mirror of https://github.com/watcha-fr/synapse
You can not select more than 25 topics
Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
77 lines
4.6 KiB
77 lines
4.6 KiB
9 years ago
|
URL Previews
|
||
|
============
|
||
|
|
||
|
Design notes on a URL previewing service for Matrix:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Options are:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1. Have an AS which listens for URLs, downloads them, and inserts an event that describes their metadata.
|
||
|
* Pros:
|
||
|
* Decouples the implementation entirely from Synapse.
|
||
|
* Uses existing Matrix events & content repo to store the metadata.
|
||
|
* Cons:
|
||
|
* Which AS should provide this service for a room, and why should you trust it?
|
||
|
* Doesn't work well with E2E; you'd have to cut the AS into every room
|
||
|
* the AS would end up subscribing to every room anyway.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2. Have a generic preview API (nothing to do with Matrix) that provides a previewing service:
|
||
|
* Pros:
|
||
|
* Simple and flexible; can be used by any clients at any point
|
||
|
* Cons:
|
||
|
* If each HS provides one of these independently, all the HSes in a room may needlessly DoS the target URI
|
||
|
* We need somewhere to store the URL metadata rather than just using Matrix itself
|
||
|
* We can't piggyback on matrix to distribute the metadata between HSes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3. Make the synapse of the sending user responsible for spidering the URL and inserting an event asynchronously which describes the metadata.
|
||
|
* Pros:
|
||
|
* Works transparently for all clients
|
||
|
* Piggy-backs nicely on using Matrix for distributing the metadata.
|
||
|
* No confusion as to which AS
|
||
|
* Cons:
|
||
|
* Doesn't work with E2E
|
||
|
* We might want to decouple the implementation of the spider from the HS, given spider behaviour can be quite complicated and evolve much more rapidly than the HS. It's more like a bot than a core part of the server.
|
||
|
|
||
|
4. Make the sending client use the preview API and insert the event itself when successful.
|
||
|
* Pros:
|
||
|
* Works well with E2E
|
||
|
* No custom server functionality
|
||
|
* Lets the client customise the preview that they send (like on FB)
|
||
|
* Cons:
|
||
|
* Entirely specific to the sending client, whereas it'd be nice if /any/ URL was correctly previewed if clients support it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
5. Have the option of specifying a shared (centralised) previewing service used by a room, to avoid all the different HSes in the room DoSing the target.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Best solution is probably a combination of both 2 and 4.
|
||
|
* Sending clients do their best to create and send a preview at the point of sending the message, perhaps delaying the message until the preview is computed? (This also lets the user validate the preview before sending)
|
||
|
* Receiving clients have the option of going and creating their own preview if one doesn't arrive soon enough (or if the original sender didn't create one)
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is a bit magical though in that the preview could come from two entirely different sources - the sending HS or your local one. However, this can always be exposed to users: "Generate your own URL previews if none are available?"
|
||
|
|
||
|
This is tantamount also to senders calculating their own thumbnails for sending in advance of the main content - we are trusting the sender not to lie about the content in the thumbnail. Whereas currently thumbnails are calculated by the receiving homeserver to avoid this attack.
|
||
|
|
||
|
However, this kind of phishing attack does exist whether we let senders pick their thumbnails or not, in that a malicious sender can send normal text messages around the attachment claiming it to be legitimate. We could rely on (future) reputation/abuse management to punish users who phish (be it with bogus metadata or bogus descriptions). Bogus metadata is particularly bad though, especially if it's avoidable.
|
||
|
|
||
|
As a first cut, let's do #2 and have the receiver hit the API to calculate its own previews (as it does currently for image thumbnails). We can then extend/optimise this to option 4 as a special extra if needed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
API
|
||
|
---
|
||
|
|
||
7 years ago
|
```
|
||
9 years ago
|
GET /_matrix/media/r0/preview_url?url=http://wherever.com
|
||
9 years ago
|
200 OK
|
||
|
{
|
||
|
"og:type" : "article"
|
||
|
"og:url" : "https://twitter.com/matrixdotorg/status/684074366691356672"
|
||
|
"og:title" : "Matrix on Twitter"
|
||
|
"og:image" : "https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/500400952029888512/yI0qtFi7_400x400.png"
|
||
|
"og:description" : "“Synapse 0.12 is out! Lots of polishing, performance & bugfixes: /sync API, /r0 prefix, fulltext search, 3PID invites https://t.co/5alhXLLEGP”"
|
||
|
"og:site_name" : "Twitter"
|
||
|
}
|
||
7 years ago
|
```
|
||
9 years ago
|
|
||
|
* Downloads the URL
|
||
|
* If HTML, just stores it in RAM and parses it for OG meta tags
|
||
|
* Download any media OG meta tags to the media repo, and refer to them in the OG via mxc:// URIs.
|
||
|
* If a media filetype we know we can thumbnail: store it on disk, and hand it to the thumbnailer. Generate OG meta tags from the thumbnailer contents.
|
||
|
* Otherwise, don't bother downloading further.
|