180
edits
Difference between revisions of "Client Test Cases"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Impersonation attacks
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
# Carbon sender impersonation [https://rt-solutions.de/en/2017/01/cve-2017-5589_xmpp_carbons/ CVE-2017-5589] | # Carbon sender impersonation [https://rt-solutions.de/en/2017/01/cve-2017-5589_xmpp_carbons/ CVE-2017-5589] | ||
# MAM impersonation: a <message> from a remote JID containing a <result> with a wrapped <message> | # MAM impersonation: a <message> from a remote JID containing a <result> with a wrapped <message> | ||
# Impersonation via XEP-0297 Stanza Forwarding: | |||
Similar to the MAM impersonation but with a top-level <forward> element. | |||
Clients are supposed to clearly indicate that a message has been forwarded. | |||
Misbehaving clients might instead show the forwarded message as if it came from that person. | |||
There's also zero guarantee that a forwarded message is not in fact a forgery. | |||
= Multi User Chats = | = Multi User Chats = | ||