Skip to content
GitLab
Explore
Sign in
Primary navigation
Search or go to…
Project
synapse
Manage
Activity
Members
Labels
Plan
Issues
Issue boards
Milestones
Code
Merge requests
Repository
Branches
Commits
Tags
Repository graph
Compare revisions
Build
Pipelines
Jobs
Pipeline schedules
Artifacts
Deploy
Releases
Package registry
Container registry
Model registry
Operate
Terraform modules
Monitor
Service Desk
Analyze
Value stream analytics
Contributor analytics
CI/CD analytics
Repository analytics
Model experiments
Help
Help
Support
GitLab documentation
Compare GitLab plans
Community forum
Contribute to GitLab
Provide feedback
Keyboard shortcuts
?
Snippets
Groups
Projects
Show more breadcrumbs
Timo Ley
synapse
Commits
d5704cf2
Commit
d5704cf2
authored
10 years ago
by
Kegan Dougal
Browse files
Options
Downloads
Patches
Plain Diff
Added initial draft for human-readable ID rules.
parent
550e8f32
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
Changes
1
Hide whitespace changes
Inline
Side-by-side
Showing
1 changed file
docs/human-id-rules.rst
+71
-0
71 additions, 0 deletions
docs/human-id-rules.rst
with
71 additions
and
0 deletions
docs/human-id-rules.rst
0 → 100644
+
71
−
0
View file @
d5704cf2
This document outlines the format for human-readable IDs within matrix.
Overview
--------
UTF-8 is quickly becoming the standard character encoding set on the web. As
such, Matrix requires that all strings MUST be encoded as UTF-8. However,
using Unicode as the character set for human-readable IDs is troublesome. There
are many different characters which appear identical to each other, but would
identify different users. In addition, there are non-printable characters which
cannot be rendered the the end-user. This opens up a security vulnerability with
phishing/spoofing of IDs, commonly known as a homograph attack.
Web browers encountered this problem when International Domain Names were
introduced. A variety of checks were put in place in order to protect users. If
an address failed the check, the raw punycode would be displayed to disambiguate
the address. Similar checks are performed by home servers in Matrix, which will
then warn the client about the potentially misleading ID. However, Matrix does
not use punycode, and so does not show raw punycode on a failed check. Instead,
home servers must outright reject these misleading IDs.
Types of human-readable IDs
---------------------------
There are two main human-readable IDs in question:
- Room aliases
- User IDs
Room aliases look like ``#localpart:domain``. These aliases point to opaque
non human-readable room IDs. These pointers can change, so there is already an
issue present with the same ID pointing to a different destination at a later
date.
User IDs look like ``@localpart:domain``. These represent actual end-users, and
unlike room aliases, there is no layer of indirection. This presents a much
greater concern with homograph attacks.
Checks
------
- Similar to web browsers.
- blacklisted chars (e.g. non-printable characters)
- mix of language sets from 'preferred' language not allowed.
- Language sets from CLDR dataset.
- Treated in segments (localpart, domain)
Rejecting
---------
- Home servers MUST reject room aliases which do not pass the check, both on
GETs and PUTs.
- Home servers MUST reject user ID localparts which do not pass the check, both
on creation and on events.
- Any home server whose domain does not pass this check, MUST use their punycode
domain name instead of the IDN, to prevent other home servers rejecting you.
- Error code is M_FAILED_HOMOGRAPH_CHECK.
- Error message MAY go into further information about which characters were
rejected and why.
Other considerations
--------------------
- Basic security: Informational key on the event attached by HS to say "unsafe
ID". Problem: clients can just ignore it, and since it will appear only very
rarely, easy to forget when implementing clients.
- Moderate security: Requires client handshake. Forces clients to implement
a check, else they cannot communicate with the misleading ID. However, this is
extra overhead in both client implementations and round-trips.
- High security: Outright rejection of the ID at the point of creation /
receiving event. Point of creation rejection is preferable to avoid the ID
entering the system in the first place. However, malicious HSes can just allow
the ID. Hence, other home servers must reject them if they see them in events.
Client never sees the problem ID, provided the HS is correctly implemented.
- High security decided; client doesn't need to worry about it, no additional
protocol complexity aside from rejection of an event.
\ No newline at end of file
This diff is collapsed.
Click to expand it.
Preview
0%
Loading
Try again
or
attach a new file
.
Cancel
You are about to add
0
people
to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Save comment
Cancel
Please
register
or
sign in
to comment