@ -357,7 +357,7 @@ out-of-band channel: there is no way to do it within Matrix without
trusting the administrators of the homeservers.
In Matrix, verification works by Alice meeting Bob in person, or
contacting him via some other trusted medium, and use [SAS
contacting him via some other trusted medium, and using [SAS
Verification](#SAS Verification) to interactively verify Bob's devices.
Alice and Bob may also read aloud their unpadded base64 encoded Ed25519
public key, as returned by `/keys/query` .
@ -390,60 +390,68 @@ decrypted by such a device. For the Olm protocol, this is documented at
Verifying keys manually by reading out the Ed25519 key is not very
user-friendly, and can lead to errors. In order to help mitigate errors,
and to make the process easier for users, some verification methods are
supported by the specification. The methods all use a common framework
supported by the specification and use messages exchanged by the user's devices
to assist in the verification. The methods all use a common framework
for negotiating the key verification.
To use this framework, Alice's client would send
`m.key.verification.request` events to Bob's devices. All of the
`to_device` messages sent to Bob MUST have the same `transaction_id` to
indicate they are part of the same request. This allows Bob to reject
the request on one device, and have it apply to all of his devices.
Similarly, it allows Bob to process the verification on one device
without having to involve all of his devices.
When Bob's device receives an `m.key.verification.request` , it should
prompt Bob to verify keys with Alice using one of the supported methods
in the request. If Bob's device does not understand any of the methods,
it should not cancel the request as one of his other devices may support
the request. Instead, Bob's device should tell Bob that an unsupported
method was used for starting key verification. The prompt for Bob to
accept/reject Alice's request (or the unsupported method prompt) should
be automatically dismissed 10 minutes after the `timestamp` field or 2
minutes after Bob's client receives the message, whichever comes first,
if Bob does not interact with the prompt. The prompt should additionally
be hidden if an appropriate `m.key.verification.cancel` message is
received.
If Bob rejects the request, Bob's client must send an
`m.key.verification.cancel` message to Alice's device. Upon receipt,
Alice's device should tell her that Bob does not want to verify her
device and send `m.key.verification.cancel` messages to all of Bob's
devices to notify them that the request was rejected.
If Bob accepts the request, Bob's device starts the key verification
process by sending an `m.key.verification.start` message to Alice's
device. Upon receipt of this message, Alice's device should send an
`m.key.verification.cancel` message to all of Bob's other devices to
indicate the process has been started. The start message must use the
same `transaction_id` from the original key verification request if it
is in response to the request. The start message can be sent
independently of any request.
Individual verification methods may add additional steps, events, and
properties to the verification messages. Event types for methods defined
in this specification must be under the `m.key.verification` namespace
and any other event types must be namespaced according to the Java
package naming convention.
Any of Alice's or Bob's devices can cancel the key verification request
or process at any time with an `m.key.verification.cancel` message to
all applicable devices.
This framework yields the following handshake, assuming both Alice and
Bob each have 2 devices, Bob's first device accepts the key verification
request, and Alice's second device initiates the request. Note how
Alice's first device is not involved in the request or verification
process.
Verification messages can be sent either in a room shared by the two parties,
which should be a [direct messaging ](#direct-messaging ) room between the two
parties, or by using [to-device ](#send-to-device-messaging ) messages sent
directly between the two devices involved. In both cases, the messages
exchanged are similar, with minor differences as detailed below. Verifying
between two different users should be performed using in-room messages, whereas
verifying two devices belonging to the same user should be performed using
to-device messages.
A key verification session is identified by an ID that is established by the
first message sent in that session. For verifications using in-room messages,
the ID is the event ID of the initial message, and for verifications using
to-device messages, the first message contains a `transaction_id` field that is
shared by the other messages of that session.
In general, verification operates as follows:
- Alice requests a key verification with Bob by sending an
`m.key.verification.request` event. This event indicates the verification
methods that Alice's client supports. (Note that "Alice" and "Bob" may in
fact be the same user, in the case where a user is verifying their own
devices.)
- Bob's client prompts Bob to accepts the key verification. When Bob accepts
the verification, Bob's client sends an `m.key.verification.ready` event.
This event indicates the verification methods, corresponding to the
verification methods supported by Alice's client, that Bob's client supports.
- Alice's or Bob's devices allow their users to select one of the verification
methods supported by both devices to use for verification. When Alice or Bob
selects a verification method, their device begins the verification by
sending an `m.key.verification.start` event, indicating the selected
verification method.
- Alice and Bob complete the verification as defined by the selected
verification method. This could involve their clients exchanging messages,
Alice and Bob exchanging information out-of-band, and/or Alice and Bob
interacting with their devices.
- Alice's and Bob's clients send `m.key.verification.done` events to indicate
that the verification was successful.
Verifications can be cancelled by either device at any time by sending an
`m.key.verification.cancel` event with a `code` field that indicates the reason
it was cancelled.
When using to-device messages, Alice may not know which of Bob's devices to
verify, or may not want to choose a specific device. In this case, Alice will
send `m.key.verification.request` events to all of Bob's devices. All of these
events will use the same transaction ID. When Bob accepts or declines the
verification on one of his devices (sending either an
`m.key.verification.ready` or `m.key.verification.cancel` event), Alice will
send an `m.key.verification.cancel` event to Bob's other devices with a `code`
of `m.accepted` in the case where Bob accepted the verification, or `m.user` in
the case where Bob rejected the verification. This yields the following
handshake when using to-device messages, assuming both Alice and Bob each have
2 devices, Bob's first device accepts the key verification request, and Alice's
second device initiates the request. Note how Alice's first device is not
involved in the request or verification process. Also note that, although in
this example, Bob's device sends the `m.key.verification.start` , Alice's device
could also send that message. As well, the order of the
`m.key.verification.done` messages could be reversed.
```
+---------------+ +---------------+ +-------------+ +-------------+
@ -456,20 +464,84 @@ process.
| | m.key.verification.request | |
| |-------------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | m.key.verification.start | |
| | m.key.verification.ready | |
| |< ---------------------------------- | |
| | | |
| | m.key.verification.cancel | |
| |-------------------------------------------------->|
| | | |
| | m.key.verification.start | |
| |< ---------------------------------- | |
| | | |
.
. (verification messages)
.
| | | |
| | m.key.verification.done | |
| |< ---------------------------------- | |
| | | |
| | m.key.verification.done | |
| |---------------------------------->| |
| | | |
```
After the handshake, the verification process begins.
When using in-room messages and the room has encryption enabled, clients should
ensure that encryption does not hinder the verification. For example, if the
verification messages are encrypted, clients must ensure that all the
recipient's unverified devices receive the keys necessary to decrypt the
messages, even if they would normally not be given the keys to decrypt messages
in the room. Alternatively, verification messages may be sent unencrypted.
Upon receipt of Alice's `m.key.verification.request` message, if Bob's device
does not understand any of the methods, it should not cancel the request as one
of his other devices may support the request. Instead, Bob's device should tell
Bob that no supported method was found, and allow him to manually reject the
request.
The prompt for Bob to accept/reject Alice's request (or the unsupported method
prompt) should be automatically dismissed 10 minutes after the `timestamp` (in
the case of to-device messages) or `origin_ts` (in the case of in-room
messages) field or 2 minutes after Bob's client receives the message, whichever
comes first, if Bob does not interact with the prompt. The prompt should
additionally be hidden if an appropriate `m.key.verification.cancel` message is
received.
If Bob rejects the request, Bob's client must send an
`m.key.verification.cancel` event with `code` set to `m.user` . Upon receipt,
Alice's device should tell her that Bob does not want to verify her device and,
if the request was sent as a to-device message, send
`m.key.verification.cancel` messages to all of Bob's devices to notify them
that the request was rejected.
If Alice's and Bob's clients both send an `m.key.verification.start` message,
and both specify the same verification method, then the
`m.key.verification.start` message sent by the user whose ID is the
lexicographically largest user ID should be ignored, and the situation should
be treated the same as if only the user with the lexicographically smallest
user ID had sent the `m.key.verification.start` message. In the case where the
user IDs are the same (that is, when a user is verifying their own device),
then the device IDs should be compared instead. If the two
`m.key.verification.start` messages do not specify the same verification
method, then the verification should be cancelled with a `code` of
`m.unexpected_message` .
An `m.key.verification.start` message can also be sent independently of any
request, specifying the verification method to use.
Individual verification methods may add additional steps, events, and
properties to the verification messages. Event types for methods defined
in this specification must be under the `m.key.verification` namespace
and any other event types must be namespaced according to the Java
package naming convention.
{{% event event="m.key.verification.request" %}}
{{% event event="m.key.verification.ready" %}}
{{% event event="m.key.verification.start" %}}
{{% event event="m.key.verification.done" %}}
{{% event event="m.key.verification.cancel" %}}
##### Short Authentication String (SAS) verification
@ -493,6 +565,10 @@ example, if we verify 40 bits, then an attacker has a 1 in
success. A failed attack would result in a mismatched Short
Authentication String, alerting users to the attack.
To advertise support for this method, clients use the name `m.sas.v1` in the
`methods` fields of the `m.key.verification.request` and
`m.key.verification.ready` events.
The verification process takes place over [to-device ](#send-to-device-messaging ) messages in two
phases:
Hubert Chathi
4 years ago
committed by