How companies could share cyber risks without exposing their secrets

Zero-knowledge proofs could let infrastructure operators answer key security questions without handing over the sensitive data behind their answers.

Imagine a major software flaw is discovered in equipment used across pipelines, power plants and telecom networks. The government needs to know as fast as possible which corporations are exposed. But answering that question may require firms to stock software inventories, network diagrams and vulnerability scans, which could become attack roadmaps for attackers if compromised. A lesser-known cryptographic concept could help solve this problem. The method, known as zero-knowledge proofs, allows corporations prove a vulnerability exists without disclosing how their systems work or other proprietary information.

For more than a decade, Washington has tried to address corporations’ concerns about sharing cybersecurity data. Congress has provided legal protections, and agencies have created information-sharing programs. Those efforts have helped corporations exchange signs of an attack, incident reports, and defensive advice. But they’ve done much less to get corporations to stock data on vulnerabilities and security controls before an incident occurs.

The data that would help the most is what corporations are least willing to stock. A vulnerability scan can show which devices are connected, which software is running, how systems are configured and where defenses are weak. If unintentionally exposed, it would be a terrific guide for adversaries.

Another problem: Once sensitive data leaves a firm, it can be stolen, subpoenaed, passed to another agency or used in a regulatory proceeding the firm never expected. Industry is constantly asked to reduce security risk by creating more elsewhere.

Zero-knowledge proofs could reduce the need to disclose the underlying sensitive data. The idea is simple, even if the math is not: a firm can prove that an agreed evaluation of its authorized scan data indicates that a specific software flaw is present, without disclosing its full asset inventory, network architecture or configuration data.

A computer does not read a vulnerability scan the way a person does. A security analyst might open a report, look through the devices and software versions, and decide whether a vulnerable product is present. A zero-knowledge proof turns that same evaluation into a local mathematical calculation.

For example, the government and a firm could agree on a precise question: Does a specific vulnerability exist anywhere inside a defined group of systems? The firm keeps its scan data inside its own network. A cryptographic tool checks that data against the agreed question, compares the software and version information against the vulnerability, and produces a proof tied to the final answer. If the scan data satisfies the agreed conditions for a “yes” result, the firm cannot generate a valid proof supporting a false “no” answer under those same rules.

The government never sees the raw scan report, the device list, the software inventory, or the network map. It only receives and verifies the mathematical proof, confirming that the answer follows from the agreed rules and underlying data without exposing that data.

This isn’t theoretical. FDD’s Center on Cyber and Technology Innovation recently tested the approach with anonymized vulnerability data from three operational environments. The test asked yes-or-no questions about 38 known vulnerabilities while keeping the raw scans inside the participating environments. Results were promising: only the proofs and answers were shared, yet they revealed how widespread each vulnerability was across the environments.

The test proved the approach works, but that does not mean the government should rush to build a national system around it. A lot of work still needs to be done before agencies can rely on these for compliance, vulnerability reporting, or procurement decisions.

The next step should be structured pilot programs, not mandates. Federal cyber officials and standards bodies should test this with narrow, practical questions: whether a known vulnerability is present or whether a specific security control is in place.

Only after those pilots should agencies decide what underlying data can be trusted and what counts as sufficient proof in a regulatory setting. The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and regulatory agencies are natural candidates to run these pilots. CISA already works with critical infrastructure operators on cyber risk, while NIST can help define what a trustworthy proof should look like before agencies try to rely on one. Regulatory agencies, meanwhile, could reduce private sector headaches by developing more secure mechanisms for corporations to stock compliance information.

Zero-knowledge proofs won’t solve every problem when it comes to cyber information-sharing. But they could solve one of the hardest: how to give the government a trustworthy answer without forcing corporations to expose the very systems everyone is trying to protect. The government should test this concept now, while there is still time to learn, and avoid blindly entering the next cyber crisis.

The post How corporations could stock cyber risks without exposing their secrets appeared first on CyberScoop.