Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

MSC2730: Verifiable forwarded events #2730

Open
wants to merge 9 commits into
base: old_master
Choose a base branch
from
289 changes: 289 additions & 0 deletions proposals/2730-verifiable-forwarded-events.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,289 @@
# Verifiable forwarded events
This is an alternative to [MSC2723](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/2723)
that handles the issue of faking forwards.
Comment on lines +1 to +3

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thinking about this more I'm not sure that this represents a valuable use case. I also think the risk of forwarding more information than you wanted to is too high.

Particularly for the best forwarding experience it probably makes sense to trim the message anyways. If we want to support various ways of redacting parts of the forwarded event (which I think we should) we currently don't have a way to verify that and it will be confusing to clients to warn about "according to the sender" for some forwards but having other forwards be verified.

The most compelling use case I can think of are abuse reports but I think in most cases the moderator receiving the report can see the room anyways or otherwise check the legitimacy of the report.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Forwarding message means that it isn't changed, if you modify the message text (redact part of it), it is already quoting, not forwarding.


## Proposal
The proposed solution is copying the entire federation event data, which allows
recipients to validate the signatures even if they are not in the origin room.

As clients generally don't have access to signatures nor any way to validate
them, both sending and validating require server support. Sending is
implemented as a new endpoint, while validating happens automatically and the
server adds the validation result to the top-level `unsigned` object.

### `PUT /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{roomId}/event/{eventId}/forward/{targetRoomId}/{txnId}`

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: This seems like the wrong place for this. We aren't modifying {roomId} so it seems weird to be PUTing to that URL. It would make more sense to have something like PUT /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{targetRoomId}/forward/{sourceRoomId}/{txnId}.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The PUT is there mostly because of {txnId}, otherwise it would be POST.

The current path is that way because you're doing something with the event. /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/{targetRoomId}/forward/{sourceRoomId}/{eventId}/{txnId} feels less clear in that way

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

But you aren't actually doing something to the event. You are creating a new event that is based on it and references it.

This endpoint requests the server to find `eventId` from `roomId` and forward
it to `targetRoomId`. The `txnId` behaves the same way as in the `/send`
endpoint. The request body has an optional `decryption_keys` field that will be
copied to `content`->`m.forwarded`->`unsigned` in the resulting event when
present. The content of the `decryption_keys` object varies based on whether or
not the target room is encrypted, see the "Encrypted events" section below.

Only unredacted message events can be forwarded. If the given event ID is a
state event, a redaction or a redacted message event, the request will be
rejected with a standard error response using the code `M_NOT_FORWARDABLE`.

If the generated event is too large, the request is rejected with a standard
error response using the code `M_TOO_LARGE`. Before rejecting the request,
servers MAY check if the event would be small enough without the profile data
in `unsigned`, and send the event without that data if it is.

Similar to the `/send` endpoint, this endpoint returns an object containing the
`event_id` of the forwarded event.

#### Generating forwarded event
To forward an event, the server creates a new event with the same event type
and normal top-level fields. To determine the content, the server has to
inspect the content of the source event:

* If the source event was already forwarded from some other room, the `content`
should simply be copied with no modifications. This means that an event
forwarded many times will only remember the original source, not any hops it
made on the way.
* If the source event was not a forward, but contains (invalid) data in the
`m.forwarded` key, the request will be rejected with `M_NOT_FORWARDABLE` like
other unforwardable events. This limitation also can be used to intentionally
mark messages as unforwardable (e.g. `"m.forwarded": {"allow": false}`).

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Putting "invalid" data in this key seems like something that we shouldn't recommend. If we are going to recommend this I would prefer to update the forwarding field to explicitly allow this option.

* If the source event does not contain `m.forwarded` at all, the server must
generate a new one. After generating the object, it is placed in `content` of
the new event along with everything from the `content` of the source event.

##### Generating `m.forwarded` object
`m.forwarded` is an object that contains all the top-level keys of the source
event, except for `type`, `content` and `unsigned`. The following keys are
therefore at least required:

* `auth_events`
* `prev_events`
* `room_id`
* `sender`
* `depth`
* `origin`
* `origin_server_ts`
* `hashes`
* `signatures`

The following keys may also be present:

* `prev_state`, may be present as an empty array even in non-state events
* `event_id`, only in v1 and v2 rooms

Additionally, the server MUST include an `unsigned` object, containing a
`room_version` field that specifies the version of the source room. The server
SHOULD also include the sender's profile metadata in the unsigned object under
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Isn’t this unsigned/unverified profile data at risk of falsification?

the fields `displayname` and `avatar_url`.

#### Example

<details>
<summary>Source event (federation format)</summary>

```json
{
"auth_events": [
"$wChClfXonLE8RZikJ446AXvRpbh_JjDK8sNpMpZbqPs",
"$RaXN_RayMvoEmMnUHlZScIdSpShT8zggd4p6qcQk9L8",
"$kFop6R7AohiYSTh_ijUctTujdVTg3rwBPdaMLeZMNrg"
],
"prev_events": [
"$pIFO6_sI1Ul_3jPixtbnJn_h0Pe0yB__TJD_VCW9Q-Q"
],
"type": "m.room.message",
"room_id": "!FIIWlyqwNLyMAtmRBF:maunium.net",
"sender": "@tulir:maunium.net",
"content": {
"msgtype": "m.text",
"body": "test"
},
"depth": 115,
"prev_state": [],
"origin": "maunium.net",
"origin_server_ts": 1597257769634,
"hashes": {
"sha256": "xBR7NmH2WQBx0auQWEDEYNbcPf9ATlDSwkv9EBxueMI"
},
"signatures": {
"maunium.net": {
"ed25519:a_xxeS": "cc9XnH9ByO7yadC6CdMhh3c/TN1tQ9FiZdKYyRDi4Og1dZMylmBM9uSI7c4GUEqswLBLxW5DTFU3n7vMHAGhAw"
}
},
"unsigned": {
"age_ts": 1597257769634
}
}
```

</details>

Request:

```
PUT /_matrix/client/r0/rooms/!FIIWlyqwNLyMAtmRBF:maunium.net/event/$BfxMy-oNFOeE0eFt6r-l3h7MtwNVIX0GrructyJq1wA/forward/!eVRGrjZQgJZGNllOkw:grin.hu/myTxnId1
{}
```

Response:

```json
{
"event_id": "$r8h8W9A5KS8D65_Df8fwLkTe7aqOm48KmyaJ6tRNAmE"
}
```

<details>
<summary>Forwarded event (client format)</summary>

```json
{
"type": "m.room.message",
"room_id": "!eVRGrjZQgJZGNllOkw:grin.hu",
"event_id": "$r8h8W9A5KS8D65_Df8fwLkTe7aqOm48KmyaJ6tRNAmE",
"sender": "@tulir:maunium.net",
"origin_server_ts": 1597263764138,
"content": {
"msgtype": "m.text",
"body": "test",
"m.forwarded": {
"auth_events": [
"$wChClfXonLE8RZikJ446AXvRpbh_JjDK8sNpMpZbqPs",
"$RaXN_RayMvoEmMnUHlZScIdSpShT8zggd4p6qcQk9L8",
"$kFop6R7AohiYSTh_ijUctTujdVTg3rwBPdaMLeZMNrg"
],
"prev_events": [
"$pIFO6_sI1Ul_3jPixtbnJn_h0Pe0yB__TJD_VCW9Q-Q"
],
"room_id": "!FIIWlyqwNLyMAtmRBF:maunium.net",
"sender": "@tulir:maunium.net",
"depth": 115,
"prev_state": [],
"origin": "maunium.net",
"origin_server_ts": 1597257769634,
"hashes": {
"sha256": "xBR7NmH2WQBx0auQWEDEYNbcPf9ATlDSwkv9EBxueMI"
},
"signatures": {
"maunium.net": {
"ed25519:a_xxeS": "cc9XnH9ByO7yadC6CdMhh3c/TN1tQ9FiZdKYyRDi4Og1dZMylmBM9uSI7c4GUEqswLBLxW5DTFU3n7vMHAGhAw"
}
},
"unsigned": {
"displayname": "tulir",
"avatar_url": "mxc://maunium.net/jdlSfvudiMSmcRrleeiYjjFO"
}
Comment on lines +169 to +172
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This example is missing the room_version. (Relatedly, what should happen if it is missing?)

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To expand on this what if the room version is not supported by clients? I guess in most cases it will just work but it seems unfortunate if a client can't see a forward in a room with a supported version because the event is from a newer versioned room.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Clients don't need to support the room version, but servers do. I guess missing or unsupported room_version can just be marked as non-trusted/invalid

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That isn't a great experience. If I am in a room version X why am I being sent content in a different room version? Maybe we should support some sort of fallback content? Of course now you need to worry about verifying that the fallback content matches the source content. (which is basically impossible if the room version the source is from us unsupported)

Copy link
Member Author

@tulir tulir Apr 30, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The only client-facing change in room versions so far is the event ID (which is mentioned in the proposal). Even in the future there most likely won't be any huge client-facing changes, since room versions are for changing the federation protocol. Major client-facing changes like extensible events won't bump the room version.

Servers currently support all room versions, deprecating older room versions hasn't been decided yet. Even if there are unsupported versions, it only means the forward metadata won't be verified.

}
},
"unsigned": {
"m.forwarded": {
"valid": true,
"event_id": "$BfxMy-oNFOeE0eFt6r-l3h7MtwNVIX0GrructyJq1wA"
}
}
}
```

</details>

### Receiving events with `m.forwarded`
When a server receives a message event that has the `m.forwarded` key in its
`content`, the server MUST use the data to validate the signatures, then add a
`m.forwarded` key to the top-level `unsigned` of the event with the validation
information.

#### Validating signatures
To validate a signature, the server should start with the `m.forwarded` object
and modify it as follows:

* If the object is missing any of the required keys, mark it as invalid without
trying to validate it.
* Remove the `unsigned` key (if present).
* Copy `type` from the top level into `m.forwarded`.
* Make a copy of the top-level `content`, remove `m.forwarded` and put it in
the `m.forwarded`.
* Using the result object, validate the signature, calculate the reference hash
and check the content hash of the event as specified in sections 26.2 through
26.4 of the server-server specification: https://matrix.org/docs/spec/server_server/r0.1.4#validating-hashes-and-signatures-on-received-events

#### Unsigned `m.forwarded` object
For any message event with `m.forwarded` in the content, the server MUST add or
override the `m.forwarded` key in the `unsigned` object of the event. The key
MUST be an object that contains the keys `valid` and `event_id`.

If the `m.forwarded` object was valid and the signatures were validated, the
`valid` value should be `true`. In any other case (invalid signature, bogus
data, etc), the value should be `false`.

In v1 and v2 rooms, the `event_id` is copied from the `m.forwarded` object in
`content`. In v3 and up, the `event_id` is based on the reference hash that was
calculated in the previous section. Copying the event ID in v1/v2 rooms is for
convenience of clients: they only need to look in one place regardless of the
room version.

### Encrypted events
In some cases, users may want to forward encrypted messages to rooms with users
who are not in the origin room. In order to allow everyone in the recipient
room to decrypt the forwarded message, the keys must be sent with the message.
However, only keys for the message being forwarded should be sent, any other
messages in the origin room must not be decryptable with those keys.

To achieve this, the user forwarding the message includes the message-specific
symmetric AES and HMAC keys (see [Message encryption] in the Megolm spec). Each
of the keys are encoded as unpadded base64 and placed in the `aes_key`,
`hmac_key` and `aes_iv` fields in the `decryption_keys` object in the forward
request.

[Message encryption]: https://gitlab.matrix.org/matrix-org/olm/-/blob/master/docs/megolm.md#message-encryption
Comment on lines +221 to +234
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Someone who knows cryptography should make sure this actually makes sense and is secure enough (i.e. doesn't leak anything else than the one message being forwarded)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

When forwarding events to other encrypted rooms this approach does not seem to leak any additional information nor session security related secrets of the megolm context of the originating room. The receiving room members can only encrypt this single message under normal circumstances. If there are any corner cases or bugs in the clients that cause re-use of the megolm index for two events, then that specific event would be decryptable as well, but this should not happen anyway.

The actual issue to consider is that should we break the trust model of Matrix E2EE by leaking the key information to the HS? What makes this a big issue is that the actual original event contents combined with all of the event meta information is then explicitly leaked outside the original E2EE context in cryptographically verifiable manner. This is totally different case than copy-pasting secret message to another context and claiming that it originated somewhere.

Thus, I would strongly suggest that E2EE secured events should only be allowed to be forwarded in this verifiable manner to other E2EE rooms.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think there should be mandatory server-side limits, but I guess I could reword the client section to say "Clients are strongly recommended to discourage or disallow users from forwarding encrypted messages to unencrypted rooms".

(also, megolm keys are technically not cryptographically verifiable, only keys received via a secure olm channel can actually be verified to originate from the user - this is mentioned in the client behavior section)

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This does still build a direct functionality to the spec to leak the message related secrets to the HS in plaintext, if forwarding to unencrypted rooms is allowed. HS itself has the original event, and thus can then see not only the meta information of the event it originally was aware of, but also the contents of it.

IMO this approach would be a violation of the implicit trust model Matrix tries to provide by E2EE. This design decision should not be made lightly.

Would it be worth considering to leave the decision of event forwarding to the context of a room? Then forwarding could be allowed to other encrypted rooms only, or all rooms, or denied in full. This will at least provide some guarantees that the data hygiene and separation of privileges can be upheld to sufficient degree.


When forwarding encrypted messages to encrypted rooms, the `decryption_keys`
object is encrypted the same way `content` would be in normal messages.
Recipient clients should check which fields are present in the `decryption_keys`
object to determine whether or not it is encrypted.

The decryption keys should be included even if forwarding a message to the same
room, as there may be new users in the room who didn't receive keys to old
messages.

## Client behavior
Clients SHOULD NOT trust forward metadata in the event content without an
explicit `"valid": true` in the unsigned `m.forwarded` object. Additionally,
clients SHOULD make sure the server supports this proposal before trusting
forwards even if the `valid` flag is present.

Not trusting forward metadata does not necessarily mean it must be completely
ignored. For example, clients could render the event as a forward, but include
a notice saying it's unverified.

When receiving forwarded encrypted events, clients should treat the message
like they treat forwarded keys, i.e. not confirmed to originate from the user.

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be clear what should the assume? AKA what does this verification give us?

IIUC it tells us if our homeserver trusts that this event came from the homeserver of the sender? Is this correct?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It means this message in elements:

image

Currently happens when you get keys from a key backup or key sharing, rather than directly from the origin device. The reason is that Matrix e2ee is deniable, so there's no way to ensure that the message was sent by the user unless you received the keys directly from that user. Forwarded messages are equivalent to key sharing, so clients should treat those keys the same way.


Clients may discourage users from forwarding encrypted messages to unencrypted
rooms, as that would leak the message content to the servers.

If a forwarded event contains relation metadata such as a reply, clients should
not display it to users. This behavior is consistent with other platforms (e.g.
Telegram and WhatsApp) and removes any problems if some users can't get the
relation target event. The existence of reply metadata may still be used to
remove reply fallbacks.

## Potential issues
Copy link

@kevincox kevincox Apr 12, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A concern I have is that this requires forwarding all of the information in the original event. I can imagine cases where I may want to reference the author, but not expose the room. Other cases could not want to reveal the time of the message. Basically there is a legitimate use case for including any subset of the information from the original event.

Furthermore it is likely unclear to the forwarder exactly what information they are sharing.

This proposal seems to suggest that it is not allowed to forward modified (including redacted) events. Of course modified events can not be verified but I think it is still nice to have all of this structured data about the event even if it can't be verified to be coming from the original user's homeserver. For example I may just want to forward (message, author, time) and am perfectly fine saying "according to Kevin".

So basically how should we handle non-verifiable forwarded events? The same as this protocol but just without "valid": true? Or do we want to separate spec?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In my opinion copying content from a message to other selectively is a totally different use-case than forwarding a full message. This MSC should be tightly restricted to forwarding full events only, and more importantly, I would explicitly deny forwarding of encrypted events to un-encrypted rooms!

When forwarding an encrypted event, you don't only copy the original message, but the actual point-in-time event sent by an original author and including all the meta information in it to another context. While this probably has a bunch of valid use-cases, I consider it a very bad practice to make it easy for 2nd parties of original communication to leak all this to the HSes when the original message content is deliberately shielded from server side spying. When a user copy-pastes a content of a originally encrypted message, the relation to the original encrypted counterpart is not explicitly leaked to the homeservers, and the relation to the original encrypted context is not explicitly crytpographically proven. This is a major difference that should be considered when forwarding the original events to other contexts.

Thus, my recommendation is that forwarding of encrypted messages to unencrypted rooms should be blocked by both the server and the client implementations explicitly. Forwarding of encrypted events to other encrypted rooms does not break the separation of trust contexts between the HS and the clients as long as the decryption keys are encrypted with the keys of the target room.

Regarding the thoughts on selectively "forwarding" some of the event information the current signing scheme does not support being picky on what to include or exclude if you want to be able to verify the signature. Building something that would allow forwarding selectively, while still providing cryptographic proofs would require a hugely more complex cryptosystem design than Matrix currently has. One possibility to that direction would be using something like Zero Knowledge proofs, but that is totally out of scope in terms of added complexity for this single use case.

* This is not as simple as MSC2723 and requires server support.
* Events with bogus data in `m.forwarded` can't be forwarded.
* Events that are close to the 64 KiB size limit can't be forwarded. MSC2723
has the same problem, but this proposal has even more extra data. The amount
of extra data in both proposals is rather low (<1kb), so this should not be
a problem in practice.

## Alternatives
### Endpoint behavior
Instead of an endpoint for sending a forward, the new endpoint could be used to
generate the forward content and leave sending it up to the client with the
normal /send endpoint. However, this is an extra roundtrip for the client and
it is not clear if there are any significant benefits in doing so.

## Unstable prefix
While this MSC is not in a released version of the spec, implementations should
use `net.maunium.msc2730` as a prefix and as a `unstable_features` flag in the
`/versions` endpoint.

* `PUT /_matrix/client/unstable/net.maunium.msc2730/rooms/{roomId}/event/{eventId}/forward/{targetRoomId}/{txnId}` as the endpoint
* `net.maunium.msc2730.forwarded` instead of `m.forwarded` in `content` and `unsigned`
* `NET.MAUNIUM.MSC2730_NOT_FORWARDABLE` instead of `M_NOT_FORWARDABLE` as the error code