðRĥÃ2úWĽÜ±AįĮ±Âªh(âĞĎĀ$Ď<V*ĚħAïþĶĆÝ   unused

Mode 2. LCN}ŀĐĦxĸ/¥@īòĞv¶ĒVSĎīĢ4ðĩ'@ğď¤BĒĈ´ļĜ´#+PėöĬĂm7Ë;

Mode 3. LCNüÚ'Ď!ݧÍïėĄĈ¿ĸYzĬÃ.mÝþĩÀ3øñÝñÿOëÕ{ąSr"> ī÷²HàÏ6j  public

We will go over the three (3) major scenarios in which you can apply this solution.

SCENARIO 1

The first principles flow establishes the use of origin identification technology or secure true digital identification (physical and virtual) with respect to advanced authentication. However, scenario one assumes that UWA is created already. You can read our whitepaper for more details on UWA – [2].

When sender A send the message to the receiver B: The steps are as follows

Step 1. A encrypts message with public UWA locally

a.    Encrypts the message with infusion or randomly established 4 characters: A part of Receiver’ M3UWA. This one is a part of the modulo addition (OR) or modulo exclusive or type (XOR).

b.    The message is thereafter concatenated with 11 characters more from the M3UWA. This case is to establish proof with zero knowledge and trigger authentication.

Step 2. Message from A is sent over the internet to B following security of information by encrypted verification, validation, and evaluation (SIEVVE) mechanism. Which is comprised of many protocols.

Step 3. B the receiver upon receiving the information is challenged to zero-knowledge proof. In other words, s/he identifies self by presenting a value without revealing any underlying information.

Step 4. B clears the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is granted to read the message. The system is sound.

Step 5. B fails the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is denied the system is correct.

Step 6. The receiver (B) could read the message from A (sender or sending wallet address) as the case may be.

a.    Transactional

i.              Text messages

ii.             Balances

iii.            Contracts

Step 7. A will also go through the zero-knowledge proof once B sends a response to them. With a completed cycle we know both the sender (A) and the receiver (B)

How can we apply this to already made ecosystem like cryptocurrency and Web 3.0 wallets?

Configure wallet address-:

PLAIN BTC WA: 1Awyd1QWR5gcfrn1UmL8dUBj2H1eVKtQhg [given to the public]

Mode 1. Ĩd%J©Ģ_ĸÌĮĴ#ġúęJn{(ĒgĽóNĝ4NöĄ²'y»ĖfH   unused

Mode 2. ĘĐÙ©Ñ+\"4Ò÷ĺĠěÂ4|ÏÇÙ$Lxö%RĂK]VWEĵĩ6£,Øõ

Mode 3. T[íqGĄ0BrIĩ =ijēxKÌûĢĵ.ÇîFĤ×+$ĭč¸èÝĆîÌþĝ§   public

Scenario 2

We know that new users are having problems of securing keys. This does not preclude 12 seed phrases to protect the wallet. The newbies are very prone to phishing attacks. This is costing the companies millions of dollars.

1. Use sender/receiver M3BTCWA random 4 characters to encrypt (modulo addition, like silent password):

   a. The private key of the wallet

   b. Seed phrases

   Since there is not key to move around here. Relying on the design of the ecosystem this will be an added layer of security which creates a useless string or gibberish following phishing attacks

   Map and mask sender/receiver M3BTCPK (assuming private key is already created and in use)

   i. Configure the private key

   PLAIN BTC PRIVATE Key: DA46B559F21B3E955BB1925C964AC5C3B3D72FE1BF37476A104B0E7396027B6

   Mode 1. ěýxæå¸ÜLÇeýī%ùþurÅĄ5Ä÷{êĴ³Ĉhzx (ïtåëÛV1ĥİÐĕvĥB\āpb¤ÈĄħĴZļ½lěČ/èkñĂ unused

   Mode 2. §2ĥĎb~Ġĸê!¶öÿÁ:×ĵ@oæċĩ²IJ½Ħ<ļ®¨ėeÔôĀý}ýèùÆÓ¸ı´ľPsW+(|äZēpăJüěRĖÃéĦ×

   Mode 3. sĬĝ6CÁĬĊ9Ħª=WĀĪH+Lx:Ė=æĩæsMô)´,Įçĝ»ªQìĽKl!îOĵsÉñĝOOHÚ´B&CĨcĮiÈDďεĜê public

   Go to the first principles flow.

   Step 1. A encrypts message with a part of the public UWA locally

   a. Encrypts the message with infusion or randomly established 4 characters: A part of Receiver’ M3BTCWA. This one is a part of the modulo addition (OR) or modulo exclusive or type (XOR).

   b. The message is thereafter concatenated with 11 characters more from the M3BTCWA. This case is to establish proof with zero knowledge and trigger authentication.

   Step 2. Message from A is sent over the internet to B following security of information by encrypted verification, validation, and evaluation (SIEVVE) mechanism. Which is comprised of many protocols.

   Step 3. B the receiver upon receiving the information is challenged to zero-knowledge proof. In other words, s/he identifies self by presenting a value without revealing any underlying information.

   Step 4. B clears the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is granted to read the message. The system is sound.

   Step 5. B fails the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is denied the system is correct.

   Step 6. The receiver (B) could read the message from A (sender or sending wallet address) as the case may be.

   a. Transactional

   i. Text messages

   ii. Balances

   iii. Contracts

   Step 7. A will also go through the zero-knowledge proof once B sends a response to them. With a completed cycle we know both the sender (A) and the receiver (B)

How can we extend this to Password Recovery (Reference is to the seed phrased)?

Configure Wallet Address-:

PLAIN BTC WA: 1Awyd1QWR5gcfrn1UmL8dUBj2H1eVKtQhg [given to the public]

Mode 1. Ĩd%J©Ģ_ĸÌĮĴ#ġúęJn{(ĒgĽóNĝ4NöĄ²'y»ĖfH   unused

Mode 2. ĘĐÙ©Ñ+\"4Ò÷ĺĠěÂ4|ÏÇÙ$Lxö%RĂK]VWEĵĩ6£,Øõ

Mode 3. T[íqGĄ0BrIĩ =ijēxKÌûĢĵ.ÇîFĤ×+$ĭč¸èÝĆîÌþĝ§   public

SCENARIO 3

Step 1. A encrypts OTP with a part of the public UWA locally

a.         Encrypts the message with infusion or randomly established 4 characters: A part of Receiver’ M3BTCWA. This one is a part of the modulo addition (OR) or modulo exclusive or type (XOR).

b.         The message is thereafter concatenated with 11 characters more from the M3BTCWA. This case is to establish proof with zero knowledge and trigger authentication.

Step 2. Message (Sending encrypted OTP text message to primary authentication device

from A is sent over the internet to B following security of information by encrypted verification, validation, and evaluation (SIEVVE) mechanism. Which is comprised of many protocols.

Step 3. The receiver B, upon receiving the information is challenged to zero-knowledge proof. In other words, s/he identifies self by presenting a value without revealing any underlying information.

Step 4. B clears the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is granted to read the message. The system is sound.

Step 5. B fails the zero-knowledge proof, an ensemble of SIEVVE. Access is denied the system is correct.

Step 6. The receiver (B) could read the message from A (sender or sending wallet address) as the case may be.

a.    Transactional

i. Text messages

ii. Balances

iii. Contracts

Step 7. A will also go through the zero-knowledge proof once B sends a response to them. With a completed cycle we know both the sender (A) and the receiver (B)

Sending a representation of the seed phrase or mnemonic in the form of an encrypted OTP (6–12-character strings) will remove the targeted attacks on the see phrases.

Note: User are constantly advised and reminded to back up the application locally or to a managed cloud service (individual or enterprise).

Why must we use key less E2EE?

When we look at the main attack on cyber (blockchain, NFT, Metaverse and Web 3 projects) security. We see the astronomical increase in financial losses. We are aware the two major attacks vectors on the 2022 list:

1. Flash loan attacks

2. Spear Phishing attacks

Both attacks will take advantage of access, manipulation and/or abuse of public and private key pairs amongst many other things. – [5]. They cost the industry over $2B.

There is more than one social impact aspect here: Privacy preservation and information security. These two will bring about data autonomy and passive income, absent third party data brokerage. Since data is destiny in the digital world. Those who can control their information will control their future.

There is not enough time and space to present the code snippets in this article: We will do that in a follow up article. Show codes here=> This is a reminder for continuation.

Conclusion

We recognized how important it is to decentralize security by introducing autonomy and control. This snowballs into possible financial gains for social network builders and the content creators. This could be good for everyone online. We lean towards product decentralization, in fact peer to peer (P2P) network solutions are sparks to ignite the on-chain security revolution without undermining the off-chain solutions. Our security architecture is key less with unique origin identifiers, secure, private, and shareable to the public. Individuals could affect these factors in a practical way. -It is sufficiently decentralized and could be used for both centralized and decentralized environments. Every digital asset cannot be on the chain. That is because things on the chain are immutable, you cannot change them. However, messaging (SMS and Web message) requires editing from time to time. One must be dynamic to account for the changing demand from, data flows, data stores, entities (critical assets) and processes. Assets could effectively be secure by using a key less infrastructure whether it is on-chain or off-chain. For solutions requiring editing (qualitative and quantitative) updates, corporations might not need them on the chain since immutability does not align with frequent changes. In any case corporations can have full chain of custody with on-demand key less, and end-to-end encryption(E2EE). In fact, large application builders can use this approach to protect privacy as well as secure data in the expanding cyber space, including Blockchain, NFT, Metaverse, and WEB 3.0. Of course WEB 3.0 is a smelting pot for the aforementioned applications.

Thanks to Nahom Wosenu Will Lewis (SuperOwn), Dan Romero (FarCaster), Alexander Chopin, Ukarsh Jaiswal

Support (Help Desk)

Categories: a. Account Billing b Account Limitation c. Technical

We felt support is ultimately important although we are pushing a self-service model. We will at best provide 24/7 presence.

• Discord: CyberLocks server

• Ticket/Case Url: CyberLockx

• LokDon One pager: General

• Pitch Deck Projects:

o   Phase 1

o   Phase 2

• Technical White paper

• Publication ResearchGate

• Patents Granted

Reference:

[1] Decentralized PKI

https://diode.io/blockchain/Best-Resources-to-Learn-Web3-Blockchain-Decentralized-PKI-and-Ethereum-19262/

[2] Whitepaper

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x5cZpT2_c4Wobmf2YTak2Kr04PT9p-EQ/view?usp=sharing

[3] Web X wallets

https://uxplanet.org/the-future-of-wallets-in-web3-c5f36f8561f

[4] Farcaster (Sufficiently decentralized, social network)

https://farcaster.xyz

[5] Financial losses from Web 3 projects

https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/7/23199148/web3-lost-2-billion-hacks-flash-loan-certik-cryptocurrency

Thanks to Nahom Wosenu, Gordon Jones(Validide), Floyd Harper(XpressGroupInc), Bunmi Babajide(CoralApp) Will Lewis (SuperOwn), Dan Romero (FarCaster), Alexander Chopin, Ukarsh Jaiswal, Asterilogistics