Open davidegirardi opened 1 year ago
Is this really in conflict w/ MSC2174 (which landed with room v11)? We already have m.room.encrypted
events with m.relates_to
existing next to the encrypted payload, I don't see what would prevent redactions from getting the same treatment for the redacts
field.
Because the homeserver has to to copy the redacts
property from inside content to outside of it and needs to make sure they are the same.
We already have
m.room.encrypted
events withm.relates_to
existing next to the encrypted payload, I don't see what would prevent redactions from getting the same treatment for theredacts
field.
I think this is what I was trying to say with:
Suggestion Handle the context of
m.room.redaction
asm.room.encrypted
so there's no clear-text information except the needed details of the reaction event.
Redactions are clear-text events and they can contain an optional
reason
, also in clear text. This can lead at a partial content leak if a user writes something related to the ongoing discussion in thereason
of a redaction of a message in an E2EE room.Suggestion Handle the context of
m.room.redaction
asm.room.encrypted
so there's no clear-text information except the needed details of the reaction event. This is probably in conflict with the move ofredacts
intocontent
by MSC2174.Workaround Explicitly tell to the client developers to inform their users that redaction reasons are in clear-text.