Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat: introduce room_id generator #206
feat: introduce room_id generator #206
Changes from all commits
51c1bd6
1b9567b
2ba65f7
243d5f2
c775b8c
25da293
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wonder whether we should encrypt this information somehow... I feel like exposing plaintext nodenames in publicly available URLs could be a security risk
An alternative could be to hash the node name, include the hash in room ID, then resolve it from the mapping
hash => node
. I.e."fishjam@10.0.0.1"
|> Base.encode16()
immediately ("666973686a616d4031302e302e302e31"
), we pipe it through a hash function first, e.g.|> then(&:crypto.hash(:md5, &1)) |> Base.encode16()
-- we get"c32ffeb95b7e4f64ebca0a23432e8e9a"
This means:
What do you think about these options (hashing, encryption) @Rados13 @kamciokodzi?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Generally I agree we can improve current solution with the proper hashing.
The only downside I see is that we won't be able to determine the nodename from the room_id (we always need to hash nodes to get the matching) - possibly closing the door for some debugging, not sure if that's relevant right now.