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