Technical Whitepaper
SecureStamp Trust Protocol
An open standard for verified digital sender identity
Abstract
SecureStamp is an open protocol for establishing verifiable digital trust between email senders and recipients. It addresses the growing problem of phishing, impersonation, and fraudulent communications by providing a multi-signal verification layer that works alongside — not replacing — existing email authentication standards (SPF, DKIM, DMARC).
The protocol defines three verification channels (DNS TXT records, HTTP headers, and API registration), a deterministic trust scoring algorithm based on twelve signals across five dimensions, and an immutable audit ledger based on Hyperledger Besu IBFT 2.0. Client plugins for major email clients surface verification results inline, with a privacy-first local ML classifier that never transmits message content.
The Problem
Email phishing remains the vector in over 90% of successful cyberattacks. Despite the widespread adoption of SPF, DKIM, and DMARC, these standards only verify technical authenticity — they do not tell the recipient whether the sender is trustworthy, reputable, or recently compromised.
1.1 Limitations of existing standards
SPF verifies that an IP is authorized to send on behalf of a domain. DKIM verifies message integrity and domain association. DMARC ties them together with a policy. But none of these standards carry context about the sender's intent, reputation, or behavior over time.
A domain can pass all three checks and still be a newly registered phishing domain, a compromised legitimate domain, or a domain spoofing a brand through lookalike registration.
1.2 Recipient experience
Recipients have no reliable, visible indicator of sender legitimacy. Lock icons and green checkmarks are easy to fake visually. The cognitive load of evaluating an email's authenticity falls entirely on the user.
Design Goals
The protocol is designed around four non-negotiable properties:
2.1
Open & Auditable
The protocol specification, scoring algorithm, and ledger are publicly inspectable. No closed black boxes in the trust chain.
2.2
Privacy-First
Message content never leaves the user's device. The ML classifier runs locally. API calls carry only domain/email identifiers, never body text.
2.3
Backward Compatible
Works alongside existing email infrastructure. No changes required to mail servers. Implemented as an opt-in verification layer.
2.4
Decentralizable
The trust registry can be operated by independent nodes. No single entity controls the protocol or can revoke trust globally.
Protocol
3.1 Registration
A sender registers their domain or email at securestamp.online and completes domain ownership verification. Registration creates a stamp record anchored on the audit ledger.
3.2 Publication (three channels)
DNS TXT record — the domain publishes a TXT record at _securestamp.example.com containing the stamp ID and verify URL. This is the most robust channel as it is controlled by the domain owner and queried independently of the email body.
HTTP header — mail servers add an X-SecureStamp SMTP header to outgoing messages. This requires mail server configuration but provides per-message verification with a signed JWT payload.
API registration — senders register with the SecureStamp API directly, enabling real-time verification lookups by receiving clients without DNS propagation delays.
3.3 Verification
When a recipient's plugin encounters an email, it queries POST /api/trust/check with the sender's email or domain. The API aggregates signals from all three channels plus historical reputation data and returns a structured trust response within 200ms (p95).
Trust Model
The trust score is a deterministic function of twelve signals grouped into five dimensions. The scoring algorithm is open and versioned.
| Dimension | Signals | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Email Authentication | SPF, DKIM, DMARC | 30% |
| Domain Reputation | Age, registration, SSL, CT logs | 25% |
| Protocol Registration | SecureStamp registry, stamp validity | 20% |
| Behavioral History | Complaint rate, bounce rate, engagement | 15% |
| ML Classification | Local phishing/scam signals (device-side) | 10% |
4.1 Trust states
Scores map to three states with hard override rules:
- CONFIABLE (70–100)All hard rules pass. At least SPF or DKIM pass. Registered in SecureStamp.
- SOSPECHOSO (30–69)Some signals degraded. Recipient warned but not blocked.
- BLOQUEADO (0–29)Critical signals fail. Hard-blocked by admin or compliance list override.
Ledger & Blockchain
5.1 Technology
The SecureStamp audit ledger runs on Hyperledger Besu with IBFT 2.0 (Istanbul BFT) consensus. This provides Byzantine-fault tolerance with deterministic finality — no forks, no probabilistic confirmation delays.
5.2 What is recorded
Every stamp issuance, revocation, and score change is written to the ledger as an immutable transaction. Ledger entries contain only stamp IDs and cryptographic hashes — never personal data or message content.
5.3 Verification
Any party can independently verify a stamp's authenticity and history by querying the public ledger endpoint at GET /v1/ledger/tx/:txHash.
Client Plugins
The plugin layer surfaces trust signals inline in the user's email client. Available plugins:
Privacy
Privacy is enforced at the architecture level, not through policy:
- —Message body text never leaves the user's device — the ML classifier runs entirely locally (WASM/TFLite).
- —ML reports sent to the API contain only numeric scores and metadata counts, never matched phrases or text excerpts.
- —Plugin analytics events contain only plan tier, event name, and risk level — no email addresses, no sender data.
- —Trust check API receives only the sender's email or domain, not the message content.
- —404 error logs store only the URL path and locale — no user identifiers or session data.
Security
8.1 Stamp forgery resistance
Each stamp contains an ES256-signed JWT payload anchored to the ledger. Copying a stamp image provides no benefit — the plugin verifies the signature at verification time, not the visual.
8.2 Plugin threat model
Plugins operate with minimal permissions. Chrome MV3 restricts background page access. Office.js sandboxes the plugin within the Outlook renderer. No plugin has access to the full email body in production mode.
8.3 API security
All API keys are prefixed and hashed before storage. The system supports key rotation without service interruption. All mutation endpoints require valid JWT or API key authentication. Rate limiting is enforced at the Vercel WAF edge before reaching application code.
Roadmap
- Chrome Web Store publication
- Microsoft AppSource submission
- SecureStamp node operator program (beta)
- Multi-node ledger federation (5 independent validators)
- Public ledger explorer
- SSTP v1 protocol finalization
- iOS/Android Mail integration
- Enterprise SMTP gateway plugin
- IETF Internet-Draft submission
References
- RFC 7208Sender Policy Framework (SPF)
- RFC 6376DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM)
- RFC 7489DMARC
- Hyperledger BesuIBFT 2.0 consensus
- SSTP v0.1SecureStamp Trust Protocol spec
SecureStamp Trust Protocol — securestamp.org — protocol@securestamp.org