Fortress v1.1.0 hardened: achieving 14/14 on red team penetration testing suite
Hi Indie Hackers,
I've just finalized a rigorous automated Red Team penetration testing cycle for FORTRESS SDK, and I wanted to share the architectural validation results with the community.
For context, FORTRESS is a standalone client-side security engine built to establish an impenetrable security boundary directly inside the browser runtime, protecting volatile memory credentials (like Exchange API Keys or Web3 sessions) from supply-chain XSS attacks when standard CSP layers fail [1.2].
Our latest v1.1.0 Hardened release introduces an active prototype chain interception guard directly onto `SubtleCrypto.prototype.exportKey`, reinforced with deep object freezing (`Object.freeze`) to eliminate runtime tampering and deletion vectors [1.2, 4.2].
### The Retest Metrics:
- **Total Exploit Vectors Simulated:** 14
- **Bypass Success Rate:** 0%
- **Key Material Exfiltrated:** 0%
- **Overall Evaluation Score:** 14/14 PASSED (Security Posture Grade: A-)
The engine successfully neutralized advanced Time-of-Check to Time-of-Use (TOCTOU) racing conditions, iframe object traversals, and native execution redefinitions by malicious third-party dependencies [1.2].
The production-ready, heavily obfuscated ES6 bundle—alongside the interactive testing sandbox and our comprehensive 25-page Red Team Penetration Evaluation Logs—is now finalized and available for commercial licensing evaluation strictly under a mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) [6.1].
If you are building non-custodial financial architectures or Web3 frontends and want to audit our runtime execution matrices, feel free to check our product page or reach out directly to our secure endpoint at: FortressChart@proton.me
The 14/14 result is interesting, but I'd be more curious about how those exploit vectors were selected. A perfect score is only as meaningful as the coverage of the threat model, especially when the goal is protecting against supply-chain attacks.
Hi Aryan,
Thanks for the excellent question. You are entirely correct: a 14/14 score is only as good as the threat model backing it.
Our evaluation matrix was structured specifically around the post-initialization supply-chain XSS threat model. The 14 vectors were derived combining standard OWASP Top 10 client-side injection injection frameworks and native browser environment restrictions. Specifically, the suite covers:
1. Standard Prototype Tampering & Race Conditions: Attempting to pre-patch, delete, or override 'SubtleCrypto.prototype.exportKey' post-initialization using aggressive downstream execution blocks.
2. Multi-Realm Object Traversal: Simulating execution context hijacking via dynamically generated, nested cross-origin/same-origin iframes to bypass global-scope object wrappers.
3. Automated Exploit Toolchains (Toolshell vectors): Simulating automated runtime memory-scraping frameworks designed to actively traverse the execution heap to isolate fixed-size Uint8Array key buffers.
FORTRESS achieves a perfect score because our root interception layer enforces deep, immutable object freezing (Object.freeze) on the native crypto prototype chain coupled with active, non-lazy NIST SP 800-88 compliant memory zeroification routines upon teardown.
Essentially, even if an automated tool handles iframe hopping, it cannot interact with a target handle without invoking the native cryptoprocessor, which is strictly walled inside our immutable WeakSet guard layer.
The comprehensive 25-page breakdown detailing all 14 execution logs and telemetry data is available for a deeper architectural review under a mutual NDA.
Hi Aryan. Thanks for the question. The threat model focuses on supply chain XSS.
The fourteen vectors combine OWASP top ten injection frameworks and native browser restrictions. The suite covers standard prototype tampering, race conditions, multi realm object traversal via nested iframes, and automated toolshell frameworks designed for memory scraping.
Fortress blocks this because our root layer enforces deep immutable freezing on the native crypto prototype chain combined with active NIST compliant memory zeroification upon teardown. Even if a tool handles iframe hopping it cannot interact with a target handle without invoking the native cryptoprocessor which is strictly protected.
The comprehensive twenty five page breakdown detailing all execution logs is available for technical review under NDA. You can find our secure ProtonMail contact info directly in the main product page links above.
The threat-model detail is useful, especially the distinction between the initial compromise and post-initialization attacks.
I’d be interested in taking a closer look at the evaluation. What’s the best email to reach you on?
Hi Aryan. Glad to hear you find the threat model alignment valuable.
You can reach our secure inbound endpoint directly at: fortresschart [at] proton [dot] me
Please mention your company or platform architecture in the email subject so we can forward the appropriate mutual NDA framework to initiate the evaluation. Looking forward to sharing the logs with you.
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.