mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Cryptographic Registry Provenance: Structural Defense Against Dependency Confusion in AI Package Ecosystems

arXiv 2605.03309 ↗First posted 5 May 2026cs.CR cs.AI cs.SEcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Dependency confusion attacks exploit a structural gap in software distribution: once a package is installed, there is no cryptographic proof of which registry distributed it. Every existing defense is configuration-based and fails silently when misconfigured. We present a cryptographic distribution provenance system comprising three components: (1) cryptographic registry identity, where every registry holds an Ed25519 keypair and signs every artifact it distributes; (2) a dual-signature model, where the publisher signs at packaging time and the registry countersigns at publication time; and (3) authoritative namespace binding, where consumers pin registry fingerprints and the resolver cryptographically rejects artifacts from unauthorized registries. These create three defense layers requiring simultaneous compromise for a successful attack. A comparison across eight ecosystems (npm, Cargo, Hex.pm, PyPI, Go modules, Docker/OCI, NuGet, Maven) shows no existing ecosystem combines mandatory publisher signing, cryptographic registry identity, mandatory registry countersigning, and consumer-side cryptographic enforcement. The system extends to AI-generation provenance as a signed attribute and governance-enforced dependency resolution. A case study integrates distribution provenance with a three-layer runtime governance architecture, creating a four-phase lifecycle chain with no cryptographic gaps.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 May 2026.

Builds on

7 of 44 references.

References · 7

  1. 2020Backstabber's Knife Collection: A Review of Open Source Software Supply Chain Attackscited by 57
  2. 2022Taxonomy of Attacks on Open-Source Software Supply Chainscited by 57
  3. 2026Mechanized Foundations of Structural Governance: Machine-Checked Proofs for Governed Intelligencecited by 5
  4. 2026The Two Boundaries: Why Behavioral AI Governance Fails Structurallycited by 4
  5. 2026Effect-Transparent Governance for AI Workflow Architectures: Semantic Preservation, Expressive Minimality, and Decidability Boundariescited by 1
  6. 2026Algebraic Semantics of Governed Execution: Monoidal Categories, Effect Algebras, and Coterminous Boundariescited by 1
  7. 2026Certified Purity for Cognitive Workflow Executors: From Static Analysis to Cryptographic Attestationcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.