XSF logo jdev - 2019-09-04


  1. Lance has joined
  2. Lance has left
  3. gav has left
  4. Lance has joined
  5. bhaveshsgupta has left
  6. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  7. Lance has left
  8. aj has joined
  9. bhaveshsgupta has left
  10. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  11. lksjdflksjdf has left
  12. Lance has joined
  13. bhaveshsgupta has left
  14. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  15. bhaveshsgupta has left
  16. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  17. bhaveshsgupta has left
  18. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  19. bhaveshsgupta has left
  20. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  21. bhaveshsgupta has left
  22. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  23. bhaveshsgupta has left
  24. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  25. bhaveshsgupta has left
  26. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  27. bhaveshsgupta has left
  28. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  29. bhaveshsgupta has left
  30. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  31. tom What is going on here?
  32. tom -def aes_decrypt(key, nonce, payload): +def aes_decrypt(_key, nonce, payload): """ Use AES128 GCM with the given key and iv to decrypt the payload. """ - ciphertext = payload[:-16] - mac = payload[-16:] + if len(_key) >= 32: + # XEP-0384 + log.debug('XEP Compliant Key/Tag') + ciphertext = payload + key = _key[:16] + mac = _key[16:] + else: + # Legacy + log.debug('Legacy Key/Tag') + ciphertext = payload[:-16] + key = _key + mac = payload[-16:]
  33. tom I don't see where in XEP-0384 it says to use 32 byte keys instead of 16
  34. tom >4.5 Sending a message In order to send a chat message, its <body> first has to be encrypted. The client MUST use fresh, randomly generated key/IV pairs with AES-128 in Galois/Counter Mode (GCM). The 16 bytes key and the GCM authentication tag (The tag SHOULD have at least 128 bit) are concatenated and for each intended recipient device, i.e. both own devices as well as devices associated with the contact, the result of this concatenation is encrypted using the corresponding long-standing SignalProtocol session.
  35. bhaveshsgupta has left
  36. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  37. tom where in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html does it specify how to set the access model?
  38. tom is it possible to send a pep with a specific access model?
  39. tom is it possible to send a pep with a specific access model?
  40. bhaveshsgupta has left
  41. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  42. bhaveshsgupta has left
  43. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  44. bhaveshsgupta has left
  45. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  46. bhaveshsgupta has left
  47. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  48. wurstsalat has joined
  49. bhaveshsgupta has left
  50. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  51. jrmu has joined
  52. bhaveshsgupta has left
  53. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  54. bhaveshsgupta has left
  55. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  56. Daniel tom: you don't send it you publish it. https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Tech_pages/OMEMO/publish_options
  57. Daniel > where in https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0163.html does it specify how to set the access model? You'd have to look at xep60 as well
  58. bhaveshsgupta has left
  59. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  60. bhaveshsgupta has left
  61. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  62. bhaveshsgupta has left
  63. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  64. bhaveshsgupta has left
  65. aj has left
  66. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  67. bhaveshsgupta has left
  68. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  69. ralphm Just for clarity here, XEP-0163 just highlights a particular subset of features of XEP-0060, and was designed primarily for so called 'extended presence' use cases. In the end though, it is just a profile of the protocols defined XEP-0060 with the pubsub service being someone's account.
  70. ralphm There are various cases where you want a pubsub node on someone's account, that does not fit XEP-0163's profile. This is perfectly ok, but would not be PEP.
  71. lksjdflksjdf has joined
  72. ralphm And it might be that server implementations do not (yet) fully support some of that.
  73. lksjdflksjdf has left
  74. lksjdflksjdf has joined
  75. ralphm E.g. up until version 1.2, XEP-0163 restricted nodes to just have one ('current') item.
  76. ralphm E.g. some uses of node-on-account allow non-owners to publish.
  77. Kev I think 'restricted' might be the wrong word there. "Only required" might be closer.
  78. Kev You were never prohibited from doing more than 163 required.
  79. bhaveshsgupta has left
  80. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  81. bhaveshsgupta has left
  82. Zash has joined
  83. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  84. aj has joined
  85. ralphm No, what I mean is applications of PEP were supposed to only have one item per node, and otherwise it would not be PEP, but some other kind of node-on-account.
  86. ralphm But not any more since 1.2.
  87. bhaveshsgupta has left
  88. Zash https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0222.html is the thing you wanna check out
  89. tom ok
  90. tom so with pep, Is it possible when I am publishing a PEP, can I publish it with a specific access model like open instead of of the default of presence, instead of querying the server for that pep node's property's and then applying the access node changes?
  91. tom because if I know a specific pep will always be open access, I could save a whole lot of programming and server transactions by sending the whole thing in one XML stanza
  92. jonas’ tom, yes
  93. tom I am forking an OMEMO implementation. That's what I am using this for
  94. jonas’ look into publish-options in XEP-0060
  95. Daniel have you read the tech pages link i posted?
  96. jonas’ oh, yeah, also, what Daniel linked
  97. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  98. tom oh sorry, I didn't see the scrollback
  99. lovetox_ has joined
  100. tom there's were publish options are
  101. tom AH there we go!
  102. tom <field var='pubsub#access_model'> <value>open</value> </field>
  103. tom so that's how you do it
  104. jonas’ tom, note that this is both a precondition and a set operation. So if the node exists already && has a different access model, you get a <conflict
  105. jonas’ tom, note that this is both a precondition and a set operation. So if the node exists already && has a different access model, you get a <conflict/> error back.
  106. tom thank you jonas and Daniel
  107. jonas’ (shouldn’t be the case with OMEMO)
  108. lovetox_ jonas’ why wouldnt it be the case with OMEMO?
  109. Zash Can happen if the node was created by a client that didn't do that
  110. jonas’ lovetox_, I meant to say: you shouldn’t run into it with OMEMO
  111. lovetox_ but you do, as publishing open access is neither described in the XEP
  112. lovetox_ nor was it there since omemo started
  113. lovetox_ all clients did at one point publish with whitelist
  114. jonas’ lovetox_, right
  115. jonas’ but then servers did mod_omemo_all_access
  116. lovetox_ prosody did that, im not aware of any other impl
  117. lovetox_ and only if the server admin is aware that such mod exists
  118. jonas’ in ejabberd, you do that via config
  119. jonas’ lovetox_, you don’t get a green tickmark on the compliance checker if you don’t
  120. ralphm lovetox_: but publish-options on the access model would help with that, no?
  121. lovetox_ help with what?
  122. jonas’ ralphm, lovetox_ was in response to my claim that you shouldn’t need to worry about <conflict/> responses with OMEMO
  123. jonas’ ralphm, lovetox_ was in response to my claim that you shouldn’t need to worry about <conflict/> responses to using <publish-options/> with OMEMO
  124. ralphm ah
  125. Daniel i guess the point is that your client needs to be prepared to deal with conflict
  126. ralphm well yes
  127. Daniel and not just regard publish-options as a set operation
  128. ralphm I think https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0060.html#publisher-publish-options is quite clear on this.
  129. Daniel well people don’t read xeps
  130. ralphm Of course. That's a recipe for failure, but hey, consenting adults.
  131. tom don't read XEPs?
  132. tom lol, are you veing serious or joking? I honestly can not tell :)
  133. tom >ralphm, lovetox_ was in response to my claim that you shouldn’t need to worry about <conflict/> responses to using <publish-options/> with OMEMO So I guess either way I'm going to have to split this out into multiple stanzas and if statements if I want it implemented correctly. well that's fine because nobody else is going to fix this bug and I"m forking anyways
  134. Zash Which people?
  135. lovetox_ i think he meant you Zash 😃
  136. tom i meant jonas
  137. gav has joined
  138. bhaveshsgupta has left
  139. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  140. Daniel has left
  141. bhaveshsgupta has left
  142. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  143. Daniel has joined
  144. jcbrand has joined
  145. bhaveshsgupta has left
  146. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  147. bhaveshsgupta has left
  148. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  149. bhaveshsgupta has left
  150. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  151. bhaveshsgupta has left
  152. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  153. aj has left
  154. bhaveshsgupta has left
  155. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  156. bhaveshsgupta has left
  157. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  158. Zash has left
  159. Zash has joined
  160. lovetox_ has left
  161. lovetox_ has joined
  162. bhaveshsgupta has left
  163. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  164. bhaveshsgupta has left
  165. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  166. bhaveshsgupta has left
  167. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  168. lovetox_ has left
  169. lovetox_ has joined
  170. bhaveshsgupta has left
  171. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  172. Zash has left
  173. lovetox_ has left
  174. lovetox_ has joined
  175. bhaveshsgupta has left
  176. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  177. larma has left
  178. bhaveshsgupta has left
  179. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  180. larma has joined
  181. lovetox_ has left
  182. aj has joined
  183. marc0s has left
  184. marc0s has joined
  185. bhaveshsgupta has left
  186. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  187. Daniel has left
  188. Daniel has joined
  189. Daniel has left
  190. Daniel has joined
  191. bhaveshsgupta has left
  192. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  193. Zash has joined
  194. bhaveshsgupta has left
  195. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  196. guus.der.kinderen has left
  197. guus.der.kinderen has joined
  198. bhaveshsgupta has left
  199. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  200. bhaveshsgupta has left
  201. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  202. wurstsalat has left
  203. wurstsalat has joined
  204. Lance has left
  205. bhaveshsgupta has left
  206. Lance has joined
  207. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  208. bhaveshsgupta has left
  209. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  210. Lance has left
  211. Lance has joined
  212. bhaveshsgupta has left
  213. aj has left
  214. lovetox has joined
  215. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  216. bhaveshsgupta has left
  217. rion has left
  218. rion has joined
  219. Zash has left
  220. Zash has joined
  221. Zash has left
  222. Zash has joined
  223. actupper has left
  224. Lance has left
  225. rajan has joined
  226. rajan has left
  227. lovetox has left
  228. lovetox has joined
  229. lovetox has left
  230. lovetox has joined
  231. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  232. guus.der.kinderen has left
  233. guus.der.kinderen has joined
  234. Daniel has left
  235. Daniel has joined
  236. actupper has joined
  237. bhaveshsgupta has left
  238. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  239. bhaveshsgupta has left
  240. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  241. bhaveshsgupta has left
  242. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  243. bhaveshsgupta has left
  244. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  245. bhaveshsgupta has left
  246. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  247. bhaveshsgupta has left
  248. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  249. moparisthebest has left
  250. jcbrand has left
  251. moparisthebest has joined
  252. moparisthebest has left
  253. moparisthebest has joined
  254. bhaveshsgupta has left
  255. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  256. gav has left
  257. bhaveshsgupta has left
  258. gav has joined
  259. gav has left
  260. gav has joined
  261. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  262. wurstsalat has left
  263. bhaveshsgupta has left
  264. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  265. lovetox has left
  266. bhaveshsgupta has left
  267. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  268. bhaveshsgupta has left
  269. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  270. Zash has left
  271. Alex has left
  272. Alex has joined
  273. moparisthebest has left
  274. aj has joined
  275. moparisthebest has joined
  276. Alex has left
  277. moparisthebest has left
  278. moparisthebest has joined
  279. bhaveshsgupta has left
  280. bhaveshsgupta has joined
  281. bhaveshsgupta has left
  282. bhaveshsgupta has joined