Paul HittandClaude Opus 5
999ab2bd26
When both sides open the same chat before either has processed the other's
prekey — two people tapping a conversation at the same moment — each runs X3DH
and each ends up adopting the other's chain to read what arrived. From then on
the peer sends on the chain being replaced. Overwriting it without a copy does
not lose one message; it makes that direction undecryptable for the rest of the
conversation, silently, because an envelope that will not open is skipped rather
than reported.
**iOS.** `E2EInbox` had the fallback already — `loadArchivedRatchet` is tried
before building from a prekey, and its comment describes exactly this situation.
It was unreachable: `saveArchivedRatchet` appeared once in the file, and that
call only re-saves a ratchet that was already archived. Nothing ever put a live
session there. It does now, immediately before the session it replaces is
overwritten.
**Android was worse, and had no fallback at all.** `Conversations.poll` read
val session = existingSession(fromDevice) ?: E2ESession.respond(identity, envelope)
which looks like a fallback and is not one: with a stored session present that
was the ONLY thing tried, `decrypt` threw for a peer on another chain, and the
catch swallowed it. `respond` was never reached. Now three chains are tried in
order — the current one, the retired one, then a fresh one built from the prekey
block — and the replaced chain is kept.
⚠️ The watermark still advances on a total failure, deliberately. An envelope
none of the three chains could open will not open next poll either, and holding
the cursor there would wedge the inbox behind one bad message. What made this
lossy was never the watermark; it was that only one chain was ever tried.
`Vault` grows a retired-session slot under its own prefix — deliberately not
`SESSION_PREFIX`, or `knownPeers()` would list every retired chain as a peer —
and `forgetAllSessions` clears it too, since a sign-out that left chain keys
behind would keep exactly what it claims to erase.
Tests, and the one that matters is the storage-level one:
- `VaultTest.a retired session is kept and still opens its chain` — asserts the
ADOPTED session cannot open the retired chain before asserting the retired one
can, so it cannot pass by accident. **Verified load-bearing**: neutering
`saveRetiredSession` fails it, restoring it passes.
- `VaultTest.forgetting sessions forgets the retired ones as well`.
- `E2ESessionTest.simultaneous initiation does not strand the conversation` —
covers the engine primitives and asserts the SECOND exchange, the one that
used to die. ⚠️ It holds both sessions in local variables, so it passes with
or without the storage fix; it is not evidence for it.
111 engine tests, 0 failures. Both platforms compile.
⚠️ This is a real correctness defect and is fixed on its merits. Its
relationship to the one-way loss seen between two simulators is NOT established
— that symptom is the first message, and both first messages open fine either
way. Do not close that investigation on this commit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Flamenet Messenger — Android
Nothing here is an app yet. This is the engine, and it is deliberately first.
An Android client needs the protocol implemented a third time. That third
implementation is the one that finds the places where the specification says
less than the two existing engines quietly agreed on — but only if it is
written against the spec and the published vectors rather than against a
reading of our own Swift and JavaScript. So the engine comes first, it is a
plain Kotlin/JVM library with no Android in it at all, and it is held to
engine/test/vectors/protocol-v1.json — the same file the other two engines
are checked against, read from that one location rather than copied here.
./gradlew :engine:test
No Android SDK, no emulator, no device. It runs anywhere a JVM does, which is also what lets it run in CI on Linux.
What the engine covers today
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| Safety numbers | §7 | Done — fingerprints and conversation ordering match the published vectors |
| Key transparency verification | §19 | Done — RFC 6962 leaf/node hashing, unbalanced split, bottom-up audit paths |
| Byte helpers | — | Unsigned comparison, constant-time equality |
What it does not cover
Listed rather than left to be discovered, because a table of green ticks with the hard parts quietly missing is worse than no table:
| Area | Spec | State |
|---|---|---|
| X25519 / Ed25519 | §3 | Not started — needs a provider that works on both JVM and Android |
| X3DH key agreement | §4 | Not started |
| Double Ratchet | §6 | Not started |
| Sealed sender | §12 | Not started |
| ML-KEM-768 hybrid | §11 | Not started |
| ML-DSA-65 identities | §20 | Not started |
| Relay client | §8 | Not started |
| The app itself | — | Not started |
Until those exist, Android is honestly marked "not started" on the website, and a conversation gets the protocol's guarantees only when both ends are iOS.
Why the vectors matter more than the code
Two implementations that agree may both be wrong in the same way, especially when one was written while reading the other. The audit-path ordering in §19 is the worked example: a top-down reading of a bottom-up path produces the correct root for every left-spine index, so it passes any test that only checks index 0. The vector file pins a right-descending index for that reason, and the Kotlin tests assert both that the published path verifies and that the same path reversed does not.
If this engine ever disagrees with the file, the interesting question is which of the three is wrong — not this one by default.