Add release evidence and audit packet

docs/AUDIT_PACKET.md

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+# Dosh Native v1 Audit Packet
+
+This is the handoff checklist for an external security review.
+
+## Scope
+
+Review the security properties of Dosh native v1:
+
+- Native UDP authentication and key exchange
+- Host key trust and known-host mismatch behavior
+- Authorized key parsing and policy enforcement
+- Transport encryption, replay protection, rekeying, resume, and stale packet handling
+- Attach ticket sealing/opening
+- TCP forwarding and agent forwarding authorization boundaries
+- Parser robustness for untrusted wire/config data
+
+Primary files:
+
+- `src/native.rs`
+- `src/protocol.rs`
+- `src/auth.rs`
+- `src/ssh_agent.rs`
+- `src/bin/dosh-client.rs`
+- `src/bin/dosh-server.rs`
+- `src/config.rs`
+- `tests/parser_robustness.rs`
+- `tests/protocol_auth.rs`
+- `tests/hostile_network.rs`
+- `tests/integration_smoke.rs`
+- `fuzz/fuzz_targets/*`
+
+Primary docs:
+
+- `docs/NATIVE_V1_SPEC.md`
+- `docs/THREAT_MODEL.md`
+- `docs/PROTOCOL_VERSIONING.md`
+- `docs/PUBLIC_READINESS.md`
+- `docs/RELEASE_EVIDENCE_2026-06-20.md`
+
+## Required Reviewer Questions
+
+1. Is the native handshake transcript complete enough to bind client/server keys,
+   requested session, mode, env, and forwarding permissions?
+2. Are host-key trust transitions fail-closed, especially unknown vs mismatch vs
+   explicit TOFU?
+3. Are authorized-key options parsed conservatively enough, and are unsupported
+   options rejected safely?
+4. Can replayed, reordered, delayed, stale, or cross-epoch packets affect terminal
+   input or forwarded streams more than once?
+5. Does key rotation preserve confidentiality without creating split-brain epoch
+   states?
+6. Do attach tickets create any bearer-token replay or privilege-extension issue?
+7. Can UDP endpoint migration be abused for hijack or reflection?
+8. Are local/remote/dynamic TCP forwarding and agent forwarding gated correctly by
+   client opt-in, server config, and authorized-key options?
+9. Are parser and packet-size limits sufficient against malicious inputs?
+10. Are there any unsafe assumptions in process/session persistence or holder
+    adoption?
+
+## Current Local Evidence
+
+As of 2026-06-20:
+
+- `cargo test`: `153 passed, 1 ignored`
+- `make soak-local`: passed 30-minute sleep/roaming soak
+- `make fuzz-smoke`: passed all configured fuzz targets for 20s each
+- `make bench-docker-mosh`: passed SSH, ControlMaster, native, cached, and Mosh
+  comparison gates
+
+## Explicit Non-Claims Before Audit
+
+- No claim of generic SSH protocol replacement.
+- No claim of full Mosh compatibility.
+- No claim that native v1 is externally audited.
+- No claim that Windows server support is production-ready.

docs/RELEASE_EVIDENCE_2026-06-20.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+# Dosh Release Evidence - 2026-06-20
+
+Code benchmarked: `b44ff8e Improve release and benchmark tooling`
+
+Environment:
+
+- Host: local homelab runner
+- Benchmark harness: `make bench-docker-mosh`
+- Container SSH server: OpenSSH 9.6p1 on Ubuntu
+- Same container, key, DNS, loopback, and Dosh server path for all Docker samples
+
+## Release Artifacts
+
+Generated locally with:
+
+```bash
+sh scripts/package-release.sh
+```
+
+Artifacts:
+
+| artifact | sha256 |
+| --- | --- |
+| `dosh-linux-x86_64.tar.gz` | `f421ee56aac61892c9e152d2ef018cf95eb35dec2ca1b2b5cc82eeb1fcc12911` |
+| `dosh-0.1.0-linux-x86_64.tar.gz` | `f421ee56aac61892c9e152d2ef018cf95eb35dec2ca1b2b5cc82eeb1fcc12911` |
+
+The installer verifies `<artifact>.sha256` when the sidecar is published.
+
+## Docker SSH/Mosh Benchmark
+
+Command:
+
+```bash
+make bench-docker-mosh
+```
+
+### Cold SSH Bootstrap
+
+| metric | n | min ms | median ms | p95 ms | mean ms | max ms |
+| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
+| `ssh_true_ms` | 3 | 216.58 | 220.27 | 224.64 | 220.66 | 225.12 |
+| `dosh_attach_ms` | 3 | 232.37 | 235.56 | 239.13 | 235.82 | 239.53 |
+
+Raw samples:
+
+- `ssh_true_ms`: [216.58, 220.27, 225.12]
+- `dosh_attach_ms`: [235.56, 232.37, 239.53]
+
+Gate: `dosh_attach_ms avg 235.82ms <= ssh avg 220.66ms + 500.00ms`
+
+### ControlMaster SSH Bootstrap
+
+| metric | n | min ms | median ms | p95 ms | mean ms | max ms |
+| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
+| `ssh_true_ms` | 3 | 7.29 | 7.50 | 47.51 | 22.25 | 51.95 |
+| `dosh_attach_ms` | 3 | 16.62 | 17.01 | 17.77 | 17.16 | 17.85 |
+
+Raw samples:
+
+- `ssh_true_ms`: [51.95, 7.29, 7.50]
+- `dosh_attach_ms`: [17.01, 16.62, 17.85]
+
+Gate: `dosh_attach_ms avg 17.16ms <= ssh avg 22.25ms + 500.00ms`
+
+### Native Cold Auth
+
+| metric | n | min ms | median ms | p95 ms | mean ms | max ms |
+| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
+| `ssh_true_ms` | 5 | 215.72 | 222.68 | 227.05 | 221.32 | 227.82 |
+| `dosh_cold_native_ms` | 5 | 8.63 | 8.84 | 9.16 | 8.88 | 9.23 |
+
+Raw samples:
+
+- `ssh_true_ms`: [216.40, 223.99, 227.82, 222.68, 215.72]
+- `dosh_cold_native_ms`: [8.84, 8.63, 9.23, 8.88, 8.84]
+
+Gate: `dosh_cold_native_ms avg 8.88ms <= ssh avg 221.32ms + 0.00ms`
+
+### Cached Attach
+
+| metric | n | min ms | median ms | p95 ms | mean ms | max ms |
+| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
+| `dosh_cached_attach_ms` | 10 | 8.07 | 8.96 | 9.83 | 8.98 | 9.84 |
+
+Raw samples:
+
+- `dosh_cached_attach_ms`: [8.07, 9.09, 9.02, 8.66, 8.71, 8.90, 8.45, 9.84, 9.25, 9.82]
+
+Gate: `dosh_cached_attach_ms avg 8.98ms <= 25.00ms`
+
+### Mosh Comparison
+
+| metric | n | min ms | median ms | p95 ms | mean ms | max ms |
+| --- | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: | ---: |
+| `ssh_true_ms` | 3 | 216.48 | 218.93 | 219.49 | 218.32 | 219.55 |
+| `dosh_attach_ms` | 3 | 229.59 | 233.00 | 233.31 | 231.98 | 233.35 |
+| `mosh_start_true_ms` | 3 | 527.13 | 563.34 | 573.09 | 554.89 | 574.18 |
+
+Raw samples:
+
+- `ssh_true_ms`: [219.55, 216.48, 218.93]
+- `dosh_attach_ms`: [233.00, 229.59, 233.35]
+- `mosh_start_true_ms`: [563.34, 527.13, 574.18]
+
+## Soak And Fuzz Evidence
+
+- `cargo test`: `153 passed, 1 ignored`
+- `make soak-local`: `sleep_roaming_soak_30m ... ok`, finished in `1803.54s`
+- `make fuzz-smoke`: passed all configured targets for 20s each:
+  `packet_decode`, `from_body`, `authorized_keys`, `known_hosts`,
+  `handshake_structs`, `attach_ticket`
+
+## Public Claim Boundary
+
+This evidence supports:
+
+- Dosh cached attach and native auth are much faster than cold SSH/Mosh startup in
+  this benchmark environment.
+- Dosh remains mosh-shaped, not mosh-compatible.
+- Dosh does not claim generic SSH replacement compatibility.
+- Native v1 security still needs external review before making hard public security
+  claims.