Skip to content

Commit 87822fa

Browse files
ara4nrichvdh
andauthored
MSC3419: Allow guests to send more event types (#3419)
* MSC3419 - Guest state events Let guests send state events. Needed for guests to work with native group voip in #3401 * typo * Update 3419-guest-state-events.md incorporate @clokep clarification * also let guests send non-m.room.message events in general. * Update proposals/3419-guest-state-events.md Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <[email protected]> * Update proposals/3419-guest-state-events.md Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <[email protected]> * wordwrap Co-authored-by: Richard van der Hoff <[email protected]>
1 parent 86fb65a commit 87822fa

File tree

1 file changed

+35
-0
lines changed

1 file changed

+35
-0
lines changed

proposals/3419-guest-state-events.md

+35
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
1+
# Guest State Events
2+
3+
## Problem
4+
5+
Currently guest users are not allowed to create arbitrary state events. This is
6+
a problem for [MSC3401](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/pull/3401),
7+
where it would be useful for guests to be able to create `m.call.member` events
8+
in order to participate in a call.
9+
10+
## Proposal
11+
12+
Let guests send arbitrary state events much like a normal user. Servers may rate
13+
limit state events from guests much more aggressively to mitigate abuse.
14+
15+
We also relax the existing requirement that guests are only allowed to send
16+
`m.room.message` events, instead allowing them to send any kind of event
17+
allowed by the room's power level configuration as if they were a normal user.
18+
19+
## Security considerations
20+
21+
The only reason that guests are denied from performing certain operations is to
22+
avoid malicious unauthorised users consuming resources and causing a DoS. In
23+
this instance, sending state events can be quite resource intensive, so if we
24+
didn't have a good use case that needed them it'd be right to veto them.
25+
26+
Also, by default, users (guest or otherwise) can't send state events, which
27+
further reduces the risk of abuse. Instead, a room intended for guest-capable
28+
voice/video rooms as per MSC3401 would explicitly set a powerlevel to let users
29+
send `m.call.member` events. This MSC would simply make it then permissible
30+
for guests to send as well as non-guests, subject to the powerlevels.
31+
32+
## Alternatives
33+
34+
Rather than using guest access, apps could use shared secret registration to
35+
work around this limitation. However, that feels like a different MSC.

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)