[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [JDEV] Re: Jabber sigs/crypto

> > Hmmm...I'm not sure of an obvious way around this right now, but this seems
> > to be an unacceptable (to me at least) requirement...if I were a user of a
> > problem like this and was told 'yeah, type your message here, but whatever
> > you do, don't start with this particular string'...it just would give me
> > the impression that the system was somehow shoddy.  There must be one way
> > or another around it...
> I agree with this. The jabber protocol is specified by xml tags, it would
> be relatively easy to simply add it as an option to a <message
> encrypted="yes"> tag. 

Well, I'd like to avoid extending the protocol for specific purposes, but
instead use the built in extension mechanisms.

A message looks like this:
 <say>This is just a test message.</say>

To extend it, you just have to add:

So, a signed message *could* be:
   <sig type="whatever">asdf asdg ashqrtq134643yqd</sig>
 <say>This is just a test message.</say>

Or, based on above, you could put just about anything you wanted between
the <secure></secure> tags.  Everything the the <ext></ext> gets passed
right through the server untouched.  I'm guessing that different projects
for different purposes will create their own little "namespace" within the
ext tags, such as the security/encryption stuff might use

> > Yeah, so this is what I was talking about earlier...if the Jabber server
> > needs to verify a digital sig for every user as they log on, will this
> > place an unacceptable processing burden on the server's CPU?  (or in other
> > words will server scalability suck because of this processing overhead)  I
> > think I need to do some investigation into how fast verification is with a
> > variety of algorithms.
> We currently verify a user based on a login name and password. Surely the
> digital signature can be incorporated into some type of password scheme.
> Verifying the digital signature shouldn't be any more computationally
> intensive than verifying a password, ideally anyway.

Well, wouldn't the digital sig used for authentication just BE the
password?  Such as:
 <pass>Q#$^@#%Yqfdgq346 My DIGITAL SIGNATURE</pass>
 <nick>My NickName</nick>

This would work GREAT, because the user/pass is fed to the module API so
you could just have an optional "secure" module that allows you to have
digital sigs as the password and authenticates the user.