XMPP Service Operators - 2020-10-14

Does anyone know the operator of Hello ,

Thank you for writing back to us. Please note, we were unable to validate the reported issue on the basis of

information and details provided by you against the domain name 'labas.biz'. Thus, we request you to provide us with

more supporting evidence for the fraudulent activity conducted by the domain name, such details will help us to assist

you with this issue.

Do let us know in case of any further queries.

Regards,

Abuse Mitigation Team

PublicDomainRegistry

Damn, copy paste failure.

Mea culpa.

I wanted to ask if anyone knows the operator of labas.biz?

Hi

grz: yo

I have an issue about XEP-0368 https://compliance.conversations.im/server/im.nosheep.fr/

dig -t SRV _xmpps-client._tcp.nosheep.fr returns _xmpps-client._tcp.nosheep.fr. 3159 IN SRV 0 5 5223 im.nosheep.fr.

my prosody instance listen to the 5223 port for ssl/tls connections but the test by XMPP Compliance Tester fail and I don't understand why

anyone have an idea?

grz: it doesn't look like its doing a proper TLS handshake on that port

oh wait, nevermind. I was doing the wrong s_client dance

grz: what's your XMPP domain? im.nosheep.fr or nosheep.fr?

im.nosheep.fr

grz: then you need to set up _xmpps-client._tcp.im.nosheep.fr

but I'd recommend against having "im" or "jabber" in your xmpp domain when setting up a new service

thanks to SRV records, you can have the same address for email and xmpp

:+1:

sure

hm

grz: but you'll have to figure out the LE flow to automate the certificate renewal

I will try to change that, we are two on my private instance

but as I said, this is just a recommendation

Ge0rG this is already done, the renewal succeed automatically

grz: when you change from im.nosheep.fr to nosheep.fr, you'll have to redo it

yeap

LE doesn't support XMPP validation, so either you have both web and IM on the same machine, or you need to do a DNS dance or copy over files.

many thanks Ge0rG

you can compule quark and install dehydrated

add starting and killing quark in your hook

lets encrypt will try ipv6 first

+1 to dehydrated - it just saved my bacon at jabber.org ;-)

Hmm, strange, I can't join xsf@muc.xmpp.org but I can join other rooms on muc.xmpp.org without incident.

I believe I can't join xsf@ using my jabber.org account either, although I do appear to get MAM responses. I might get mixed results from using two XMPP accounts in Conversations though.

My igniterealtime.org account does not seem to have that issue. ✏

I just updated the cert on jabber.org and perhaps that has something to do with it (but I'm not sure why that would cause per-room problems).

Perhaps MattJ can look into it from the xmpp.org side. I'll poke around the logs on jabber.org too.

hmm

This is quite strange.

I can join the xsf room and I get room history, but I can't post.

You just described a good portion of life at my day job...

heh

I'm going to try another JID.

Conversations is telling me that "I am no longer" in the room, appearingly after I got room history. Are we booted out for some reason?

Maybe. I'm checking the debug console in Swift.

Weird

Maybe something weird happens, like the s2s stream being unexpectedly disconnected as a result of some data being transferred that's deemed invalid? I'm wild goose chasing here.

No, that would seem like the most likely explanation

s2s with jabber.org is up in both directions, but of course it would get reestablished... just checking logs

<presence from='xsf@muc.xmpp.org/asdfasdfasdf' to='stpeter@jabber.org/5c85c8106557896a' type='unavailable'><status>Kicked: jid malformed</status><x xmlns='http://jabber.org/protocol/muc#user'><status code='333'/><item affiliation='owner' jid='stpeter@jabber.org/5c85c8106557896a' role='none'/><status code='110'/></x></presence>

Zash suggests: (Reading from the web log interface) Could it be Rixon 👁🗨 again?

Unfortunately the text "jabber.org" appears in every s2s handshake, even with other domains :)

Hehe

nice :-)

^ that is the presence error I received

I don't see anything malformed about the JID, though...

is 'asdfasdfasdf' the nick you tried to join with?

yes

Zash suggests a nickname of another occupant of the room might cause this.

Yeah that's why I tried something different.

I'm about to test with a mostly clean account.

Yeah, I think Zash is probably right

I think he means another occupant than any entity under your control. A third party, using an unexpected nickname that you'd receive upon joining.

jabber.org doesn't like the unicode in someone's nick, so it returns their MUC presence with a jid-malformed error, which kicks you from the room

and other jabber.org users, I see

ah

so it's nothing personal ;-)

Unicode is not done with you yet, stpeter :)

haha

The JID appears to pass resourceprep to me

Ah is this Rixon ++?

Yes

I'm just look at the logs.xmpp.org so I don't know how it's actually encoded

U+1F441 EYE U+1F5E8 LEFT SPEECH BUBBLE

is what copy/pasting from the logs tells me

darn emoji

:)

I of course have the power to kick them, I don't know how I feel about that

They also possibly don't have the ability to easily change their nick... it seems they are joined via the Matrix bridge

I may be wrong, but I *think* Matrix doesn't have per-room nicks

But can send them a note explaining the issue

and ask them to fix it and rejoin

Could be a Unicode versioning issue - those code points were added in Unicode 7.

It's very possible that jabber.org is unfamiliar with these code points, and possibly considers them unassigned

Yes.

That's my guess.

I concur that they should pass resourceprep.

Although it can be hard to figure that out - who wrote these RFCs?!?

Both code points are in General_Category So per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7564#section-9.15

This is not the end of the world, just a curiosity for now.

Y'all remember how stringprep is fixed at Unicode 3.2? Zash remembers.

Oh yes, that's why I got pulled into all this i18n madness originally.

TFW you log into an old, unused account and have 2002 pending subscription requests...

:)

None spammers, I'm sure

Certainly not!

Actually I should catalog all these JIDs...