Company
Security
A security page that lists only what is defended is marketing. The useful half is the list of what is not.
What it changes
- Tenant isolation in three layersSchema, a client that rewrites every query, and database row-level security with tenant context set per transaction so a pooled connection cannot carry it into the next request.
- AuthenticationArgon2id password hashing, opaque revocable sessions rather than JWTs, TOTP second factor, lockout, and step-up re-authentication within a short window for actions that move money.
- Data protectionAES-256-GCM field encryption for names, dates of birth and tax identifiers, with the attributes compliance rules need kept in the clear so the policy engine never decrypts at scale.
- AuditHash-chained and append-only, enforced by revoked grants and database triggers so tampering fails rather than merely being detectable.
What it includes
Content Security PolicyPer-request nonce rather than unsafe-inline, which would provide essentially no protection for scripts.
TransportHSTS with a two-year max-age and preload; database connections verify the certificate chain rather than merely encrypting.
Maker-checkerNine permissions execute only from an approval queue, bound to a hash of what was approved.
What this deployment does not do
Stated plainly
Explicitly not mitigated: malware scanning of uploads, SSRF egress control, oracle manipulation and compromised deployer keys. No external penetration test or smart-contract audit has been completed, and no disaster-recovery rehearsal has been performed.
Questions
How do I report a vulnerability?
Contact us through the details on the contact page. We would rather hear about it than not.
Has this been audited?
No. An external smart-contract audit and a penetration test are launch gates in our own specification, and neither has been completed.
See it against something real.
Bring an instrument you are actually considering. Structuring it is the only way to judge whether the model fits.