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

Identity service should do lookups based on hashed 3PIDs, not plaintext ones. #2130

Closed
ara4n opened this issue Jun 14, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2134
Closed

Identity service should do lookups based on hashed 3PIDs, not plaintext ones. #2130

ara4n opened this issue Jun 14, 2019 · 2 comments · Fixed by #2134
Labels
identity service improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol privacy-sprint Temporary label: privacy-related stuff

Comments

@ara4n
Copy link
Member

ara4n commented Jun 14, 2019

There is no reason for an IS to ever handle plaintext 3PIDs when doing a lookup; from a privacy perspective we should hash them.

@ara4n ara4n added the privacy-sprint Temporary label: privacy-related stuff label Jun 14, 2019
@turt2live turt2live added identity service improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol labels Jun 14, 2019
@Half-Shot
Copy link
Contributor

@turt2live
Copy link
Member

ftr, there is a reason in the case of identity servers backed by another system, such as LDAP. The identity server might not know if a user exists based on hash (as it would be compute heavy to pull all the users from the external system and hash all their identifiers at that point in time), and therefore would need the plain text address so it can more easily do the lookup.

The more general cases though should be hashed, although I question to what extent we do this.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
identity service improvement A suggestion for a relatively simple improvement to the protocol privacy-sprint Temporary label: privacy-related stuff
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants