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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

add: security protocol in multiaddr #276

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

add: security protocol in multiaddr #276

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

salmad3
Copy link
Member

@salmad3 salmad3 commented Jan 3, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Context

Latest preview

Please view the latest Fleek preview here.

@salmad3 salmad3 marked this pull request as draft January 3, 2023 02:13
@salmad3 salmad3 added ready for review PR is ready for review blocked labels Jan 6, 2023
@salmad3 salmad3 marked this pull request as ready for review January 9, 2023 05:02
@salmad3 salmad3 linked an issue Jan 9, 2023 that may be closed by this pull request
Document "Advertise security protocol in multiaddr" #214
Open
4 tasks
@salmad3 salmad3 added the P2 Medium label Jan 26, 2023
MarcoPolo
MarcoPolo reviewed Jan 27, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@MarcoPolo MarcoPolo left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't do this today. I don't think we should merge this until/unless we make these changes.

content/concepts/fundamentals/addressing.md
However, this approach is susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks, as a malicious actor could modify the list of supported
handshake protocols to force a downgrade to a less secure protocol.

To address this issue, libp2p recommends that peers encode the security protocol they wish to use directly in the multiaddr
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

We don't do this today.

@salmad3
Copy link
Member Author

salmad3 commented Jan 27, 2023

We don't do this today. I don't think we should merge this until/unless we make these changes.

Right, this is why I put the blocked label.

@salmad3 salmad3 added the DNM do not merge label Jan 27, 2023
@marten-seemann
Copy link
Contributor

We don't do this today. I don't think we should merge this until/unless we make these changes.

Right, this is why I put the blocked label.

Can we close it instead? I suggest not to write docs pages for features that we don't have yet, unless that feature is under active development and the rollout is imminent (as it was, for example, with WebRTC and Early Muxer Negotiation).

@salmad3 salmad3 removed blocked DNM do not merge P2 Medium ready for review PR is ready for review labels Jan 27, 2023
@salmad3
Copy link
Member Author

salmad3 commented Jan 27, 2023

We don't do this today. I don't think we should merge this until/unless we make these changes.

Right, this is why I put the blocked label.

Can we close it instead? I suggest not to write docs pages for features that we don't have yet, unless that feature is under active development and the rollout is imminent (as it was, for example, with WebRTC and Early Muxer Negotiation).

I was under the impression that it was active. Sure, we can close this and reopen if necessary.

@salmad3 salmad3 closed this Jan 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@MarcoPolo MarcoPolo MarcoPolo left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
go-libp2p
Archived in project
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Document "Advertise security protocol in multiaddr"
3 participants
@salmad3 @marten-seemann @MarcoPolo