diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | UPGRADE.rst | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | changelog.d/4572.misc | 1 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/MSC1711_certificates_FAQ.md | 255 |
3 files changed, 258 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/UPGRADE.rst b/UPGRADE.rst index c46f70f699..7bd631f14c 100644 --- a/UPGRADE.rst +++ b/UPGRADE.rst @@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ from Let's Encrypt, depending on your server configuration. Of course, if you already have a valid certificate for your homeserver's domain, that can be placed in Synapse's config directory without the need for ACME. +For more information on configuring TLS certificates see the `FAQ <https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/blob/master/docs/MSC1711_certificates_FAQ.md>`_ + Upgrading to v0.34.0 ==================== diff --git a/changelog.d/4572.misc b/changelog.d/4572.misc new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..ea5d49b706 --- /dev/null +++ b/changelog.d/4572.misc @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +FAQ to help server admins configure TLS certs in 0.99.0 diff --git a/docs/MSC1711_certificates_FAQ.md b/docs/MSC1711_certificates_FAQ.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..106856a963 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/MSC1711_certificates_FAQ.md @@ -0,0 +1,255 @@ +# 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. + +## 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 XXX + +### 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.comto 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. \ No newline at end of file |