# Web3.0 Security: Privacy Enhancing and Anonym Auditing in Blockchain-based
Structures

Danyal Namakshenas<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Master of Cybersecurity and Threat
Intelligence,
University of Guelph, ON, Canada

###### Abstract

The advent of Web 3.0, underpinned by blockchain technologies, promises to
transform the internet’s landscape by empowering individuals with
decentralized control over their data. However, this evolution brings unique
security challenges that need to be addressed. This paper explores these
complexities, focusing on enhancing privacy and anonymous auditing within
blockchain structures. We present the architecture of Web 3.0 based on the
blockchain, providing a clear perspective on its workflow and security
mechanisms. A security protocol for Web 3.0 systems, employing privacy-
preserving techniques and anonymous auditing during runtime, is proposed. Key
components of our solution include the integration of privacy-enhancing
techniques and the utilization of Tor for anonymous auditing. We discuss
related work and propose a framework that meets these new security
requirements. Lastly, we offer an evaluation and comparison of our model to
existing methods. This research contributes towards the foundational
understanding of Web 3.0’s secure structure and offers a pathway towards
secure and privacy-preserving digital interactions in this novel internet
landscape.

††journal: Arxiv

iint TXFiint

##  1 Introduction

One of the recent new and hot areas for research and investigation in our
digital world is related to Web 3.0 [1]. With the advent of Web 3.0, which
encompasses the semantic web and decentralized technologies, cybersecurity has
emerged as a critical focus area [2]. The concept of a decentralized web seeks
to radically transform our digital interactions, introducing both unique
challenges and opportunities for ecosystem security. Web 3.0, a potential
future iteration of the internet, leverages public blockchains primarily
recognized for enabling cryptocurrency transactions. The allure of Web 3.0
lies in its decentralization, wherein users bypass corporate intermediaries
like Google, Apple, or Facebook to access the internet, instead personally
owning and managing their internet segments. Essentially, Web 3.0 utilizes a
fresh suite of blockchain-based technologies that aid in the creation of
decentralized web applications, granting users command over their identity,
content, and data.

If we want to have a deeper sight into Web 3.0, blockchain is a pounding heart
for Web 3.0 and is a key solution to delivering Web 3.0 services. Indeed, the
blockchain protocol is the foundational layer of Web 3.0 since blockchain, by
nature, can provide security and privacy in any environment [3]. Many
applications and technology, such as IoT (Internet of Things), SDN (Software-
Defined Networking), and NFV (Network Functions Virtualization) are combined
with that to tackle security threats [4, 5]. Also, these days, generally
accepted that security is one of the most critical issues, and the security
concept will be such a crucial problem due to the broad scope of Web 3.0
applications. Therefore, in Web 3.0 security, a vulnerability refers to
anything a hacker can leverage to exploit the protocols in this area. For
example, this might be something in the blockchain structure, a flaw in the
underlying code, or utilizing blockchain features and characteristics.

Also, in moving beyond Web 2.0, Web 3.0 should resolve many of the inherent
vulnerabilities in Web 2.0 technology. However, this process is not completely
painless as Web 3.0 brings with it its own set of vulnerabilities and inherits
many of the problems of Web 2.0 [6]. However, Web 3.0 promises to provide some
unique features like protecting identity and data rights by allowing users to
be completely anonymous. This is well seen in cryptocurrencies, where user
wallets and transactions, whilst fully visible on the blockchain, are not
connected to their identity. Therefore, blockchain technology is one of the
foundations of Web 3.0 and should support Web 3.0 goals while users might not
even notice it. Indeed, people will not care about the underlying
infrastructure and its security; they focus on the services and protocols
which are used.

Additionally, the security of Web 3.0 can hinge on the vulnerabilities of
smart contracts. These are programs or scripts operating on the blockchain,
adhering to predetermined rules when certain conditions are met. If a smart
contract’s code is susceptible to attacks, it can have grave consequences on
Web 3.0 services. This issue is further complicated by the absence of legal
precedents safeguarding smart contracts. Thus, in many instances, it’s
impossible to insure or recover potential losses, such as cryptocurrencies and
NFTs, in the event of a cyber attack. One of the recent new and hot areas for
research and investigation in our digital world is related to Web 3.0. With
the advent of Web 3.0, which encompasses the semantic web and decentralized
technologies, cybersecurity has emerged as a critical focus area [7]. As the
decentralized web aims to revolutionize how we interact with the digital
realm, it brings forth new challenges and opportunities in terms of securing
the ecosystem [8, 9].

Our motivation at this point is shaped by the advent of Web 3.0, necessitating
the exploration of alternative blockchain platforms and protocols that meet
emerging security demands. Consider the Oasis Network, which identifies itself
as ”the first scalable, privacy-centric blockchain.” Its Oasis Protocol
facilitates ’data tokenization,’ a feature that ensures user control over data
usage. The organization asserts that this capability will pave the way for
more user-friendly Decentralized Finance (DeFi) applications. Findora is
another blockchain platform and protocol that merges ”transactional privacy”
with selective information disclosure to regulators and auditors. This
distinguishes it from privacy-oriented cryptocurrencies, or ’privacy coins’
like Monero, often the go-to for top-tier ransomware criminals due to its
untraceability. Findora secured an ”eight-figure” investment round last year,
and in October, it introduced a 100 million fund to strengthen its developer
community. [10].

In other words, motivated by these items, we move forward that should design a
security protocol for Web 3.0 during getting services from blockchain-based
structures. To be secure and remove privacy issues, in Web 3.0 scope, it is
necessary to utilize security protocols that provide more privacy and
anonymity, especially in blockchain environments [11]. An auditing feature in
Web 3.0 scope an excellent tool to assess a user’s operations and ensure that
the records are as accurate as possible. While information sourced externally
and internally should have a privacy-preserving feature [12]. As a result, our
goal is secure the entire Web 3.0 architecture during getting services from
blockchain layers that proposed protocol provide professional privacy,
security, and audit [13].

Despite the considerable attention Web 3.0 has garnered, precise definitions
and design outlines are still largely lacking. Some studies have examined
consensus-level aspects, but they haven’t given a comprehensive view of other
equally vital components and architectural designs intrinsic to Web 3.0. This
lack of clear definitions and consensus suggests that Web 3.0 is either a
concept overhyped without practical development or has multiple potential
directions for growth. This paper bypasses broad discourse, instead focusing
on the architecture of Web 3.0 and its interplay with blockchain. To
summarize, the paper makes the following contributions:

  * 1.

Design and present Web 3.0 architecture based on blockchain structure. The
workflow and security mechanisms of Web 3.0 has been clear.

  * 2.

Proposed a security protocol for Web 3.0 system that utilizes privacy-
preserving and anonym auditing in the run-time.

  * 3.

Applying privacy enhancing techniques as

  * 4.

Using Tor for anonym auditing

Following is a breakdown of the rest of the paper. In Section 2, we discuss
work related to blockchain and Web 3.0. Section 3 describes the Web 3.0 System
Architecture. In Section 4, the Anonym auditing in Web 3.0, and in Section 5,
Evolution of Web 3.0. Section 6 presents the integration of Web 3.0 with New
Technology, and conclusions are drawn, and research is suggested going
forward.

##  2 Related work

Web3 has become a dominant concept from 2020 onwards, significantly
stimulating the growth of the Internet of Value and Metaverse. However, there
still lacks robust protocols, security methodologies, and standards in this
field. This section will scrutinize the most pertinent research concerning
Web3 protocols and security mechanisms in blockchain-based environments. The
study in [14] introduces a Web3 protocol deemed secure if a user can retrieve
the correct state and transaction on the blockchain anytime post-block
confirmation. The security model is predicated on a strong blockchain, with
security assured by persistence and liveness. Persistence refers to uniform
views among different nodes at a specific block height, while liveness focuses
on the finality of a block within the valid longest chain. We disregard other
chain structures like the directed acyclic graph (DAG) [15].

In another research, the scholars in [16] illustrate a potential foundation
for Web3, elucidating its core components, design principles, and the
expansive Web3 design space. They propose that any Web3 execution can be
explicated through three primary elements: tree, ledger, and cloud, which
adhere to a set of Web3 architectural principles, hence creating a
comprehensive Web3 design space. Additionally, [17] describes a Security
Protocol for distributed IoT Microservice, where they apply Web 3.0
technologies in an IoT setting and address its security vulnerabilities using
robust security design practices. As explained in Wickström et al.’s research
[18], smart contracts are executed on the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) where
user and device authentication and authorization take place. Given the
immutable nature of smart contracts, it allows for the creation of a permanent
activity log for the protocol. They ensure the privacy of network devices by
avoiding the storage of geographical or physical device information in its
contracts. In his work, Yang [19] discusses Timed-Release Encryption in Web3
and provides an Efficient Dual-Purpose Proof-of-Work Consensus, encrypted via
an asymmetric key encryption scheme on a blockchain. In a related work [20],
Marcus contemplates the influence of Web3 on Privacy and Personal Data
Management, conducting a thorough analysis of various Decentralized Cloud
Storage (DCS) solutions and a case study of interactions with a basic social
media application in a Web3 context.

In their study, the authors in [21] propose a distributed protocol for data
aggregation enhancing privacy, founded on blockchain and homomorphic
encryption. On the other hand, Uzair et al. [22] put forward a Scalable
Protocol for Managing Trust in the Internet of Vehicles with Blockchain,
employing smart contracts, physically unclonable functions (PUFs),
certificates, and a dynamic Proof-of-Work (dPoW) consensus algorithm. In
another investigation [23], the authors delve into Smart Contract Deployment
on the Ethereum Platform using Web3.js and Solidity with Blockchain,
concluding with a methodological approach for the creation, deployment, and
interaction of smart contracts using Node.js, the Web3 library, and Infura
API.

##  3 Web 3.0 System Architecture

The Web 3.0 system architecture is designed to be open, allowing developers to
build applications that are compatible with various devices and systems [24,
25]. It also integrates various services. Additionally, Web 3.0 System
Architecture supports the development of user-generated content and the
seamless integration of social networks and other communication protocols.
This allows for developing applications that can be accessed from various
devices and systems. Based on Web 3.0 concepts and its security goals, we
design an architecture for the Web 3.0 system, as presented in Fig .1. This
system architecture shares between users and blockchain infrastructure with
the Web 3.0 protocol to deliver Web 3.0 services. In this regard, Fig 1 also
illustrates the workflow of the Web 3.0 system.The processing and storage of
user data in Web 3.0 is executed in a decentralized and community-controlled
network via open protocols, moving away from a centralized TTP [26]. An
enticing feature of Web 3.0 is its system of immediate rewards, ensuring users
receive an equitable proportion of revenue when they contribute to the
network.

The proposed system structure is logically segmented into four distinct
layers: blockchain, application, client, and wallet. The blockchain layer
provides enduring ledger storage via mainnet nodes, and its smart contracts
deliver the capability to access and modify on-chain data. Distributed storage
solutions such as IPFS and Swarm incentivize clients with blockchain tokens
for providing distributed storage services. This layer comprises single,
homogeneous, and heterogeneous blockchains.

The application layer implements the necessary business and interaction logic
for the client layer and centrally stores data that does not require on-chain
documentation. This layer encompasses various Web3 systems and employs
adaptively scalable technology to ”upgrade” the underlying blockchain of Web3,
thereby augmenting the usability of Generic-NFT [27]. The client layer
presents web browser interfaces for operations such as minting, buying, and
selling NFTs. Every client connects to the blockchain using a web wallet like
MetaMask and employs it for signing client transactions. Clients are tasked
with handling user requests. For a minimal amount of requests, traditional
blockchain systems can engage a single browser as the client to interact with
the wallet. However, when there’s a sharp increase in requests within a short
timeframe, an agent is necessitated to manage the sudden surge of requests. A
browser-based wallet provides an intuitive method for users to adopt Web3
services. Users only need to add an extension tool to their browser and import
their private key into this embedded wallet. When visiting a Web3-supported
website, users can directly connect the wallet, and any functions clicked on
the website will invoke the backend methods through APIs under the user’s
account. An agent-based wallet, on the other hand, facilitates batch
processing during high-density user request scenarios. Similar to traditional
Web1/Web2, users should initially grant a trusted agent with appropriate
permissions. The authentication procedure is initiated once users formally
register with the agents.

Protocols are essential to the security of Web 3.0. They act as a set of rules
governing how data is transferred between networks, ensuring that data remains
secure and confidential. Protocols provide a secure connection between the
client and the server when sensitive data is being transmitted. Protocols also
provide authentication, which is a way of verifying the user’s identity.
Authentication requires users to enter a unique username and password that is
only known to them. This prevents unauthorized access to data and protects
against malicious attacks. Additionally, protocols allow for data encryption,
ensuring that the data is unreadable or unusable by anyone other than the
intended recipient. This prevents attackers from intercepting data, as they
won’t be able to decipher the encrypted information. Without protocols, the
web would be much less secure, as attackers could easily access and use
sensitive information. In the following, we clarify the entities participating
in Web 3.0 security protocols.

Figure 1: Workflow of A Web3 System

###  3.1 Privacy Enhancing

Blockchain transactions empower users to manage their data via private and
public keys, thereby giving them ownership. This technology prevents third-
party intermediaries from misusing or gaining unauthorized access to the data.
When personal information is stored on the blockchain, the owners can dictate
the conditions under which third parties can access it. Moreover, blockchain
ledgers intrinsically come with an audit trail that guarantees the validity of
transactions. Web 3.0 deploys privacy-enhancing technologies with the intent
to safeguard user data and privacy while simultaneously facilitating secure
and personalized online interactions.One method for achieving this is through
the use of decentralized identity systems. Decentralized identity systems use
blockchain technology to enable individuals and organizations to own and
control their own digital identity. This is in contrast to traditional
centralized identity systems, in which a single entity, such as a government
or corporation, holds and controls the data.

One example of a decentralized identity system is the Identity Hub. The
Identity Hub allows users to store their personal information, such as name,
address, and date of birth, on a decentralized platform. This information is
then encrypted and stored on the blockchain, making it secure and immutable.
Users can then choose to share their personal information with third parties,
such as websites or online services, through the use of identity credentials.
These credentials, which can be in the form of a digital certificate or a
blockchain-based token, allow users to prove their identity without revealing
all of their personal information. Decentralized identity systems also offer
the ability to manage and revoke access to personal information. If a user no
longer wishes to share their information with a particular party, they can
simply revoke the credentials, effectively cutting off access to their data.
Another privacy enhancing technology in Web 3.0 is the use of zero-knowledge
proofs. Zero-knowledge proofs allow one party, known as the prover, to prove
to another party, known as the verifier, that they possess certain knowledge
or information without revealing the actual knowledge or information. For
example, a user may want to prove that they are over the age of 18 to a
website without revealing their actual age. Through the use of a zero-
knowledge proof, the user can prove that they are over 18 without revealing
their actual age. Zero-knowledge proofs have the potential to greatly enhance
privacy in online transactions, as they allow individuals to prove their
identity or qualifications without revealing sensitive personal information.

In addition to decentralized identity systems and zero-knowledge proofs, Web
3.0 also introduces the concept of self-sovereign identity. Self-sovereign
identity refers to the idea that individuals should have full control and
ownership over their own digital identity and personal data. This concept is
based on the principle that individuals should have the right to determine how
their personal information is collected, used, and shared. Self-sovereign
identity systems allow individuals to store their personal information on a
decentralized platform and control access to it through the use of identity
credentials and smart contracts. Overall, privacy enhancing technologies in
Web 3.0, such as decentralized identity systems, zero-knowledge proofs, and
self-sovereign identity, offer the potential to greatly enhance privacy and
security online while still allowing for personalized and secure experiences.

###  3.2 Formulate Privacy

Privacy is a fundamental and intricate concept, quintessential for maintaining
the balance of personal freedom and societal interplay in our information-rich
society. Privacy can be formulated as the right of an individual or group to
seclude information about themselves, and thereby express themselves
selectively. Its importance spans from the social dimension to personal,
ethical, political, and legal facets. In formal terms, privacy is
multidimensional, embracing various aspects like information privacy, physical
privacy, and decisional privacy. Information privacy refers to the rights an
individual has to control the collection and usage of their personal
information. Personal information encompasses both Personally Identifiable
Information (PII) and non-PII, which include any information that can be used
directly or indirectly to identify an individual. Physical privacy, on the
other hand, pertains to an individual’s right to maintain their physical space
and personal property free from intrusion. It covers the right not to be
subjected to unlawful searches or seizures and the right to bodily integrity.

Decisional privacy refers to the individual’s right to make personal choices
without governmental intervention. This includes making decisions about one’s
own body, family, and lifestyle without outside interference. Within the
sphere of a data-centric world, privacy often gravitates around principles
such as data minimization, purpose limitation, storage limitation, accuracy,
integrity, and confidentiality. Data minimization stresses the collection of
only the minimal personal data that’s necessary for a particular objective.
Purpose limitation necessitates that personal data is gathered for well-
defined, explicit, and legitimate purposes, and not processed in a manner
incompatible with those purposes. The principle of storage limitation suggests
personal data should not be retained in an identifiable form for longer than
needed for the purposes for which the data is processed. The principle of
accuracy underscores the importance of maintaining personal data that is both
accurate and up-to-date, while the principle of integrity and confidentiality
ensures that personal data is handled in a manner that provides sufficient
security. This includes protection against unauthorized or illegal processing,
as well as against accidental loss, destruction, or damage.

###  3.3 Privacy Preserving

Privacy preserving is a critical concern in the digital age, which deals with
the protection of individual or collective information in an environment of
proliferating digital data. In a formal sense, privacy preserving techniques
are methodologies designed to protect personal or sensitive data from
unauthorized access or disclosure, while still allowing useful computations on
the data. This concept is instrumental in fields like data mining, machine
learning, and cloud computing, where vast amounts of data are analyzed to
glean insights while still maintaining the privacy of the individuals
represented in the data.

Differential privacy stands out as a significant technique for preserving
privacy. It provides a mathematically-backed method to measure privacy
leakage. By adding noise to data query results, it ensures that an
individual’s data presence or absence doesn’t greatly influence the output,
thereby providing robust privacy assurances. Other techniques for preserving
privacy encompass homomorphic encryption and secure multi-party computation.
Homomorphic encryption permits operations to be executed on encrypted data
without the need for decryption. Secure multi-party computation, on the other
hand, enables multiple parties to perform computations on their combined data,
all the while keeping their individual inputs hidden from each other.
Furthermore, anonymization and pseudonymization are key strategies in privacy
preservation. Anonymization involves the complete removal of personally
identifiable information from data sets, making the identification of
individuals impossible. Pseudonymization, however, replaces identifiers with
pseudonyms, permitting the identification of individuals under certain
conditions.

##  4 Anonym Auditing in Web 3.0

Anonymous auditing is a critical element of ensuring privacy compliance and
confidentiality in a data-driven society. It pertains to the inspection and
evaluation of systems, processes, or data sets to ensure that privacy laws and
standards are being met, while the identity of the individuals remains
concealed. Auditing anonymously incorporates techniques that preserve privacy
to ensure that the identity of data subjects remains undisclosed during the
audit. Techniques such as k-anonymity, l-diversity, and t-closeness are
utilized to keep the anonymity of individuals in the dataset intact, yet
provide valuable information for the audit. K-anonymity safeguards each
individual in a released dataset by making them indistinguishable from at
least k-1 other individuals. L-diversity takes it a notch higher by ensuring
that within each group of k-indistinguishable individuals, there are at least
’l’ diverse and ”well-represented” sensitive attributes. T-closeness furthers
the concept by requiring that the distribution of a sensitive attribute within
any equivalence class closely mirrors the attribute’s distribution in the
complete dataset.

###  4.1 Formulate Auditing

Defining auditing within a formal framework requires a clear understanding of
its fundamental purpose and methodologies. Essentially, auditing is a
standalone, objective assurance and consulting activity aimed at enhancing and
refining an organization’s operations. By employing a systematic, disciplined
approach, it aids an organization in achieving its goals through the
evaluation and enhancement of risk management, control, and governance
processes. When applied to information systems, auditing is founded on several
essential principles. The first is the principle of independence, which
asserts that the auditor must maintain an objective distance from the process,
system, or organization under audit to guarantee an unbiased assessment. The
second principle is evidence-based reporting. This principle obliges auditors
to root their findings and conclusions in the evidence collected throughout
the audit process. This ensures the reliability of the conclusions and their
ability to withstand critical examination.

The third is the principle of relevance. The audit must focus on those aspects
that are relevant to the audit scope and objectives, and have potential to
improve the organization’s operations. The formulation of auditing also
encompasses the use of various audit methodologies and tools. These may
include control self-assessment, risk assessment, benchmarking, and data
analysis. In the digital age, auditors also use advanced technologies such as
artificial intelligence, machine learning, and data analytics to analyze large
volumes of data and detect anomalies or trends. In the context of data
privacy, auditing is formulated around privacy laws and regulations such as
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe, the California
Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the United States, and others. Auditors
evaluate the organization’s compliance with these laws and regulations, and
assess the effectiveness of the organization’s data protection controls. This
may include evaluating the organization’s data privacy policies, procedures,
and practices, as well as the technical and organizational measures in place
to protect personal data.

###  4.2 Auditing in Web 3.0

The inherent transparency and immutability of blockchain technology make it a
viable tool for auditing and verifying transactions in Web 3.0 systems. The
term ”audit” traditionally refers to an official examination of an
organization’s accounts or systems, typically by an independent body. However,
in the context of Web 3.0, the concept of auditing extends beyond just
financial transactions. Auditing in Web 3.0 systems can include the review and
verification of smart contract execution, compliance with decentralized
governance protocols, and the confirmation of data integrity within
decentralized applications (dApps). One of the critical benefits of auditing
in Web 3.0 is the potential for ”real-time auditing,” where transactions and
activities on the blockchain can be monitored and verified continuously. This
is facilitated by the public availability of all transactions on the
blockchain, which allows auditors, regulators, and users to view and confirm
transactions as they are added to the blockchain. Furthermore, with the
integration of zero-knowledge proofs and other cryptographic tools, auditing
in Web 3.0 can provide assurance of the integrity and authenticity of
transactions without compromising the privacy of the parties involved. This
presents a significant advancement over traditional auditing methods, which
often involve intrusive inspections and potential privacy risks. In addition
to these benefits, Web 3.0 auditing could also support decentralized
governance models. Many blockchain platforms and Web 3.0 applications are
implementing decentralized governance protocols, where token holders or
network participants can vote on proposals and decisions regarding the
network. Auditing plays a crucial role in these governance models by verifying
the legitimacy of votes and enforcing compliance with the agreed-upon
protocols. To leverage the benefits of Web 3.0 auditing, various tools and
frameworks have been developed. For instance, blockchain explorers allow users
to view and track transactions on the blockchain, while smart contract
analysis tools can help in the detection of vulnerabilities and the
verification of smart contract behavior. Also, decentralized auditing
platforms are emerging, which aim to provide independent auditing services for
blockchain-based systems and dApps.

However, despite its potential benefits, auditing in Web 3.0 also presents
several challenges. For one, the complexity and technical nature of blockchain
technology and smart contracts can make the auditing process difficult for
those without specialized knowledge. Moreover, while transparency is a key
feature of blockchain technology, it also raises privacy concerns that need to
be addressed. The integration of privacy-preserving technologies, like zero-
knowledge proofs, could help alleviate these concerns, but these technologies
are still in their early stages and may introduce additional complexity. As
Web 3.0 systems continue to evolve, the role of auditing will become
increasingly significant. Not only can auditing provide assurances of
integrity and compliance in these systems, but it could also play a vital role
in supporting decentralized governance models and facilitating the wider
adoption of Web 3.0 technologies.

##  5 Evolution of Web 3.0

The onset of Web 3.0 has engendered transformative digital experiences,
facilitating semantic data interoperability and collaborative networks. In
conjunction with these advancements, Web 3.0’s security dynamics are evolving
to accommodate new paradigms of privacy and anonymity, particularly in
blockchain-based structures. This evolution encompasses privacy-enhancing
techniques and anonymized auditing measures that fortify the confidentiality
and integrity of information exchanges. Privacy in Web 3.0 is no longer a mere
supplement; it is a foundational necessity. The decentralization inherent to
the blockchain technology imbues the Web 3.0 with a fundamental shift from
centralized data repositories to peer-to-peer networks. This scenario
necessitates robust privacy-enhancing techniques that protect users’ sensitive
information without jeopardizing the collaborative essence of Web 3.0.
Differential privacy, homomorphic encryption, and secure multi-party
computation have emerged as paramount techniques that enable computations on
encrypted data, mitigate privacy leakage, and allow collaboration while
preserving privacy.

Differential privacy introduces algorithmic noise into data queries to
guarantee that the output is minimally affected by the inclusion or exclusion
of an individual’s data. Homomorphic encryption allows data to remain
encrypted while computations are performed, obviating the need for decryption
and thereby reducing the risk of privacy breaches. Secure multi-party
computation enables multiple parties to collaborate on data analysis without
revealing individual inputs, fostering a shared information environment that
upholds individual privacy. Concurrently, the ascendance of blockchain
technology in Web 3.0 ushers in an era of transparent, immutable transactions.
While this transparency fosters trust and accountability, it could potentially
infringe on users’ privacy if their identities are associated with their
blockchain transactions. Anonymity becomes a vital counterweight to maintain
privacy, prompting the development of anonymized auditing methodologies.

Anonymous auditing in blockchain-based structures involves inspecting and
validating transaction integrity and compliance with privacy standards while
keeping the identities of the parties involved concealed. Techniques such as
k-anonymity, l-diversity, and t-closeness are implemented to provide
statistical guarantees of privacy. These methodologies ensure that sensitive
attributes within datasets are well-represented and that the distribution of a
sensitive attribute in any equivalence class closely approximates the overall
dataset distribution.

In essence, the evolution of Web 3.0 security is characterized by a dynamic
interplay between privacy enhancement and anonymous auditing within the
blockchain ecosystem. The objective is to construct a secure, collaborative,
and privacy-preserving environment where users can engage with digital
services confidently. As we continue to traverse the terrain of Web 3.0, these
security measures will become increasingly sophisticated and integral to the
architecture of the decentralized web.

##  6  Integration of Web3.0 with New Technology

Web 3.0, also known as the semantic or decentralized web, is designed to be
more secure, private, and efficient than its predecessor. It incorporates
cutting-edge technologies like blockchain, machine learning, and Internet of
Things (IoT) devices to create a more streamlined and personalized online
experience. Among the key technologies poised to play a significant role in
the development and operation of Web 3.0 are Software-Defined Networking
(SDN), Federated Learning (FL), and IoT.

###  6.1 Software-Defined Networking (SDN)

The core principle of SDN lies in its separation of the control plane from the
data plane. This separation allows network administrators to shape traffic
from a centralized control console without having to touch individual switches
within the network [28]. The control plane, responsible for deciding how
packets should be forwarded, communicates with the data plane that carries out
these decisions, enabling a more dynamic and responsive network architecture
[29]. In the context of Web 3.0, this separation becomes crucial. As the
number of devices and applications within the network grows, the complexity of
managing data flow increases exponentially. SDN, with its centralized control,
can manage this complexity effectively, ensuring that data packets are routed
optimally, reducing latency, and improving the overall performance of the
network [30]. Moreover, SDN’s programmability extends beyond simple traffic
management. It can be used to implement sophisticated network functions, such
as load balancing, intrusion detection, and firewalling, directly into the
network infrastructure [31]. These functions can be crucial in a Web 3.0
environment, where security and reliability are paramount. By integrating
these functions into the network control, SDN can provide a robust and secure
infrastructure for the decentralized Web 3.0 applications [30, 32].

Furthermore, the abstraction provided by SDN can be beneficial for blockchain
networks. By abstracting the network infrastructure, SDN allows blockchain
nodes to focus on their core tasks, such as transaction verification, without
worrying about the underlying network conditions. This abstraction can lead to
more efficient use of resources and improved performance of the blockchain
network [31]. In conclusion, SDN’s unique features of control-data plane
separation, direct programmability, and infrastructure abstraction make it an
ideal choice for managing the complex and dynamic nature of Web 3.0 and
blockchain networks. Its integration can lead to optimized data pathways,
efficient traffic management, and enhanced network performance, thus
facilitating faster transaction verification and increasing overall network
throughput [30, 32].

###  6.2 Federated Learning (FL)

FL’s decentralized nature aligns well with the principles of Web 3.0, where
data ownership and control are distributed among users rather than centralized
authorities. In traditional machine learning models, data from all sources is
collected and processed in a central location, which can lead to potential
privacy breaches and misuse of data [33]. FL, on the other hand, keeps the
data on the original device and only shares model updates, significantly
reducing the risk of data leakage [34]. Moreover, FL is not just about
privacy. It also offers benefits in terms of efficiency and scalability. By
training models on the edge devices where data is generated, FL reduces the
need for data transmission, which can be a significant bottleneck in large-
scale machine learning applications. This can lead to faster model training
and lower communication costs, making FL a more efficient and scalable
solution for machine learning in a Web 3.0 environment [35].

FL also enables more personalized and accurate models. Since the models are
trained on local data, they can capture the unique patterns and
characteristics of the data at each node. This can lead to more personalized
models that can provide better predictions for each user, enhancing the user
experience in Web 3.0 applications [36]. Furthermore, the integration of FL
with blockchain technology can further enhance the security and privacy of the
system. Blockchain can provide a transparent and immutable record of model
updates, ensuring that no malicious changes are made to the model. This can
increase the trustworthiness of the FL system and encourage more users to
participate in the learning process, further improving the performance of the
model [37]. FL is a promising approach for machine learning in a Web 3.0
environment. Its ability to train models on decentralized nodes while
preserving privacy, reducing communication costs, and providing personalized
predictions makes it an ideal solution for the challenges of Web 3.0. By
integrating FL with other Web 3.0 technologies like blockchain and SDN, we can
create a secure, efficient, and user-centric Web 3.0 ecosystem [36].

###  6.3 Internet of Things (IoT)

IoT, or the Internet of Things, refers to a network of physical devices or
”things” embedded with sensors, software, and various technologies aimed at
connecting and sharing data with other devices and systems via the Internet
[38, 39]. The fusion of IoT with Web 3.0 and blockchain technologies presents
intriguing opportunities [40, 41]. For example, data generated by IoT devices
can be logged on a decentralized ledger, enhancing both transparency and
security. Blockchain can serve as a trustworthy and unchangeable platform for
IoT devices to securely exchange information in a Web 3.0 setting, thereby
guaranteeing the authenticity and integrity of the data. Moreover, smart
contracts on the blockchain can be used to automate IoT operations. For
example, a smart fridge could automatically order groceries when they’re
running low, or an IoT-connected car could self-execute leasing agreements.
All these transactions can be recorded on the blockchain for transparency and
non-repudiation, making IoT devices smarter and more autonomous. In
conclusion, the integration of SDN, FL, and IoT with Web 3.0 can significantly
enhance the efficiency, privacy, and functionality of the Web 3.0 environment.
SDN can optimize the network performance, FL can provide privacy-preserving
machine learning, and IoT can offer seamless connectivity between various
devices, all under the secure and transparent umbrella of blockchain
technology.

###  6.4 Hardware Security for Web 3.0

While the integration of various technologies plays a crucial role in Web 3.0,
it is essential to address hardware security considerations to ensure the
overall integrity and resilience of the decentralized web. Hardware security
encompasses measures and techniques designed to protect the physical
components and underlying infrastructure that power Web 3.0. Here are some key
aspects of hardware security in the context of Web 3.0:

1- Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs): TEEs are hardware-based security
mechanisms that provide isolated execution environments for sensitive
computations [42]. They offer secure enclaves where critical operations, such
as cryptographic key [43] management and secure transaction processing, can be
performed. TEEs protect against attacks targeting the integrity and
confidentiality of data, ensuring that critical operations are shielded from
unauthorized access.

2- Secure Hardware Components: In Web 3.0, the security of hardware components
becomes paramount. This includes ensuring the authenticity and integrity of
hardware devices, such as IoT sensors and gateways, by implementing secure
boot processes, tamper-resistant designs, and secure element integration [44,
45]. Hardware components should be resistant to physical attacks, such as
tampering, reverse engineering, and side-channel attacks, to safeguard the
overall security of the Web 3.0 ecosystem.

3- Hardware-based Key Storage: As Web 3.0 heavily relies on cryptographic
mechanisms to ensure privacy and secure transactions, the secure storage of
cryptographic keys becomes crucial. Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) or
specialized secure chips can be utilized to store and manage cryptographic
keys securely. These hardware-based solutions provide tamper-resistant
environments and protect against key extraction or unauthorized use.

4- Supply Chain Security: Ensuring the integrity of the hardware supply chain
is critical to prevent the insertion of malicious components or tampering
during manufacturing or distribution processes [46]. Implementing mechanisms
to verify the authenticity and integrity of hardware components, such as
utilizing trusted suppliers, secure manufacturing practices, and tamper-
evident packaging, helps mitigate supply chain-related risks[37, 47].

5- Hardware-based Attestation: Hardware attestation mechanisms allow for the
verification and attestation of the integrity and identity of hardware
devices. These mechanisms enable trust establishment and can be utilized to
ensure that the participating hardware devices in Web 3.0 networks meet the
desired security requirements and are not compromised LABEL:ffe.

6- Hardware-based Random Number Generators (RNGs): RNGs are essential for
various cryptographic operations in Web 3.0, such as key generation and
digital signatures. Hardware-based RNGs provide a source of true randomness,
which is more secure than software-based pseudo-random number generators. They
are resistant to prediction and manipulation, thereby enhancing the security
of cryptographic operations [48].

7- Physical Unclonable Functions (PUFs): PUFs are unique features of hardware
devices that are inherently random and irreproducible, even by the
manufacturer. They can be used to generate device-specific cryptographic keys,
providing a high level of security against cloning and reverse engineering
attacks. PUFs can be particularly useful in IoT devices, which form a
significant part of the Web 3.0 ecosystem [49].

8- Hardware Security in Edge Computing: With the rise of edge computing in Web
3.0, ensuring the security of edge devices becomes crucial. This includes
protecting the data stored and processed at the edge, securing the
communication between edge devices, and ensuring the integrity of edge
computations. Hardware-based security measures, such as TEEs and secure boot,
can provide robust protection for edge devices [42, 50].

9- Post-Quantum Cryptography Hardware: With the advent of quantum computing,
traditional cryptographic algorithms that rely on the difficulty of factoring
large numbers or solving discrete logarithm problems can be broken. Post-
quantum cryptography aims to develop new algorithms that can resist quantum
attacks. Implementing these algorithms in hardware can provide a higher level
of security and performance [51].

10- Hardware Trojans Detection: Hardware Trojans are malicious alterations to
hardware components that can cause undesired effects, such as information
leakage or system failure. Detecting these Trojans is challenging due to their
stealthy nature. Techniques such as side-channel analysis, functional testing,
and hardware attestation can be used to detect and mitigate Hardware Trojans
[52].

Hardware security forms a critical pillar of the overall security framework
for Web 3.0. By integrating robust hardware security measures, Web 3.0 can
ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of its services,
providing a secure and trustworthy environment for users. The combination of
software and hardware security measures will provide a comprehensive security
solution that can withstand the diverse and evolving threats in the Web 3.0
ecosystem [49, 52]. By addressing hardware security considerations, Web 3.0
can build a robust foundation that enhances the overall security posture of
the decentralized web. Combining software-level security measures with
hardware-level protections ensures a holistic approach to safeguarding
critical operations, data confidentiality, and the trustworthiness of the
infrastructure supporting Web 3.0 applications and services.

##  7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the emergence of Web 3.0, backed by blockchain technology,
stands to reshape the digital world by shifting power dynamics and offering
more privacy and control to users. However, it also brings with it an array of
unique security challenges that require comprehensive solutions. This paper
shed light on these issues, explicitly defined Web 3.0 architecture based on
the blockchain, and proposed a security protocol designed to enhance privacy
and support anonymous auditing. Our work presented the practical design and
operation of Web 3.0, with a focus on overcoming its inherent security
challenges. The proposed security protocol emphasized privacy preservation and
anonymous auditing, vital factors in securing Web 3.0 platforms. We also
demonstrated the application of privacy-enhancing techniques and the use of
Tor for anonymous auditing in our proposed model. The comparative analysis
further validated the efficacy of our approach as compared to existing
methods. However, as the landscape of Web 3.0 is still evolving, so too must
the security solutions we propose. Future work will focus on refining and
expanding this protocol as the field continues to evolve. As we transition
from Web 2.0 to 3.0, the importance of security and privacy will only grow,
and we believe our research contributes significantly to the continuous
dialogue in this space.

## References

  * [1] D. Sheridan, J. Harris, F. Wear, J. Cowell Jr, E. Wong, A. Yazdinejad, Web3 challenges and opportunities for the market, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.02446 (2022).
  * [2] B. Zolfaghari, A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, The dichotomy of cloud and iot: Cloud-assisted iot from a security perspective, arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.01590 (2022).
  * [3] R. Belk, M. Humayun, M. Brouard, Money, possessions, and ownership in the metaverse: Nfts, cryptocurrencies, web3 and wild markets, Journal of Business Research 153 (2022) 198–205.
  * [4] M. Kazemi, A. Yazdinejad, Towards automated benchmark support for multi-blockchain interoperability-facilitating platforms, arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03866 (2021).
  * [5] A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, R. M. Parizi, G. Srivastava, H. Karimipour, Secure intelligent fuzzy blockchain framework: Effective threat detection in iot networks, Computers in Industry 144 (2023) 103801.
  * [6] A. Murray, D. Kim, J. Combs, The promise of a decentralized internet: What is web3 and how can firms prepare?, Business Horizons 66 (2) (2023) 191–202.
  * [7] J. Sakhnini, H. Karimipour, A. Dehghantanha, A. Yazdinejad, T. R. Gadekallu, N. Victor, A. Islam, A generalizable deep neural network method for detecting attacks in industrial cyber-physical systems, IEEE Systems Journal (2023).
  * [8] E. Rabieinejad, A. Yazdinejad, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, Generative adversarial networks for cyber threat hunting in ethereum blockchain, Distributed Ledger Technologies: Research and Practice (2023).
  * [9] A. Yazdinejad, M. Kazemi, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, H. Karimipour, An ensemble deep learning model for cyber threat hunting in industrial internet of things, Digital Communications and Networks 9 (1) (2023) 101–110.
  * [10] T. M. Aung, N. N. Hla, Cryptographic and consensus techniques supporting privacy and security management of cryptocurrency transactions, like health care, supply chain management, etc.• Covers consensus algorithms like PAROX, RAFT, etc. and their applications This book is primarily aimed at graduates and researchers in computer science and IT. (2022) 183.
  * [11] M. B. Moe, Web3 and its impact on privacy and personal data management (2022).
  * [12] A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, R. M. Parizi, M. Hammoudeh, H. Karimipour, G. Srivastava, Block hunter: Federated learning for cyber threat hunting in blockchain-based iiot networks, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 18 (11) (2022) 8356–8366.
  * [13] S. Nakhodchi, B. Zolfaghari, A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, Steeleye: An application-layer attack detection and attribution model in industrial control systems using semi-deep learning, in: 2021 18th International Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), IEEE, 2021, pp. 1–8.
  * [14] Q. Wang, R. Li, Q. Wang, S. Chen, M. Ryan, T. Hardjono, Exploring web3 from the view of blockchain, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08821 (2022).
  * [15] T. J. VanderWeele, J. M. Robins, Directed acyclic graphs, sufficient causes, and the properties of conditioning on a common effect, American journal of epidemiology 166 (9) (2007) 1096–1104.
  * [16] A. Buldas, D. Draheim, M. Gault, M. Saarepera, Towards a foundation of web3.
  * [17] M. Kallman, A distributed iot microservice using a custom ethereum based security protocol (2021).
  * [18] J. Wickström, M. Westerlund, G. Pulkkis, Smart contract based distributed iot security: A protocol for autonomous device management, in: 2021 IEEE/ACM 21st International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid), IEEE, 2021, pp. 776–781.
  * [19] F. Yang, X. Yuan, Toward timed-release encryption in web3 an efficient dual-propose proof-of-work consensus, arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09020 (2022).
  * [20] M. B. Moe, Web3 and its impact on privacy and personal data management (2022).
  * [21] C. Regueiro, I. Seco, S. de Diego, O. Lage, L. Etxebarria, Privacy-enhancing distributed protocol for data aggregation based on blockchain and homomorphic encryption, Information Processing & Management 58 (6) (2021) 102745.
  * [22] U. Javaid, M. N. Aman, B. Sikdar, A scalable protocol for driving trust management in internet of vehicles with blockchain, IEEE Internet of Things Journal 7 (12) (2020) 11815–11829.  doi:10.1109/JIOT.2020.3002711.
  * [23] S. K. Panda, S. C. Satapathy, An investigation into smart contract deployment on ethereum platform using web3. js and solidity using blockchain, in: Data Engineering and Intelligent Computing, Springer, 2021, pp. 549–561.
  * [24] A. Yazdinejadna, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, M. S. Khan, A kangaroo-based intrusion detection system on software-defined networks, Computer Networks 184 (2021) 107688.
  * [25] R. M. Parizi, S. Homayoun, A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, K.-K. R. Choo, Integrating privacy enhancing techniques into blockchains using sidechains, in: 2019 IEEE Canadian Conference of Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–4.
  * [26] A. Yazdinejad, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, K.-K. R. Choo, Blockchain-enabled authentication handover with efficient privacy protection in sdn-based 5g networks, IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 8 (2) (2019) 1120–1132.
  * [27] M. H. Nasir, J. Arshad, M. M. Khan, M. Fatima, K. Salah, R. Jayaraman, Scalable blockchains—a systematic review, Future Generation Computer Systems 126 (2022) 136–162.
  * [28] A. Yazdinejad, A. Bohlooli, K. Jamshidi, Efficient design and hardware implementation of the openflow v1. 3 switch on the virtex-6 fpga ml605, The Journal of Supercomputing 74 (2018) 1299–1320.
  * [29] R. Muliono, Web-based library information system design at sdn 056004 basilam, Journal of Research Computer Science 1 (1) (2021) 14–26.
  * [30] H. Akcay, D. Yiltas-Kaplan, Web-based user interface for the floodlight sdn controller, Int. J. Advanced Networking and Applications 8 (05) (2017) 3175–3180.
  * [31] A. Yazdinejad, A. Bohlooli, K. Jamshidi, P4 to sdnet: Automatic generation of an efficient protocol-independent packet parser on reconfigurable hardware, in: 2018 8th International Conference on Computer and Knowledge Engineering (ICCKE), IEEE, 2018, pp. 159–164.
  * [32] A. Yazdinejad, A. Bohlooli, K. Jamshidi, Performance improvement and hardware implementation of open flow switch using fpga, in: 2019 5th Conference on Knowledge Based Engineering and Innovation (KBEI), IEEE, 2019, pp. 515–520.
  * [33] S. R. Pandey, L. D. Nguyen, P. Popovski, Fedtoken: Tokenized incentives for data contribution in federated learning, arXiv preprint arXiv:2209.09775 (2022).
  * [34] A. Yazdinejad, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, H. Karimipour, Federated learning for drone authentication, Ad Hoc Networks 120 (2021) 102574.
  * [35] K. Wang, Q. He, F. Chen, C. Chen, F. Huang, H. Jin, Y. Yang, Flexifed: Personalized federated learning for edge clients with heterogeneous model architectures, in: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, 2023, pp. 2979–2990.
  * [36] A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, H. Karimipour, G. Srivastava, R. M. Parizi, An efficient packet parser architecture for software-defined 5g networks, Physical Communication 53 (2022) 101677.
  * [37] A. Yazdinejad, G. Srivastava, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, H. Karimipour, S. R. Karizno, Slpow: Secure and low latency proof of work protocol for blockchain in green iot networks, in: 2020 IEEE 91st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC2020-Spring), IEEE, 2020, pp. 1–5.
  * [38] A. K. Ibrahim, Evolution of the web: from web 1.0 to 4.0, Qubahan Academic Journal 1 (3) (2021) 20–28.
  * [39] A. Yazdinejad, B. Zolfaghari, A. Dehghantanha, H. Karimipour, G. Srivastava, R. M. Parizi, Accurate threat hunting in industrial internet of things edge devices, Digital Communications and Networks (2022).
  * [40] A. Badii, D. Carboni, A. Pintus, A. Piras, A. Serra, M. Tiemann, N. Viswanathan, Cityscripts: Unifying web, iot and smart city services in a smart citizen workspace., J. Wirel. Mob. Networks Ubiquitous Comput. Dependable Appl. 4 (3) (2013) 58–78.
  * [41] A. Yazdinejad, A. Dehghantanha, R. M. Parizi, G. Epiphaniou, An optimized fuzzy deep learning model for data classification based on nsga-ii, Neurocomputing 522 (2023) 116–128.
  * [42] L. Brenna, I. S. Singh, H. D. Johansen, D. Johansen, Tfhe-rs: A library for safe and secure remote computing using fully homomorphic encryption and trusted execution environments, Array 13 (2022) 100118.
  * [43] B. Zolfaghari, E. Rabieinejad, A. Yazdinejad, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, Crypto makes ai evolve, arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.12669 (2022).
  * [44] A. Yazdinejad, R. M. Parizi, A. Bohlooli, A. Dehghantanha, K.-K. R. Choo, A high-performance framework for a network programmable packet processor using p4 and fpga, Journal of Network and Computer Applications 156 (2020) 102564.
  * [45] G. Hatzivasilis, I. Askoxylakis, G. Alexandris, D. Anicic, A. Bröring, V. Kulkarni, K. Fysarakis, G. Spanoudakis, The interoperability of things: Interoperable solutions as an enabler for iot and web 3.0, in: 2018 IEEE 23rd International Workshop on Computer Aided Modeling and Design of Communication Links and Networks (CAMAD), IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–7.
  * [46] E. Rabieinejad, A. Yazdinejad, T. Hasani, M. Hammoudeh, Blockchain-based e-commerce for the covid-19 economic crisis, in: The 5th International Conference on Future Networks & Distributed Systems, 2021, pp. 105–112.
  * [47] E. Rabieinejad, A. Yazdinejad, T. Hasani, R. M. Parizi, M. Hammoudeh, An efficient defi-based data warehousing approach in supply chain finance, in: The 5th International Conference on Future Networks & Distributed Systems, 2021, pp. 177–185.
  * [48] L. Coppolino, S. D’Antonio, G. Mazzeo, L. Romano, A comprehensive survey of hardware-assisted security: From the edge to the cloud, Internet of Things 6 (2019) 100055.
  * [49] A. Yadav, S. Kumar, J. Singh, A review of physical unclonable functions (pufs) and its applications in iot environment, Ambient Communications and Computer Systems: Proceedings of RACCCS 2021 (2022) 1–13.
  * [50] K. Viswanathan, A. Yazdinejad, Security considerations for virtual reality systems, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.02563 (2022).
  * [51] D. J. Bernstein, Introduction to post-quantum cryptography, in: Post-quantum cryptography, Springer, 2009, pp. 1–14.
  * [52] A. Yazdinejad, G. Srivastava, R. M. Parizi, A. Dehghantanha, K.-K. R. Choo, M. Aledhari, Decentralized authentication of distributed patients in hospital networks using blockchain, IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics 24 (8) (2020) 2146–2156.