|
|
@ -12,11 +12,11 @@ phishing/spoofing of IDs, commonly known as a homograph attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Web browers encountered this problem when International Domain Names were
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
an address failed the check, the raw punycode would be displayed to
|
|
|
|
the address. Similar checks are performed by home servers in Matrix. However,
|
|
|
|
disambiguate the address. Similar checks are performed by home servers in
|
|
|
|
Matrix does not use punycode representations, and so does not show raw punycode
|
|
|
|
Matrix. However, Matrix does not use punycode representations, and so does not
|
|
|
|
on a failed check. Instead, home servers must outright reject these misleading
|
|
|
|
show raw punycode on a failed check. Instead, home servers must outright reject
|
|
|
|
IDs.
|
|
|
|
these misleading IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Types of human-readable IDs
|
|
|
|
Types of human-readable IDs
|
|
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ Checks
|
|
|
|
- Language sets from CLDR dataset.
|
|
|
|
- Language sets from CLDR dataset.
|
|
|
|
- Treated in segments (localpart, domain)
|
|
|
|
- Treated in segments (localpart, domain)
|
|
|
|
- Additional restrictions for ease of processing IDs.
|
|
|
|
- Additional restrictions for ease of processing IDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- Room alias localparts MUST NOT have ``#`` or ``:``.
|
|
|
|
- Room alias localparts MUST NOT have ``#`` or ``:``.
|
|
|
|
- User ID localparts MUST NOT have ``@`` or ``:``.
|
|
|
|
- User ID localparts MUST NOT have ``@`` or ``:``.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@ -68,12 +69,13 @@ Other considerations
|
|
|
|
ID". Problem: clients can just ignore it, and since it will appear only very
|
|
|
|
ID". Problem: clients can just ignore it, and since it will appear only very
|
|
|
|
rarely, easy to forget when implementing clients.
|
|
|
|
rarely, easy to forget when implementing clients.
|
|
|
|
- Moderate security: Requires client handshake. Forces clients to implement
|
|
|
|
- Moderate security: Requires client handshake. Forces clients to implement
|
|
|
|
a check, else they cannot communicate with the misleading ID. However, this is
|
|
|
|
a check, else they cannot communicate with the misleading ID. However, this
|
|
|
|
extra overhead in both client implementations and round-trips.
|
|
|
|
is extra overhead in both client implementations and round-trips.
|
|
|
|
- High security: Outright rejection of the ID at the point of creation /
|
|
|
|
- High security: Outright rejection of the ID at the point of creation /
|
|
|
|
receiving event. Point of creation rejection is preferable to avoid the ID
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
entering the system in the first place. However, malicious HSes can just
|
|
|
|
the ID. Hence, other home servers must reject them if they see them in events.
|
|
|
|
allow the ID. Hence, other home servers must reject them if they see them in
|
|
|
|
Client never sees the problem ID, provided the HS is correctly implemented.
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
- High security decided; client doesn't need to worry about it, no additional
|
|
|
|
protocol complexity aside from rejection of an event.
|
|
|
|
protocol complexity aside from rejection of an event.
|