I'd like to see the security considerations expanded on this.
In particular, in the business rules it mentions the fact that if occupant-id isn't supported it could be spoofed. This should exist in the security considerations.
Also, I suspect the naive way to implement this will be to hash the bare JID. We probably want to mention that this is a bad idea and that these identifiers should be random (or we should explicitly define the security properties that are required if they're derived, which probably includes using a salt and ensuring high entropy).
—Sam On 2024-05-08 05:20, Daniel Gultsch wrote:
This message constitutes notice of a Last Call for comments on XEP-0421. Title: Anonymous unique occupant identifiers for MUCs Abstract: This specification defines a method that allows clients to identify a MUC participant across reconnects and renames. It thus prevents impersonification of anonymous users. URL: https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0421.html This Last Call begins today and shall end at the close of business on 2024-05-27. Please consider the following questions during this Last Call and send your feedback to the [email protected] discussion list: 1. Is this specification needed to fill gaps in the XMPP protocol stack or to clarify an existing protocol? 2. Does the specification solve the problem stated in the introduction and requirements? 3. Do you plan to implement this specification in your code? If not, why not? 4. Do you have any security concerns related to this specification? 5. Is the specification accurate and clearly written? Your feedback is appreciated! _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
-- Sam Whited [email protected] _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
