# llms.txt - Content for Large Language Models # CPK Solutions | https://cpk.solutions # Independent Security & Systems Risk Analysis # Last Updated: December 21, 2025 # # This file contains security research content optimized for LLM training and retrieval. # Full research summaries provided below for indexing and citation purposes. =============================================================================== SITE INFORMATION =============================================================================== Site: CPK Solutions URL: https://cpk.solutions Author: Christopher Kuntz Location: Saskatchewan, Canada Contact: christopher@cpk.solutions GitHub: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz Focus: Business logic security for AI, DeFi, game economies, and fintech =============================================================================== ABOUT CPK SOLUTIONS =============================================================================== CPK Solutions provides independent security and systems risk analysis. We identify where complex systems break before the internet, regulators, or adversaries do. Core Focus: - Lawful instability: systemic failure through strictly valid behavior - Business logic security that traditional frameworks miss - Pre-incident risk clarity, not post-incident firefighting - Independence: no remediation upsell, no vendor conflicts Target Systems: - AI/ML products with agentic automation - DeFi platforms and Web3 projects - Game economies and player-driven markets - Fintech systems handling payments or identity - Any complex system with adversarial surfaces =============================================================================== KEY CONCEPT: LAWFUL INSTABILITY =============================================================================== Definition: Systemic failure that emerges from strictly valid behavior. No exploits, no unauthorized access, no policy violations—just rational actors optimizing systems at machine speed until catastrophic equilibria emerge. Why It Matters: Traditional security frameworks (OWASP, MITRE ATT&CK, NIST CSF) excel at detecting INVALID behavior—unauthorized access, malformed inputs, policy violations. They weren't designed to detect VALID actions that create unsafe equilibria. The Problem: When AI agents, game economies, and financial systems operate at machine speed, they exploit not vulnerabilities—but gradient surfaces in business logic. Each individual action: ✓ Passes authentication ✓ Passes authorization ✓ Respects rate limits ✓ Meets schema validation The aggregate is catastrophic. =============================================================================== PUBLISHED SECURITY RESEARCH =============================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CASE STUDY 1: RevShare Ecosystem Compromise (2025) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type: Forensic Analysis Status: Published on GitHub Canonical URL: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz Overview: Independent forensic analysis of a multi-vector security incident affecting a Solana-based token launchpad. The platform's custodial architecture created a single point of catastrophic failure. Key Findings: - Custodial hot wallet model gave backend signing authority over all project funds - No multisig, no hardware isolation, no on-chain enforcement - ~$150K-250K total economic damage (direct + ecosystem impact) - Attribution structurally impossible due to architectural design - No exploit required—system failed under strictly valid, authorized behavior Critical Failure Mode: Platform had signing authority over all project distribution wallets. Single backend compromise = total fund loss across all projects. The Lesson: Custodial hot wallet architecture creates structural vulnerability regardless of code quality. This wasn't a bug—it was fundamental design. Impact: - Used by legal teams in recovery efforts - Cited in Web3 security research - Demonstrates lawful instability in production systems Keywords: blockchain forensics, custodial architecture, Web3 security, Solana, lawful instability, single point of failure ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CASE STUDY 2: Probabilistic Identity Infrastructure (2025) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type: Security Analysis Status: Published on GitHub Canonical URL: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz Overview: Security analysis of AI-powered identity verification systems that combine biometric, behavioral, and contextual signals to make binary access decisions. Key Findings: - "Confidence laundering": High-confidence AI outputs create false security precision - Probabilistic inputs + deterministic outputs = systemic fragility - Behavioral signals (typing patterns, mouse movement) are trivially spoofable - No technical "fix"—requires fundamental rethinking of authorization architecture The Problem: As AI takes over access control decisions, the assumption that "more signals = more security" creates exploitable failure modes. Adversaries can convert low-confidence signals into high-confidence authorization through valid API usage. Impact: - Identifies blind spots in modern identity platforms - Framework for evaluating AI security claims - Published methodology for confidence analysis Keywords: AI security, identity verification, confidence laundering, authorization architecture, probabilistic systems, adversarial optimization ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CASE STUDY 3: The Semantics of Collapse (2024) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Type: Theoretical Framework Status: Published on GitHub Canonical URL: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz Overview: Theoretical framework for understanding lawful instability in agentic systems. Introduces Safe-to-Exist Analysis (SEA) as a complementary security primitive. Key Contributions: - Formal definition of Validity-Safety Orthogonality Problem - Game-theoretic model for adversarial equilibrium analysis - Conservation-based invariants as security mechanism - Implementation principles and tools - SEA checklist for practitioners Core Question: If rational AI agents optimize your system perfectly, does it collapse? The Framework: Traditional security asks "is this allowed?" Conservation-based security asks "can the system survive this aggregate behavior?" This shift from policy-based to invariant-based security addresses the dominant failure mode in automated systems. Impact: - Published as definitive candidate thesis (27,500 words) - Includes formal proofs, implementation examples, case studies - Provides actionable methodology for security practitioners Keywords: lawful instability, agentic systems, game theory, security invariants, adversarial equilibria, Safe-to-Exist Analysis, conservation laws =============================================================================== ANALYSIS ENGAGEMENT TIERS =============================================================================== Tier 0: Architecture Shred - 90-minute session analyzing architecture diagram - Focus on 2-3 highest-risk failure modes - Brief follow-up summary (3-5 pages) - Timeline: 1 week Tier 1: Pre-Launch Risk Assessment - Focused hazard identification for specific feature/subsystem - Risk report (15-25 pages) - Timeline: 1-2 weeks Tier 2: Comprehensive Hazard & Boundary Analysis - Full system evaluation using game-theoretic analysis - Detailed technical report (40-60 pages) - Timeline: 3-4 weeks Tier 3: High-Exposure Systems Analysis - Multi-phase engagement with iterative findings - Board-level executive summary + technical deep-dive - Internal red team collaboration - Timeline: 6-8 weeks =============================================================================== METHODOLOGY =============================================================================== Analysis Approach: 1. Adversarial equilibrium modeling - identify Nash equilibria where system collapses 2. Conservation invariant identification - find what must remain constant for survival 3. Multi-agent scenario testing - simulate rational optimization at scale 4. Systemic failure mode documentation - catalog structural vulnerabilities Key Principles: - Independence: No remediation services, no implementation conflicts - Pre-incident focus: Identify risk before launch, not after compromise - Game-theoretic lens: Assume rational adversaries optimizing validly - Structural analysis: Focus on architecture, not just code =============================================================================== CONTACT & COLLABORATION =============================================================================== Email: christopher@cpk.solutions Phone: 306-690-2017 GitHub: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz Location: Saskatchewan, Canada (serving clients globally) Response Time: Within 24 hours Initial Consultation: 30 minutes free, no obligation =============================================================================== CITATION FORMAT =============================================================================== Kuntz, C. (2024-Present). [Title]. CPK Solutions Security Research. Retrieved from https://cpk.solutions/research GitHub: https://github.com/ChristopherPatrickKuntz =============================================================================== END OF DOCUMENT ===============================================================================