feat(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): initial draft #600

felicio · 2023-05-09T18:08:51Z

felicio · 2023-05-09T18:11:11Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+
+## Specs
+
+- <https://github.com/status-im/specs/pull/159> for URL scheme


~~See status-im/specs#159 (comment)~~

felicio · 2023-05-09T18:16:21Z

Cannot add reviewers, so please

To @rymnc @saledjenic @cammellos @iurimatias

rymnc · 2023-05-23T06:24:15Z

@felicio, please can you review the changes?

felicio · 2023-05-24T08:12:09Z

@felicio, please can you review the changes?

@rymnc I really liked them, good job!

kaiserd

Thank you for working on this RFC :).

In its current state, it is quite raw.
I'd suggest providing more context and adding text replacing the bullet poitns (some of which seem like "notes" rather part of the spec)

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

kaiserd · 2023-05-25T12:52:59Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+
+# Abstract
+
+This document presents a comprehensive overview of the serialization, compression, and encoding techniques used to transmit data within URLs. 


If this RFC "presents a comprehensive overview" it should be in the Informational category instead of Standards Track.

If this RFC should evolve into a normative specification, this should be phrased as
"This document specifies serialization, compression, and encoding techniques used to transmit data within URLs in the context of Status protocols."

I assume it is 2).

kaiserd · 2023-05-25T13:02:19Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+
+### Product
+
+- The process of encoding data within URLs should continue until the Waku response becomes sufficiently instantaneous and reliable for link previewing and visiting the onboarding website. Alternatively, this process can be halted once a product roadmap for an alternative decentralized storage solution is finalized.


until the Waku response becomes sufficiently instantaneous and reliable

What does this mean?
Does this doc depend on a future Waku version with lower latency?
In that case, this sentece should be marked as a "note".

What is the "onboarding website"?

Does this doc depend on a future Waku version with lower latency?

No, but if it was low enough product could deem this spec redundant going forward.

Btw, post MVP profile metadata could elsewhere too (not in url nor waku), check out status-im/status-web#327 (comment).

kaiserd · 2023-05-25T13:04:04Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+
+- The process of encoding data within URLs should continue until the Waku response becomes sufficiently instantaneous and reliable for link previewing and visiting the onboarding website. Alternatively, this process can be halted once a product roadmap for an alternative decentralized storage solution is finalized.
+
+- During the loading of the onboarding website, a verification state should be implemented to compare the encoded data against the Waku response. This measure aims to mitigate identity attacks and ensure the integrity of the data.


This would require more context.
For example: "against the Waku response", which Waku response?

A response containing user/community/channel's latest metadata.

a verification state should be implemented to compare the encoded data against the Waku response.

That's outdated and can now be done instantaneously on client with #600 (comment), given that decoding of a public key and signature from the url succeeds.

kaiserd · 2023-05-25T13:04:35Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+### Related scope
+
+#### Features
+


Also this needs more context.

Could you please be specific in requesting more context? Does it need a product write up for what link previews, sharing, deep linking etc. are? And how the app utilizes them?

Onboarding website is a website or set of pages allowing visitors (those that click on the link and don't have the app installed or hasn't been automatically redirect to it) to preview community/channel/user's metadata and guide them in installing the app or allowing them to join or connect with someone for example through redirecting/deep linking or scanning a contact QR.

kaiserd · 2023-05-25T13:06:22Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+
+## Encoding
+
+- Base64url


Encoding, most likely, should not be an implementation suggestion but part of the spec.

It was under "suggestion" due to the "request for comments" and "draft" or "raw" state nature. Especially, since I got very little technical feedback on the whole spec.

Matter of fact, and spec contributing/format aside, what do you think about the (suggested) implementation? Would solve the problem differently?

felicio · 2023-05-30T10:44:24Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

-<!-- # Security/Privacy Considerations
-
-A standard track RFC in `stable` status MUST feature this section.
-A standard track RFC in `raw` or `draft` status SHOULD feature this section.
-Informational RFCs (in any state) may feature this section.
-If there are none, this section MUST explicitly state that fact.
-This section MAY contain additional relevant information, e.g. an explanation as to why there are no security consideration for the respective document. -->
+# Security Considerations
+- There is currently no method to verify the validity of the encoded data. This limitation is acknowledged in the current implementation.


@rymnc this is not true.

See https://github.com/status-im/status-web/blob/eb5cbcdda3ea41c0413c5effdee2f54a85b840ab/packages/status-js/src/utils/sign-url-data.ts#L33-L51 for implementation, and #602 (comment) for additional context.

Here i am talking about the metadata itself, and the fact that you trust someone to sign and send the correct metadata to you.

thats why it says "validity of encoded data" :)

In that case, I might have the terms mixed up. I'd say "validity" can be quite broad.

To be more specific, the integrity should be ensured and validated with what I've shared above. And authenticity, while yes a link can be send to you, but you could also obtain it from a profile in the app or from its bio on social. In which case, validating the authenticity depends on you trusting the source or relying on other mechanism like identicon ring, emoji hash or public key.

That's why I think the sentence is not true.

Also,

This limitation is acknowledged in the current implementation.

acknowledged how and where?

Would you say this better describes it?

The integrity of the encoded data is ensured by the signature, however, the authenticity of the data is not guaranteed.

That's right, in this use case. And it's different than saying"verifying that extracted public key == public key", wouldn't you say?

Sorry, maybe I didn't explain myself well. Basically there are 2 operations that we perform, one is extracting the key from hash/signature, while the other is verification (which we use in the codebase).
Verification is essentially this:

func verify(hash, signature, expectedPk) { return extractPk(hash,signature) == expectedPk }

Which is what I was referring to as non meaningful, since it makes sense if you can trust expectedPk (you retrieve it from a trusted third party), but in this case, all 3 are relayed, therefore we should assume that all 3 can be tampered with.

We're verifying the signature to preserve the integrity and authenticity as discussed earlier, don't we?

Maybe I used the wrong words, apologies, as explained in the previous point, best to use "extract" rather than "verify", since what we are really doing is to pin the content/signature to a specific public key, but verification would require to verify against something, something trusted, which in this case is not available (we would if for example there was a ENS name, since we can trust the ENS name resolver).

So if we can agree on that we don't mind NOT catching cases of

Just to make sure, it's not that we are not catching those cases, the only way you can catch those cases is if you have some expectations about a pk, so you are validating something against a known/trusted pk, which I don't believe is the case here (but it could also be lack of context). It would be possible to validate in some cases at sharing time (if you share a link with me on status saying that it's your link, I can check that's the case, as I know your pk).

Either of the cases above will result in a different pk being extracted, which is the only thing we can do given that we don't have a trusted source or something to verify against that is tamper proof.
So, I would be for not including the change myself, since I think it makes things a bit more opaque and it's a bit narrow in what it prevents (an attacker tampering with hash/signature but not tampering with pk). Though there might be some genuine cases that I am missing.

Basically there are 2 operations that we perform, one is extracting the

Currently it is WITHOUT extracting. That's what the very first comment points to.

therefore we should assume that all 3 can be tampered with.

That may be, but under the current implementation and with the verification in place I wouldn't be able to construct a tampered url and put your PK in it without our UIs catching it and letting anybody know it's been tampered with by flagging such url or NOT displaying the content in the first place. Like in the case of our new onboarding/previewing page replacing https://join.status.im/u/0x04ac78d5b61ea49eab8849826c628e01aed9d38ef8abe2fe53444e47bec31788049a5099ebf6dbbe5bc1c39fffee1e012faf201e3775296bec0aa38a5ddcdf1df7.

verification would require to verify against something, something trusted, which in this case is not available
...
the only way you can catch those cases is if you have some expectations about a pk, so you are validating something against a known/trusted pk,

I see, and possibly mistakenly, verifying whether the url in this scenario has been tampered with and whether I ultimately can trust the PK behind it as two different things.

Now, if we talk about an implementation WITH extracting, or recovering,

what we are really doing is to pin the content/signature to a specific public key

...to a key that the process of extracting produces. That I think is a good way to put it.

Either of the cases above will result in a different pk being extracted

By the way, is it common for other pk/signature algorithms to give you different pk for my signature and your tampered data instead of failing too?

an attacker tampering with hash/signature but not tampering with pk

Ditto previous comment at #600 (comment)

So, I would be for not including the change myself

I'll revert it then 👍. Unless anybody else weighs in.

By the way, is it common for other pk/signature algorithms to give you different pk for my signature and your tampered data instead of failing too?

No, it's only a feature of some (not all) ECDSA schemes, as far as I know. Other schemes (RSA/DSA), do not offer recovery of the public key, so you can only verify the signature, but you would need to have a key to validate against, pulled from some kms.

Thanks for the work on the specs!

Reverting with

[website] Revert URL verification status-im/status-web#412

feat(60/STATUS-URL-SCHEME): initial draft #602 (comment)

felicio · 2023-05-30T10:54:10Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

In its current state, it is quite raw.
I'd suggest providing more context and adding text replacing the bullet poitns (some of which seem like "notes" rather part of the spec)

May be "raw" and contain notes, but I'm afraid that trimming it with c665051 loses the added context as to why and what for, and becomes just an abstract document that's hard to follow and reevaluate its relevancy in the future.

I should have prefaced this that it's just my opinion and that I'll side with you and your experience in writing specs.

However, I'd be interested in what others I've mentioned for review at #600 (comment) think and how they look at it from a point of you of someone implementing the spec.

Also, Cc @jrainville @borismelnik

However, I'd be interested in what others I've mentioned for review at #600 (comment) think and how they look at it from a point of you of someone implementing the spec.

The spec right now is ok, but it's missing some small parts to make it at least easily usable to implement.

Firstly, I think the part you had here called Requirements > Product was pretty useful https://github.com/vacp2p/rfc/blob/6abe7552d931af76f225909f86611e3c76ced5a2/content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md
I wouldn't mind if it was re-introduced in someway.

One other point would be to have some kind of pseudo code of how the different algorithms are supposed to be used, for the order of them mostly.
The link to the Example is not good enough, because it requires to dig in the files and can be tied to the language in someway.

So something simple like

data = Community{...} dataEncoded = encodingFunction(data) dataCompressed = compressingFunction(dataEncoded) finalUrl = URL_PREFIX + "/" + dataCompressed

Anyway, my example is not great, but at least it gives a good idea on how to encode the data to get to the URL.

Doing the same for the other way around would be good too.

I wouldn't mind if it was re-introduced in someway.

Cool, thanks for the feedback 👍.

The link to the Example is not good enough, because it requires to dig in the files and can be tied to the language in someway.

Fair point 👍.

Cc @rymnc

Agreed! Thanks for the great conversation @felicio @jrainville
I'll update the spec with some pseudocode

@felicio

Issue for creating the backend functions to "encrypt" and "decrypt" the data and generate the URLS Create GenerateShareURL functions in status-go status-im/status-desktop#10851

Issue for updating our UI to use those new functions to show the links and get the link data Update UI to use the new CreateShareURL api status-im/status-desktop#10852
There is another UI issue to use a new component (new design), but it's not that relevant to the spec

Also mentioning @borismelnik since he's having hard time following the spec. @borismelnik, please when you get your "footing" could you propose changes?

@felicio yeah of course :)

@jrainville @borismelnik just wanted to let you know that've dropped the signatures both in web's implementation and in the specs as per our meeting and status-im/status-web#459.

Encoded data didn't change in tests at https://github.com/status-im/status-web/pull/461/files#diff-378ed45ccbd1b990783b9cc2f2ee73430328530f17339176b4fa658f2b6eda08.

@felicio Awesome! We already have it in desktop master :)

felicio · 2023-06-01T14:03:34Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+# Proof of concept
+
+- See <https://github.com/felicio/status-web/blob/825262c4f07a68501478116c7382862607a5544e/packages/status-js/src/utils/encode-url-data.compare.test.ts#L4>


@prichodko about simplifying or solving the problem differently, I'm pointing this out here for better overview and future reference.

It's not the prettiest thing to navigate, but basically the results vary in

{ serialization: 'csv', compression: 'noop', encoding: 'encodeURIComponent', }

and

expect(characterLength).toBe(184) expect(encodedData).toHaveLength(243)

Previsouly, I shared with you status-im/status-web#345 (comment). And with that, I'm still inclined towards

{ serialization: 'protobuf', compression: 'brotli', encoding: 'base64url', }

see status-im/status-web#459

felicio · 2023-08-25T13:36:57Z

content/docs/rfcs/59/README.md

+message URLData {
+    // Community, Channel, or User
+    bytes content = 1;
+    uint32 shard_cluster = 2;
+    uint32 shard_index = 3;
+}


@richard-ramos @cammellos, I updated the spec in 1c38bb1.

I forgot to ask, do you think that these fields (and their "informational value") should be after "#" (i.e. not exposed to servers) as well as the public keys are now, or don't have to be?

IMO with the idea of reducing as much metadata as possible stored in the logs of servers, these fields should appear after the # but I don't know the ramifications this could cause?. Do the URLs for sharing communities with its public key follow this format?

Do the URLs for sharing communities with its public key follow this format?

If you mean if they are after the #, then yes. Merged implementations up until now should follow https://github.com/vacp2p/rfc/pull/602/files.

I don't know the ramifications this could cause?

When I asked you, I could only think of targeting the community's topic. Given that public key isn't needed to construct it. @rymnc @cammellos @jakubgs could you weigh in as well please?

Latest privacy consideration on this topic being mentioned in status-im/status-web#327 (comment).

these fields should appear after the #

Given above, I'd agree. In which case I'd propose mapping it with the public key and a new protobuf, similarly to how the content is encoded.

these fields should appear after the #

Given above, I'd agree. In which case I'd propose mapping it with the public key and a new protobuf, similarly to how the content is encoded.

@cammellos agrees.

rymnc · 2023-10-10T15:20:59Z

hey @felicio can we merge this soon?

jimstir · 2024-03-01T03:43:06Z

Continue discussion :vacp2p/rfc-index#13

felicio added 3 commits May 9, 2023 20:05

update .gitignore

15746b3

update .gitignore

24fe175

feat(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): initial draft

7ed0156

felicio mentioned this pull request May 9, 2023

18/URL scheme: draft status-im/specs#159

Closed

felicio commented May 9, 2023

View reviewed changes

felicio mentioned this pull request May 9, 2023

17/URL data: draft status-im/specs#169

Closed

rymnc requested review from cammellos, kaiserd and rymnc May 10, 2023 10:04

rymnc mentioned this pull request May 15, 2023

SeM(Milestone): Scaling Status App to 1 million users MVP vacp2p/research#187

Closed

14 tasks

felicio added 2 commits May 15, 2023 12:56

index

cfc3ce3

ref

6abe755

felicio mentioned this pull request May 16, 2023

feat(60/STATUS-URL-SCHEME): initial draft #602

Closed

rymnc added 3 commits May 19, 2023 10:47

fix(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): update terminology

329defd

fix(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): raw status

4e915cc

fix(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): remove wire format of other spec

e3214b9

kaiserd reviewed May 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

jrainville mentioned this pull request May 29, 2023

Create GenerateShareURL functions in status-go status-im/status-desktop#10851

Closed

fix: provide context, strip implementation specifics

c665051

felicio commented May 30, 2023

View reviewed changes

rymnc added 2 commits May 31, 2023 14:05

fix: wording of security considerations

59ddcb4

fix: better implementation guide

871c036

felicio mentioned this pull request Jun 1, 2023

[website] Revert URL verification status-im/status-web#412

Merged

felicio commented Jun 1, 2023

View reviewed changes

felicio mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2023

Update universal links to reflect the changes in URL structure status-im/status-mobile#15325

Closed

igor-sirotin mentioned this pull request Jun 21, 2023

feat: proposal for parsing shared urls status-im/status-go#3644

Closed

3 tasks

rymnc mentioned this pull request Jul 27, 2023

Milestone: Status Specs -> Vac RFCs #608

Closed

4 tasks

rm sig ref

061966b

see status-im/status-web#459

felicio mentioned this pull request Aug 4, 2023

fix encoding of status.app links status-im/status-go#3855

Merged

3 tasks

add shard fields

1c38bb1

felicio commented Aug 25, 2023

View reviewed changes

This was referenced Aug 28, 2023

encode shard fields in status.app links status-im/status-web#464

Open

waku2: static shards status-im/status-go#3944

Merged

borismelnik mentioned this pull request Sep 25, 2023

[EPIC] Open status.app links status-im/status-desktop#12245

Open

10 tasks

jimstir mentioned this pull request Feb 28, 2024

feat(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): initial draft vacp2p/rfc-index#13

Open

jimstir closed this Mar 1, 2024

jimstir mentioned this pull request Jun 14, 2024

Milestone: Status Specs -> Vac RFCs vacp2p/rfc-index#78

Open

4 tasks


		## Specs

		- <https://github.com/status-im/specs/pull/159> for URL scheme


		# Abstract

		This document presents a comprehensive overview of the serialization, compression, and encoding techniques used to transmit data within URLs.


		### Product

		- The process of encoding data within URLs should continue until the Waku response becomes sufficiently instantaneous and reliable for link previewing and visiting the onboarding website. Alternatively, this process can be halted once a product roadmap for an alternative decentralized storage solution is finalized.


		- The process of encoding data within URLs should continue until the Waku response becomes sufficiently instantaneous and reliable for link previewing and visiting the onboarding website. Alternatively, this process can be halted once a product roadmap for an alternative decentralized storage solution is finalized.

		- During the loading of the onboarding website, a verification state should be implemented to compare the encoded data against the Waku response. This measure aims to mitigate identity attacks and ensure the integrity of the data.

		# Proof of concept

		- See <https://github.com/felicio/status-web/blob/825262c4f07a68501478116c7382862607a5544e/packages/status-js/src/utils/encode-url-data.compare.test.ts#L4>

feat(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): initial draft #600

feat(59/STATUS-URL-DATA): initial draft #600

Conversation

felicio commented May 9, 2023 • edited Loading

felicio May 9, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio May 15, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio commented May 9, 2023

rymnc commented May 23, 2023

felicio commented May 24, 2023

kaiserd left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio May 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio May 31, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio May 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio May 30, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

felicio Aug 25, 2023 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

rymnc commented Oct 10, 2023

jimstir commented Mar 1, 2024

felicio commented May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 9, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 31, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio May 30, 2023 •

edited

Loading

felicio Aug 25, 2023 •

edited

Loading