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

Proposal for storing megolm keys serverside #1219

benparsons opened this issue May 10, 2018 · 3 comments


Copy link

commented May 10, 2018

Documentation: #1538
Author: @ara4n, @uhoreg
Date: 23/11/2017


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Aug 13, 2018

The API was designed for option 1, and mostly works for option 2, but it seems like the /room_keys/version API could work better with the PK encryption, and doesn't seem to support the "Verifying the device [new] with an existing device, so the device gets a copy of the recovery-key public key, and can start backing up into the same session" use case.

I think one way to support that is to have the client use the version API to upload the public key for the backup, signed with the device's signing key, along with the device ID. When a new device signs in and wants to back up to that version, then it prompts the user to verify one of the devices that signed the public key. Once the device has been verified, the new device can sign the public key and upload its signature, so that newer devices can check the public key by verifying that device. (Alternatively, we could integrate with the cross-signing data somehow, so that we don't need multiple signatures.)

I think most of this (other than uploading other signatures) can be done with the existing API by changing the contents of the auth_data.

@ara4n ara4n added this to To do (general backlog) in August 2018 r0 via automation Sep 15, 2018
@turt2live turt2live moved this from To do (general backlog) to To do: server-server (prioritized) in August 2018 r0 Oct 1, 2018
@turt2live turt2live added the T-Core label Dec 24, 2018
@anoadragon453 anoadragon453 removed the T-Core label Jan 4, 2019
@uhoreg uhoreg added the e2e label Apr 1, 2019

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 10, 2019

@mscbot fcp merge


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

commented Sep 10, 2019

Team member @uhoreg has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged people:

No concerns currently listed.

Once at least 75% of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
August 2018 r0
To do: server-server (prioritized)
8 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.