nostr/nips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nostr-protocol/nips.git synced 2024-12-22 08:25:53 -05:00
Code Issues Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Add Security Considerations section

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Jeff Gardner 2024-11-25 14:50:52 +01:00
parent d898239e26
commit d9e704ac7a
1 changed files with 31 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

31
104.md
View File

@ -76,6 +76,37 @@ This NIP specifies the following:
3. The structure of [KeyPackage Events](#keypackage-event-and-signing-keys) published to relays that allow Nostr users to be added to a group asynchronously.
4. The structure of [Group Events](#group-events) published to relays that represent the evolution of a group's state and the contents of the messages sent in the group.
## Security Considerations
This is a concise overview of the security trade-offs and considerations of this NIP in various scenarios. The NIP strives to fully maintain MLS security guarantees.
### Forward Secrecy and Post-compromise Security
- As per the MLS spec, keys are deleted as soon as they are used to encrypt or decrypt a message. This is usually handled by the MLS implementation library itself but attention needs to be paid by clients to ensure they're not storing secrets (expecially the [exporter secret](#group-events)) for longer than absolutely necessary.
- This NIP maintains MLS forward secrecy and post-compromise security guarantees. You can read more about those in the MLS Architectural Overview section on [Forward Secrecy and Post-compromise Security](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mls-architecture-15.html#name-forward-and-post-compromise).
### Leakage of various keys
- This NIP does not depend on a user's Nostr identity key for any aspect of the MLS messaging protocol. Compromise of a user's Nostr identity key does not give access to past or future messages in any MLS-based group.
- For a complete discussion of MLS key leakage, please see the Endpoint Compromise section of the [MLS Architectural Overview](https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-mls-architecture-15.html#name-endpoint-compromise).
### Metadata
- The only group specific metadata published to relays is the Nostr group ID value. This value is used to identify the group in the `h` tag of the Group Message Event (`kind: 445`). These events are published ephemerally and this Nostr group ID value can be updated over the lifetime of the group by group admins. This is a tradeoff to ensure that group participants and group size are obfuscated but still makes it possible to efficiently fan out group messages to all participants. The content field of this event is a value encrypted in two separate ways (using NIP-44 and MLS) with MLS group state/keys. Only group members with up-to-date group state can decrypt and read these messages.
- A user's key package events can be used one or more times to be added to groups. There is a tradeoff inherent here: Reusing key packages (initial signing keys) carries some degree of risk but this risk is mitigated as long as a user rotates their signing key immediately upon joining a group. This step also improves the forward secrecy of the entire group.
### Device Compromise
Clients implementing this NIP should take every precaution to ensure that data is stored in a secure way on the device and is protected against unwanted access in the case that a device is compromised (e.g. encryption at rest, biometric authentication, etc.). That said, full device compromise should be viewed as a catastrophic event and any group the compromised device was a part of should be considered compromised until they can remove that member and update their group's state. Some suggestions:
- Clients should support and encourage self-destructing messages (ensuring that full transcript history isn't available on a device forever).
- Clients should regularly suggest to group admins that inactive users be removed.
- Clients should regularly suggest (or automatically) rotate a user's signing key in each of their groups.
- Clients should encrypt group state and keys on the device using a secret value that isn't part of the group state or the user's Nostr identity key.
- Clients should use secure enclave storage where possible.
For a full discussion of the security considerations of MLS, please see the Security Considerations section of the [MLS RFC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9420.html#name-security-considerations).
## Creating groups
MLS Groups are created with a random 32-byte ID value that is effectively permanent. This ID should be treated as private to the group and MUST not be published to relays in any form.