Tag Archives: ISO/IEC 29115 AAL3

Cryptographic Foundations of the Sovereign Passwordless Model

The sovereign passwordless authentication model is grounded in precise cryptographic principles engineered to operate without any network dependency or data persistence.
It merges the robustness of classical cryptology (PKI, AES) with modern RAM-only architectures to guarantee a truly independent passwordless authentication.
These three technical pillars sustain the coherence of a quantum-resilient system — achieved not through post-quantum algorithms (PQC), but through the structural absence of exploitable data.

🔹 Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)

The PKI (Public Key Infrastructure) remains the foundation of global digital trust, establishing a cryptographic link between identity and public key.
In the sovereign framework, this public key is never stored on a server; it is derived temporarily during a local challenge-response validated by a physical token.
This ephemeral derivation prevents replication, impersonation, or remote interception.
Its design aligns with international cryptographic frameworks including the NIST SP 800-63B (US), the ENISA standards (EU), Japan’s CRYPTREC recommendations, and China’s Cybersecurity Law and national encryption standards.

🔹 Local Biometrics

Local biometrics — fingerprint, facial, retinal, or voice recognition — reinforce proof-of-possession without transmitting any biometric model or image.
The sensor serves as a local trigger verifying user presence, while storing no persistent data.
This principle complies with major privacy and cybersecurity frameworks including GDPR (EU), CCPA (US), UK Data Protection Act, Japan’s APPI, and China’s PIPL and CSL laws on secure local data processing.

🔹 Embedded Cryptology and Segmented Architecture (RAM-only)

At its core, the sovereign passwordless model relies on embedded cryptology and segmented PGP encryption executed entirely in volatile memory.
In technologies such as PassCypher, each key is divided into independent fragments loaded exclusively in RAM at runtime.
These fragments are encrypted under a hybrid PGP + AES-256-CBC scheme, ensuring complete segregation of identities and secrets.

This dynamic segmentation prevents all persistence: once the session ends, all data is instantly destroyed.
The device leaves no exploitable trace, giving rise to a form of quantum resilience by design — not through algorithmic defence, but through the sheer absence of decryptable material.
This architecture also aligns with secure “air-gapped” operational environments widely adopted across defence, industrial, and financial infrastructures in the US, Europe, and Asia-Pacific.

↪ Compliance and Independence

These principles ensure native compliance with global cybersecurity and privacy frameworks while maintaining full independence from proprietary standards.
Whereas FIDO-based architectures rely on persistence and synchronisation, the sovereign model establishes erasure as a security doctrine.
This approach introduces a new paradigm: zero persistence as the cornerstone of digital trust.

The next section presents the PassCypher case study — the first internationally recognised sovereign implementation of these cryptographic foundations, certified for RAM-only operation and structural quantum resilience across EU, US, and Asia-Pacific frameworks.

PassCypher — The Sovereign Passwordless Authentication Model

PassCypher, developed by Freemindtronic Andorra 🇦🇩, represents the first tangible implementation of the sovereign passwordless authentication model.
This technology, an official finalist at the Intersec Awards 2026 in Dubai, marks a major doctrinal milestone in global cybersecurity.
It demonstrates that universal, offline, RAM-only authentication can deliver structural resilience to quantum threats.

The international Intersec jury described the innovation as:

“Offline passwordless security resistant to quantum attacks.”

This recognition celebrates not only a product, but a sovereign engineering philosophy —
a model where trust is localised, secrets are volatile, and validation depends on no external server.
Each session executes entirely in volatile memory (RAM-only), each key is fragmented and encrypted, and every identity is based on a physical proof-of-possession.

↪ RAM-only Architecture and Operation

Within PassCypher, PGP keys are divided into independent fragments, encrypted via a hybrid AES-256-CBC + PGP algorithm, and loaded temporarily into memory during execution.
When the session ends, fragments are erased instantly, leaving no exploitable trace.
No data is ever written, synchronised, or exported — rendering the system tamper-proof by design and quantum-resilient through non-persistence.

↪ Integration into Critical Environments

Compatible with Zero Trust and air-gapped infrastructures, PassCypher operates without servers, browser extensions, or identity federations.
It meets the compliance expectations of critical sectors — defence, healthcare, finance, and energy — by aligning with GDPR (EU), NIS2, DORA, CCPA (US), and APPI (Japan) frameworks while avoiding any externalisation of identity data.
This sovereign authentication approach guarantees total independence from cloud ecosystems and digital superpowers.

↪ Applied Sovereign Doctrine

PassCypher materialises a security-by-erasure philosophy.
By eliminating the very concept of a password, it replaces stored secrets with an ephemeral proof-of-possession.
This paradigm shift redefines digital sovereignty: trust no longer resides in a server, but in local, verifiable, and non-persistent execution.

The next section introduces an Enhanced Sovereign Glossary to standardise the technical terminology of the passwordless model — from proof-of-possession to quantum-resilient architecture.

Weaknesses of FIDO / Passkey Systems — Limits and Attack Vectors

The FIDO / passkey protocols represent significant progress in reducing password dependence.
However, and this must be clearly stated, they do not eliminate all vulnerabilities.
Several operational and tactical vectors persist — WebAuthn interception, OAuth persistence, clickjacking via extensions — all of which undermine sovereignty and non-traceability.
It is therefore essential to expose the known weaknesses and, in parallel, highlight sovereign counter-approaches that offer greater structural resilience.

Vulnerabilities of Federated Systems — Sovereign Mitigations

The table below summarises the main vulnerabilities observed in federated authentication systems (OAuth, WebAuthn, extensions) and the mitigation strategies proposed by sovereign RAM-only models.

In summary, while FIDO and passkeys remain valuable for mainstream security, they are insufficient to guarantee digital sovereignty.
For critical contexts, the sovereign alternative — built on local proof-of-possession and volatility — reduces the attack surface and eliminates exfiltration paths tied to cloud and federated systems.

The next section introduces an Enhanced Sovereign Glossary to unify the technical and operational terminology of this doctrine.

FIDO vs TOTP / HOTP — Two Authentication Philosophies

The debate between FIDO and TOTP/HOTP systems illustrates two radically different visions of digital trust.
On one side, FIDO promotes a federated, cloud-centric model based on public/private key pairs tied to identity servers.
On the other, TOTP and HOTP protocols — though older — represent a decentralised and local approach, conceptually closer to the sovereign paradigm.

Doctrinal Comparison — FIDO2 vs TOTP vs RAM-only

The following table highlights the core doctrinal and technical differences between FIDO2/WebAuthn, TOTP/HOTP, and the sovereign RAM-only approach.
It reveals how each model defines trust, cryptologic dependency, and strategic sovereignty.

🔹 Quick Definitions

• FIDO2 / WebAuthn — Modern authentication standard based on public/private key pairs, managed through a browser or hardware authenticator, requiring a registration server.
• TOTP / HOTP — One-time password (OTP) protocols based on a locally shared secret and a synchronised computation (time or counter).

🔹 Core Doctrinal Differences

🔹 Strategic Reading

FIDO prioritises UX convenience and global standardisation, but introduces structural dependencies on cloud and identity federation.
OTP protocols (TOTP/HOTP), though dated, retain the advantage of operating offline without browser constraints.
The sovereign model combines the simplicity of OTPs with the cryptologic strength of RAM-only segmentation — it removes shared secrets, replaces them with ephemeral challenges, and guarantees a purely local proof-of-possession.

🔹 Perspective

From a digital sovereignty standpoint, the RAM-only model emerges as the conceptual successor to TOTP:
it maintains the simplicity of local computation while eliminating shared secrets and persistent keys.
This represents a doctrinal evolution toward an authentication model founded on possession and volatility — the twin pillars of truly autonomous cybersecurity.

SSH vs FIDO — Two Paradigms of Passwordless Authentication

The history of passwordless authentication did not begin with FIDO — it is rooted in SSH key-based authentication, which has secured critical infrastructures for over two decades.
Comparing SSH and FIDO/WebAuthn reveals two fundamentally different visions of digital sovereignty:
one open and decentralised, the other standardised and centralised.

🔹 SSH — The Ancestor of Sovereign Passwordless

The SSH (Secure Shell) protocol is based on asymmetric key pairs (public / private).
The user holds their private key locally, and identity is verified via a cryptographic challenge.
No password is exchanged or stored — making SSH inherently passwordless.
Moreover, SSH can operate offline during initial key establishment and does not depend on any third-party identity server.

🔹 FIDO — The Federated Passwordless

By contrast, FIDO2/WebAuthn introduces a normative authentication framework where the public key is registered with an authentication server.
While cryptographically sound, this model depends on a centralised infrastructure (browser, cloud, federation).
Thus, FIDO simplifies user experience but transfers trust to third parties (Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc.), thereby limiting sovereignty.

🔹 Doctrinal Comparison

🔹 Doctrinal Analysis

SSH and FIDO represent two distinct doctrines of passwordless identity:

• SSH: technical sovereignty, independence, simplicity — but lacking a unified UX standard.
• FIDO: global usability and standardisation — but dependent on centralised infrastructures.

The RAM-only model introduced by PassCypher merges both philosophies:
it preserves the local proof-of-possession of SSH while introducing ephemeral volatility that eliminates all persistence — even within hardware.

🔹 Perspective

The future of passwordless authentication extends beyond simply removing passwords:
it moves toward architectural neutrality — a model in which the secret is neither stored, nor transmitted, nor reusable.
The SSH of the 21st century may well be PassCypher RAM-only: a cryptology of possession — ephemeral, structural, and universal.

Doctrinal Comparison — The Five Passwordless Authentication Models

To grasp the strategic reach of the sovereign model, it must be viewed across the full spectrum of passwordless architectures.
Five doctrines currently dominate the global landscape: FIDO2/WebAuthn, Federated OAuth, Hybrid Cloud, Industrial Air-Gap, and Sovereign RAM-only.
The table below outlines their structural differences.

Passwordless Timeline — From FIDO to Cryptologic Sovereignty

• 2009: Creation of the FIDO Alliance.
• 2014: Standardisation of FIDO UAF/U2F.
• 2015: Freemindtronic Andorra 🇦🇩 launches the first NFC HSM PassCypher — an offline, passwordless authentication system based on proof-of-physical-possession.
  A foundational milestone in the emergence of a sovereign civilian model.
• 2017: Integration of the WebAuthn standard within the W3C.
• 2020: Introduction of passkeys (Apple/Google) and the first major cloud dependencies.
• 2021: EviCypher — an authentication system using segmented cryptographic keys — wins the Gold Medal at the Geneva International Inventions Exhibition.
  Based on cryptographic fragmentation and volatile memory, it becomes the core technology powering PassCypher NFC HSM and PassCypher HSM PGP ecosystems.
• 2021: PassCypher NFC HSM receives the Most Innovative Hardware Password Manager award at the RSA Conference 2021 Global InfoSec Awards, confirming the maturity of the civilian offline model.
• 2022: Presentation at Eurosatory 2022 of a version dedicated to sovereign and defense use —
  the PassCypher HSM PGP, featuring RAM-only architecture and EviCypher segmented cryptography, offering structural quantum resilience.
• 2023: Public identification of vulnerabilities in WebAuthn, OAuth, and passkeys highlights the necessity of a truly sovereign offline model.
• 2026: PassCypher is selected as an Intersec Awards finalist in Dubai, recognised as the Best Cybersecurity Solution for its civilian RAM-only sovereign model.

Interoperability and Sovereign Migration

Organisations can progressively adopt the sovereign model without disruption.
Migration occurs in three phases:
hybrid (FIDO + local coexistence), air-gapped (offline validation), then sovereign (RAM-only).
Integrated NFC and HSM modules ensure backward compatibility while eliminating cloud dependencies.

This model ensures backward compatibility, operational continuity, and a smooth transition toward cryptologic sovereignty.

Weak Signals — Quantum and AI

The acceleration of quantum computing and generative AI introduces unprecedented security challenges.
The sovereign model distinguishes itself through intrinsic resilience — it does not rely on computational strength but on the controlled disappearance of the secret.

• Quantum Threats: Persistent PKI architectures become vulnerable to factorisation attacks.
• AI-driven Attacks: Biometric systems can be bypassed using deepfakes or synthetic models.
• Structural Resilience: The sovereign model avoids these threats by design — there is nothing to decrypt or reproduce.

Official and Scientific Definitions of Passwordless

Understanding the term passwordless requires distinguishing between institutional definitions (NIST, ISO, Microsoft) and the scientific foundations of authentication.
These definitions demonstrate that passwordless authentication is not a product, but a method — based on proof of possession, proof of knowledge, and proof of existence of the user.

🔹 NIST SP 800-63B Definition

According to NIST SP 800-63B — Digital Identity Guidelines:

“Authentication establishes confidence in the identities of users presented electronically to an information system. Each authentication factor is based on something the subscriber knows, has, or is.”

In other words, authentication relies on three factor types:

• Something you know — knowledge: a secret, PIN, or passphrase.
• Something you have — possession: a token, card, or hardware key.
• Something you are — inherence: a biometric or physical trait.

🔹 ISO/IEC 29115:2013 Definition

The ISO/IEC 29115 defines the Entity Authentication Assurance Framework (EAAF), which specifies four assurance levels (IAL, AAL, FAL) based on factor strength and independence.
AAL3 represents multi-factor passwordless authentication combining possession and inherence through a secure hardware token.
The PassCypher model aligns with the AAL3 logic — with no persistence or server dependency.

🔹 Microsoft Definition — Passwordless Authentication

From Microsoft Entra Identity documentation:

“Passwordless authentication replaces passwords with strong two-factor credentials resistant to phishing and replay attacks.”

However, these implementations still rely on cloud identity services and federated trust models — limiting sovereignty.

🔹 Doctrinal Synthesis

All definitions converge on one point:
Passwordless does not mean “without secret,” but rather “without persistent password.”
In a sovereign model, trust is local — proof is rooted in physical possession and ephemeral cryptology, not centralised identity.

Sovereign Glossary (Enriched)

This glossary presents the key terms of sovereign passwordless authentication, founded on possession, volatility, and cryptologic independence.

Frequently Asked Questions — Sovereign Passwordless Authentication

Further Reading — Deepening Sovereignty in Passwordless Authentication

To explore the strategic scope of the sovereign passwordless model in greater depth, it is essential to understand how RAM-only cryptographic architectures are reshaping cybersecurity in a lasting way.
Through its innovations, Freemindtronic Andorra 🇦🇩 illustrates a coherent continuum: invention → doctrine → recognition.

🔹 Freemindtronic Internal Resources

• Offline Password Manager — understanding the transition toward passwordless, cloud-free authentication.
• PassCypher — Intersec Awards 2026 Finalist — institutional validation of the RAM-only model.
• Best Cybersecurity Solution 2026 — comparative analysis and evaluation criteria.
• EviCypher — Geneva Gold Medal 2021 — the technological foundation of segmented cryptology.

🔹 Complementary Institutional References

• NIST SP 800-63B — Digital Identity Guidelines, baseline for multifactor authentication assurance.
• ISO/IEC 29115 — Entity Authentication Assurance Framework.
• NIST SP 800-207 — Zero Trust Architecture.

🔹 Doctrinal Perspectives

The sovereign passwordless model does more than strengthen security — it defines a universal, neutral, and interoperable trust framework.
It prefigures the emergence of a European doctrine of sovereign authentication, structured around embedded cryptology, proof of possession, and controlled volatility.

Manifesto Quote on Passwordless Authentication

“Passwordless does not mean the absence of a password — it means the presence of sovereignty:
the sovereignty of the user over their identity, of cryptology over the network, and of volatile memory over persistence.”
— Jacques Gascuel, Freemindtronic Andorra 🇦🇩

🔝 Back to top