[standards-jig] gateway handling of legacy contact lists

maqi at jabberstudio.org maqi at jabberstudio.org
Wed Dec 17 01:49:06 UTC 2003

On Wed, 17 Dec 2003, Matthias Wimmer wrote:

>> No, only if the server "example.com" is an item in the person's roster.
>> The admin of example.com would only have access to the contacts
>> "... at yahoo.example.com".
> The user won't reject a subscription request from example.com and
> therefore it won't be a problem for the admin to get access even with
> this restriction.

I think this gets a bit VERY theoretical now. Not only is it questionable
that the user will accept a subscription request that's obviously bogus,
it's also questionable that the "attacker" really can exploit this. The
malicious example.com admin may get access to contacts pointing to his
server (and, at worst, delete them altogether). I don't think this is a
problem. Keep in mind example.com's admin could simply send a bunch of
"unsubscribed" s10n packets that do the same thing with XMPP, without any
additional server-side modules.

> I just don't understand why there should a problem if the client has to
> cooperate for the roster updates.

Because this way we would need rather complex support for a rather simple
mechanism (transports) on the client side. Not only does this not comply
with the entire Jabber design (move complexity to the server side), you
still did not say why you think this would be beneficial, and you didn't
even outline how this "client support" could look like. I don't think this
makes discussion easier.


More information about the Standards mailing list