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

MSC4114: Matrix as a password manager #4114

Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
174 changes: 174 additions & 0 deletions proposals/4114-matrix-as-a-password-manager.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,174 @@
# MSC4114: Matrix as a password manager

Password managers are used in abundance in both the personal and corporate
space to securely and conveniently store and share secrets. This proposal
outlines a scheme for storing a hierarchy of secrets in Matrix by borrowing
from standard concepts such as rooms and spaces.

## Proposal

### Secret hierarchy

Two new room types `m.vault` and `m.vault.secret` are introduced. Vault-rooms
work similar to [spaces] and can group other vault-rooms or secret-rooms.
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
Secret-rooms store the actual sensitive data, such as passwords.

Sending normal `m.room.message` events within vault- and secret-rooms is
discouraged - clients are not generally expected to have a way to render the
timeline of these rooms. As such, vault- and secret-rooms should be created
with `m.room.power_levels` which prohibit normal events by setting
`events_default` to a suitably high number. In the default power level
structure, this would be 100.

Additionally, vault- and secret-rooms should be created with a join rule of
`invite` to prevent unintended access without explicit sharing.

To include a secret (or another vault) in a vault, an `m.vault.child` state
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
event is introduced. The state key of the event is the room ID of the secret
(or other vault) to include. In `content`, the event has a single field `via`
that lists servers to try and join through.

```
{
"type": "m.vault.child",
"state_key": "!roomid:example.org",
"content": {
"via": [
"example.org",
"other.example.org"
]
},
...
}
```

No rooms other than those of type `m.vault` and `m.vault.secret` are allowed to
be stored in `m.vault.child` events.

Unlike with spaces, there is no corresponding `m.vault.parent` event, meaning a
vault or secret does not know which parent vaults contain it. While in spaces
this backlink exists to aid discoverability, this feature appears unessential
for secret hierarchies.

### Storing secrets
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

To store secrets, a new room event type `m.secret` is introduced. Building upon
[MSC1767], secret-events contain a single `m.secret.sections` content block that
holds an ordered array of section definitions with the following properties:

- `title` – A textual description (optional)
- `fields` – An ordered array of field definitions (required)

Fields in turn have the following properties:

- `title` – A textual description (optional)
- `type` – An identifier for the type of value stored (optional). One of:
- `text` – Any text. If `type` is omitted, this is the default.
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
- `username` – A username or other account identifier
- `password` – A password or other account secret
- `url` – A web address
- `email` – An email address
- `address` – A street or postal address
- `date` – A date represented as a UNIX timestamp
- `monthyear` – A month / year combination expressed as `MM/YY`
- `phonenumber` – A phone number
- `security_question` – A security question answer. The question itself is to be
put into the `title` field.
- `value` – The content stored (required). For fields of type `date`, this is an
integer, otherwise a string.

```
{
"type": "m.secret",
"content": {
"m.secret.sections": [{
"fields": [{
"type": "username",
"value": "johndoe"
}, {
"type": "password",
"value": "johnboy84"
}]
}, {
"title": "Security questions",
fields: [{
"type": "security_question",
"title": "What is your favorite ice cream flavor?",
"value": "Lemon"
}]
}]
}
}
```

Clients can choose to use the order of sections and fields in the event for
sorting data in the UI but are not required to do so.

`m.secret` events are not meant to be used in rooms other than those of type
`m.vault.secret` and should always be encrypted.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe I'm just scarred from the last 7 or so years that we had regular UTDs, but I'm still scared to lose my passwords this way, even with SSSS. MSC4114-based password managers should really offer an offline encrypted backup feature, but I'm not certain the spec may see it in it's area of responsibility.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah, agreed. This sounds like a great point to add to the "Potential issues" section.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I like this proposition for the concept of sharing for passwords this might enable, which seems much nicer than what my experience has been with bitwarden and keepass2. However it is ironic that matrix with it's required secondary password which will even be needed to access the encrypted passwords here, basically requires another password manager. It's a bit of a hen-and-egg problem.

Copy link
Contributor

@HarHarLinks HarHarLinks Mar 6, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This will basically require clients to implement key sharing with other users on invite so you can invite them after having created a secret. I'm not sure this is a hard requirement in the Matrix Spec currently, but something to point out to clients for this use case.


When updating secrets, clients should use [event replacements] which allows
building a history of changes. Similarly, clients can use [redactions] to
clear parts of the change history. At any given time, a secret-room should,
thus, contain at most one non-redacted, non-replaced `m.secret` event which
gives the current state of the secret.

### Other aspects

Vaults and secrets can be shared through standard room membership. When adding
a secret-room (or another vault-room) to a vault-room, a restricted [join rule]
should be set so that being invited into a vault-room enables users to also
join all of its child-rooms.

The standard `m.room.name` and `m.room.avatar` state events can be used to label
and decorate vaults and secrets. These are not currently encryptable but will be
once [MSC3414] lands. While exposing vault and secret names is not considered a
security concern by other password managers such as [pass], it can still be a
privacy concern. Therefore, clients should warn users appropriately in the meantime.

## Potential issues
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

When sharing _and_ federating, secrets can end up being stored on different home
Johennes marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
servers over time. However, federation is probably not a desirable feature of
password managers anyway.

## Alternatives

Multiple `m.secret` events could be stored in the same room, eliminating the
need to have different room types for vaults and secrets. However, this doesn't
allow for fine-grained sharing of secrets with other users and would make it
impossible to reuse `m.room.name` and `m.room.avatar` events to annotate secrets.

Secrets could be stored in state events which already have replacement semantics.
As mentioned earlier though, state events are not encryptable yet.

The sections and fields of `m.secret` events could be broken out into separate
events. This would, however, complicate client display logic and require an
additional way of sorting sections and fields.

## Security considerations

Until [MSC3414] lands, `m.room.name` and `m.room.avatar` events will leak meta
data of vaults and secrets.

## Unstable prefix

Until this proposal is accepted into the spec implementations should refer to:

- `m.vault` as `org.matrix.mscXXXX.vault`
- `m.vault.secret` as `org.matrix.mscXXXX.vault.secret`
- `m.vault.child` as `org.matrix.mscXXXX.vault.child`
- `m.secret` as `org.matrix.mscXXXX.secret`
- `m.secret.sections` as `org.matrix.mscXXXX.secret.sections`

## Dependencies

None.

[event replacements]: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/client-server-api/#event-replacements
[join rule]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.3/client-server-api/#mroomjoin_rules
[MSC1767]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/1767
[MSC3414]: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/pull/3414
[pass]: https://www.passwordstore.org/
[redactions]: https://spec.matrix.org/latest/client-server-api/#redactions
[spaces]: https://spec.matrix.org/v1.3/client-server-api/#spaces
Loading