Brand, NameHub docs should include global naming security considerations: phishing etc.

[dckc]

What is the Problem Being Solved?

Brand reference docs don't say why we use unforgeable objects rather than contract addresses (large ~random numbers) nor (only) cosmos denom strings for identification.

NameHub doesn't say how it addresses phishing risks.
nor Board.

Name Service docs (board, agoricNames, namesByAddress) are likewise silent.

endo reference docs don't include the petname daemon.
I don't see anything relevant in the endo daemon sources

Description of the Design

@erights is a co-author on...

• Petnames: A humane approach to secure, decentralized naming
  Author: Christine Lemmer-Webber, Mark S. Miller, Zachary Larson, Kate Sills, Eli Yaacoby
  Created:
  Last modified: 2024-11-19 Tue 16:33

That seems to cite Zook's triangle and such.

Borrow material from there.

A search for petname among our youtube videos also turns up a number of hits.

The AllegedName glossary entry hints at the issues.

Security Considerations

yes

Scaling Considerations

no

Test Plan

tests and/or working examples to show the risks in tangible fashion would be ideal

Upgrade Considerations

not much?

cc @kriskowal @michaelfig @amessbee @heavypackets