This commit adds two config options:
* `restrict_public_rooms_to_local_users`
Requires auth to fetch the public rooms directory through the CS API and disables fetching it through the federation API.
* `require_auth_for_profile_requests`
When set to `true`, requires that requests to `/profile` over the CS API are authenticated, and only returns the user's profile if the requester shares a room with the profile's owner, as per MSC1301.
MSC1301 also specifies a behaviour for federation (only returning the profile if the server asking for it shares a room with the profile's owner), but that's currently really non-trivial to do in a not too expensive way. Next step is writing down a MSC that allows a HS to specify which user sent the profile query. In this implementation, Synapse won't send a profile query over federation if it doesn't believe it already shares a room with the profile's owner, though.
Groups have been intentionally omitted from this commit.
* Rate-limiting for registration
* Add unit test for registration rate limiting
* Add config parameters for rate limiting on auth endpoints
* Doc
* Fix doc of rate limiting function
Co-Authored-By: babolivier <contact@brendanabolivier.com>
* Incorporate review
* Fix config parsing
* Fix linting errors
* Set default config for auth rate limiting
* Fix tests
* Add changelog
* Advance reactor instead of mocked clock
* Move parameters to registration specific config and give them more sensible default values
* Remove unused config options
* Don't mock the rate limiter un MAU tests
* Rename _register_with_store into register_with_store
* Make CI happy
* Remove unused import
* Update sample config
* Fix ratelimiting test for py2
* Add non-guest test
This closes#2602
v1auth was created to account for the differences in status code between
the v1 and v2_alpha revisions of the protocol (401 vs 403 for invalid
tokens). However since those protocols were merged, this makes the r0
version/endpoint internally inconsistent, and violates the
specification for the r0 endpoint.
This might break clients that rely on this inconsistency with the
specification. This is said to affect the legacy angular reference
client. However, I feel that restoring parity with the spec is more
important. Either way, it is critical to inform developers about this
change, in case they rely on the illegal behaviour.
Signed-off-by: Adrian Tschira <nota@notafile.com>
This follows the same flows-based flow as regular registration, but as
the only implemented flow has no requirements, it auto-succeeds. In the
future, other flows (e.g. captcha) may be required, so clients should
treat this like the regular registration flow choices.
