forked from MirrorHub/synapse
260 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
260 lines
12 KiB
Markdown
# MSC 1711 Certificates FAQ
|
||
|
||
The goal of Synapse 0.99.0 is to act as a stepping stone to Synapse 1.0.0. It
|
||
supports the r0.1 release of the server to server specification, but is
|
||
compatible with both the legacy Matrix federation behaviour (pre-r0.1) as well
|
||
as post-r0.1 behaviour, in order to allow for a smooth upgrade across the
|
||
federation.
|
||
|
||
The most important thing to know is that Synapse 1.0.0 will require a valid TLS
|
||
certificate on federation endpoints. Self signed certificates will not be
|
||
sufficient.
|
||
|
||
Synapse 0.99.0 makes it easy to configure TLS certificates and will
|
||
interoperate with both >= 1.0.0 servers as well as existing servers yet to
|
||
upgrade.
|
||
|
||
**It is critical that all admins upgrade to 0.99.0 and configure a valid TLS
|
||
certificate.** Admins will have 1 month to do so, after which 1.0.0 will be
|
||
released and those servers without a valid certificate will not longer be able
|
||
to federate with >= 1.0.0 servers.
|
||
|
||
If you are unable to generate a valid TLS certificate for your server (e.g.
|
||
because you run it on behalf of someone who doesn't want to give you a TLS
|
||
certificate for their domain, or simply because the matrix domain is hosted on
|
||
a different server), then you can now create a /.well-known/matrix/server file
|
||
on the matrix domain in order to delegate Matrix hosting to another domain.
|
||
Admins who currently use SRV records to delegate a domain **which they do not
|
||
control TLS for** will need to switch to using .well-known/matrix/server - though
|
||
they should retain their SRV record while the federation upgrades over the
|
||
course of the month. Other SRV records are unaffected.
|
||
|
||
Full upgrade notes can be found in
|
||
[UPGRADE.rst](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/master/UPGRADE.rst).
|
||
What follows is a timeline and some frequently asked questions.
|
||
|
||
For more details and context on the release of the r0.1 Server/Server API and
|
||
imminent Matrix 1.0 release, you can also see our
|
||
[main talk from FOSDEM 2019](https://matrix.org/blog/2019/02/04/matrix-at-fosdem-2019/).
|
||
|
||
## Contents
|
||
* Timeline
|
||
* Synapse 0.99.0 has just been released, what do I need to do right now?
|
||
* How do I upgrade?
|
||
* What will happen if I do not set up a valid federation certificate
|
||
immediately?
|
||
* What will happen if I do nothing at all?
|
||
* When do I need a SRV record or .well-known URI?
|
||
* Can I still use an SRV record?
|
||
* I have created a .well-known URI. Do I still need an SRV record?
|
||
* It used to work just fine, why are you breaking everything?
|
||
* Can I manage my own certificates rather than having Synapse renew
|
||
certificates itself?
|
||
* Do you still recommend against using a reverse-proxy on the federation port?
|
||
* Do I still need to give my TLS certificates to Synapse if I am using a
|
||
reverse-proxy?
|
||
* Do I need the same certificate for the client and federation port?
|
||
* How do I tell Synapse to reload my keys/certificates after I replace them?
|
||
|
||
|
||
### Timeline
|
||
|
||
**5th Feb 2019 - Synapse 0.99.0 is released.**
|
||
|
||
All server admins are encouraged to upgrade.
|
||
|
||
0.99.0:
|
||
|
||
- provides support for ACME to make setting up Let's Encrypt certs easy, as
|
||
well as .well-known support.
|
||
|
||
- does not enforce that a valid CA cert is present on the federation API, but
|
||
rather makes it easy to set one up.
|
||
|
||
- provides support for .well-known
|
||
|
||
Admins should upgrade and configure a valid CA cert. Homeservers that require a
|
||
.well-known entry (see below), should retain their SRV record and use it
|
||
alongside their .well-known record.
|
||
|
||
**>= 5th March 2019 - Synapse 1.0.0 is released**
|
||
|
||
1.0.0 will land no sooner than 1 month after 0.99.0, leaving server admins one
|
||
month after 5th February to upgrade to 0.99.0 and deploy their certificates. In
|
||
accordance with the the [S2S spec](https://matrix.org/docs/spec/server_server/r0.1.0.html)
|
||
1.0.0 will enforce federation checks. This means that any homeserver without a
|
||
valid certificate after this point will no longer be able to federate with
|
||
1.0.0 servers.
|
||
|
||
### Synapse 0.99.0 has just been released, what do I need to do right now?
|
||
|
||
Upgrade as soon as you can in preparation for Synapse 1.0.0.
|
||
|
||
### How do I upgrade?
|
||
|
||
Follow the upgrade notes here [UPGRADE.rst](https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/master/UPGRADE.rst)
|
||
|
||
### What will happen if I do not set up a valid federation certificate immediately?
|
||
|
||
Nothing initially, but once 1.0.0 is in the wild it will not be possible to
|
||
federate with 1.0.0 servers.
|
||
|
||
### What will happen if I do nothing at all?
|
||
|
||
If the admin takes no action at all, and remains on a Synapse < 0.99.0 then the
|
||
homeserver will be unable to federate with those who have implemented
|
||
.well-known. Then, as above, once the month upgrade window has expired the
|
||
homeserver will not be able to federate with any Synapse >= 1.0.0
|
||
|
||
### When do I need a SRV record or .well-known URI?
|
||
|
||
If your homeserver listens on the default federation port (8448), and your
|
||
server_name points to the host that your homeserver runs on, you do not need an
|
||
SRV record or .well-known/matrix/server URI.\
|
||
For instance, if you registered example.com and pointed its DNS A record at a
|
||
fresh Upcloud VPS or similar, you could install Synapse 0.99 on that host,
|
||
giving it a server_name of example.com, and it would automatically generate a
|
||
valid TLS certificate for you via Let's Encrypt and no SRV record or
|
||
.well-known URI would be needed.
|
||
|
||
This is the common case, although you can add an SRV record or
|
||
.well-known/matrix/server URI for completeness if you wish.
|
||
|
||
**However**, if your server does not listen on port 8448, or if your server_name
|
||
does not point to the host that your homeserver runs on, you will need to let
|
||
other servers know how to find it.
|
||
|
||
The easiest way to do this is with a .well-known/matrix/server URI on the
|
||
webroot of the domain to advertise your server. For instance, if you ran
|
||
"matrixhosting.com" and you were hosting a Matrix server for example.com, you
|
||
would ask example.com to create a file at:
|
||
|
||
`https://example.com/.well-known/matrix/server`
|
||
|
||
with contents:
|
||
|
||
`{"m.server": "example.matrixhosting.com:8448"}`
|
||
|
||
...which would tell servers trying to connect to example.com to instead connect
|
||
to example.matrixhosting.com on port 8448. You would then configure Synapse
|
||
with a server_name of "example.com", but generate a TLS certificate for
|
||
example.matrixhosting.com.
|
||
|
||
As an alternative, you can still use an SRV DNS record for the delegation, but
|
||
this will require you to have a certificate for the matrix domain (example.com
|
||
in this example). See "Can I still use an SRV record?".
|
||
|
||
### Can I still use an SRV record?
|
||
|
||
Firstly, if you didn't need an SRV record before (because your server is
|
||
listening on port 8448 of your server_name), you certainly don't need one now:
|
||
the defaults are still the same.
|
||
|
||
If you previously had an SRV record, you can keep using it provided you are
|
||
able to give Synapse a TLS certificate corresponding to your server name. For
|
||
example, suppose you had the following SRV record, which directs matrix traffic
|
||
for example.com to matrix.example.com:443:
|
||
|
||
```
|
||
_matrix._tcp.example.com. IN SRV 10 5 443 matrix.example.com
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
In this case, Synapse must be given a certificate for example.com - or be
|
||
configured to acquire one from Let's Encrypt.
|
||
|
||
If you are unable to give Synapse a certificate for your server_name, you will
|
||
also need to use a .well-known URI instead. However, see also "I have created a
|
||
.well-known URI. Do I still need an SRV record?".
|
||
|
||
### I have created a .well-known URI. Do I still need an SRV record?
|
||
|
||
As of Synapse 0.99, Synapse will first check for the existence of a .well-known
|
||
URL and follow any delegation it suggests. It will only then check for the
|
||
existence of an SRV record.
|
||
|
||
That means that the SRV record will often be redundant. However, you should
|
||
remember that there may still be older versions of Synapse in the federation
|
||
which do not understand .well-known URIs, so if you removed your SRV record you
|
||
would no longer be able to federate with them.
|
||
|
||
It is therefore best to leave the SRV record in place for now. Synapse 0.34 and
|
||
earlier will follow the SRV record (and not care about the invalid
|
||
certificate). Synapse 0.99 and later will follow the .well-known URI, with the
|
||
correct certificate chain.
|
||
|
||
### It used to work just fine, why are you breaking everything?
|
||
|
||
We have always wanted Matrix servers to be as easy to set up as possible, and
|
||
so back when we started federation in 2014 we didn't want admins to have to go
|
||
through the cumbersome process of buying a valid TLS certificate to run a
|
||
server. This was before Let's Encrypt came along and made getting a free and
|
||
valid TLS certificate straightforward. So instead, we adopted a system based on
|
||
[Perspectives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence_(SSL)): an approach
|
||
where you check a set of "notary servers" (in practice, homeservers) to vouch
|
||
for the validity of a certificate rather than having it signed by a CA. As long
|
||
as enough different notaries agree on the certificate's validity, then it is
|
||
trusted.
|
||
|
||
However, in practice this has never worked properly. Most people only use the
|
||
default notary server (matrix.org), leading to inadvertent centralisation which
|
||
we want to eliminate. Meanwhile, we never implemented the full consensus
|
||
algorithm to query the servers participating in a room to determine consensus
|
||
on whether a given certificate is valid. This is fiddly to get right
|
||
(especially in face of sybil attacks), and we found ourselves questioning
|
||
whether it was worth the effort to finish the work and commit to maintaining a
|
||
secure certificate validation system as opposed to focusing on core Matrix
|
||
development.
|
||
|
||
Meanwhile, Let's Encrypt came along in 2016, and put the final nail in the
|
||
coffin of the Perspectives project (which was already pretty dead). So, the
|
||
Spec Core Team decided that a better approach would be to mandate valid TLS
|
||
certificates for federation alongside the rest of the Web. More details can be
|
||
found in
|
||
[MSC1711](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/blob/master/proposals/1711-x509-for-federation.md#background-the-failure-of-the-perspectives-approach).
|
||
|
||
This results in a breaking change, which is disruptive, but absolutely critical
|
||
for the security model. However, the existence of Let's Encrypt as a trivial
|
||
way to replace the old self-signed certificates with valid CA-signed ones helps
|
||
smooth things over massively, especially as Synapse can now automate Let's
|
||
Encrypt certificate generation if needed.
|
||
|
||
### Can I manage my own certificates rather than having Synapse renew certificates itself?
|
||
|
||
Yes, you are welcome to manage your certificates yourself. Synapse will only
|
||
attempt to obtain certificates from Let's Encrypt if you configure it to do
|
||
so.The only requirement is that there is a valid TLS cert present for
|
||
federation end points.
|
||
|
||
### Do you still recommend against using a reverse-proxy on the federation port?
|
||
|
||
We no longer actively recommend against using a reverse proxy. Many admins will
|
||
find it easier to direct federation traffic to a reverse-proxy and manage their
|
||
own TLS certificates, and this is a supported configuration.
|
||
|
||
### Do I still need to give my TLS certificates to Synapse if I am using a reverse proxy?
|
||
|
||
Practically speaking, this is no longer necessary.
|
||
|
||
If you are using a reverse-proxy for all of your TLS traffic, then you can set
|
||
`no_tls: True`. In that case, the only reason Synapse needs the certificate is
|
||
to populate a legacy 'tls_fingerprints' field in the federation API. This is
|
||
ignored by Synapse 0.99.0 and later, and the only time pre-0.99 Synapses will
|
||
check it is when attempting to fetch the server keys - and generally this is
|
||
delegated via `matrix.org`, which is on 0.99.0.
|
||
|
||
However, there is a bug in Synapse 0.99.0
|
||
[4554](<https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/4554>) which prevents
|
||
Synapse from starting if you do not give it a TLS certificate. To work around
|
||
this, you can give it any TLS certificate at all. This will be fixed soon.
|
||
|
||
### Do I need the same certificate for the client and federation port?
|
||
|
||
No. There is nothing stopping you doing so, particularly if you are using a
|
||
reverse-proxy. However, Synapse will use the same certificate on any ports
|
||
where TLS is configured.
|
||
|
||
### How do I tell Synapse to reload my keys/certificates after I replace them?
|
||
|
||
Synapse will reload the keys and certificates when it receives a SIGHUP - for
|
||
example kill -HUP $(cat homeserver.pid). Alternatively, simply restart Synapse,
|
||
though this will result in downtime while it restarts.
|