SCRAM-SHA-1(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA-512(-PLUS) + SCRAM-SHA3-512(-PLUS) supports

[Neustradamus]

Describe the bug

Dear @nioc,

Can you add supports of :

• SCRAM-SHA-1
• SCRAM-SHA-1-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-256
• SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-512
• SCRAM-SHA-512-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA3-512
• SCRAM-SHA3-512-PLUS

You can add too:

• SCRAM-SHA-224
• SCRAM-SHA-224-PLUS
• SCRAM-SHA-384
• SCRAM-SHA-384-PLUS

RFC8600: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8600 (2019-06-21):
"When using the SASL SCRAM mechanism, the SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS variant SHOULD be preferred over the SCRAM-SHA-256 variant, and SHA-256 variants [RFC7677] SHOULD be preferred over SHA-1 variants [RFC5802]".

• SCRAM-SHA-1(-PLUS):
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5802
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6120

• SCRAM-SHA-256(-PLUS):
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7677 since 2015-11-02
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8600 since 2019-06-21: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/suJMmeMhuAOmGn_PJYgX5Vm8lNA

• SCRAM-SHA-512(-PLUS):
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-sha-512

• SCRAM-SHA3-512(-PLUS):
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-sha3-512

• SCRAM BIS: Salted Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) SASL and GSS-API Mechanisms:
  -- https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-melnikov-scram-bis

https://xmpp.org/extensions/inbox/hash-recommendations.html

-PLUS variants:

• RFC5056: On the Use of Channel Bindings to Secure Channels: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5056
• RFC5929: Channel Bindings for TLS: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5929
• Channel-Binding Types: https://www.iana.org/assignments/channel-binding-types/channel-binding-types.xhtml
• RFC 9266: Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9266

IMAP:

• RFC9051: Internet Message Access Protocol (IMAP) - Version 4rev2: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc9051

LDAP:

• RFC5803: Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) Schema for Storing Salted: Challenge Response Authentication Mechanism (SCRAM) Secrets: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5803

HTTP:

• RFC7804: Salted Challenge Response HTTP Authentication Mechanism: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7804

2FA:

• Extensions to Salted Challenge Response (SCRAM) for 2 factor authentication: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-kitten-scram-2fa

IANA:

• Simple Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms: https://www.iana.org/assignments/sasl-mechanisms/sasl-mechanisms.xhtml

Linked to:

• State of Play scram-sasl/info#1

Steps to reproduce

Expected behavior

Relevant log

No response

local.js configuration

No response

XMPP-web version

Installation

Docker image

XMPP server(s)

Prosody IM, ejabberd, Tigase XMPP Server, other

Browser(s)

No response

Device(s)

No response

Other information

No response

[nioc]

Hello @Neustradamus, unfortunately, I have no idea how to do this... may be you can search (or ask people) in the xmpp.js library used by wep-xmpp.

Otherwise I won't be able to implement this feature.

[Neustradamus]

@nioc: xmpp.js development has been stopped several years ago and does not support recent SCRAM versions.
Hope that you can look to solve it and to permit to use a better SCRAM for security and to look to add -PLUS variants (TLS Channel Binding).

There is strophejs a better support for example.

• https://github.com/strophe/strophejs

SCRAM and JavaScript:

• https://github.com/search?q=lang%3AJavaScript+scram-sha-256&type=code

[nioc]

This is a huge project, since the entire application is based on this library... if someone wants to handle it, we'll reopen the ticket...

[Neustradamus]

@nioc: With your reaction, I can inform you that an unsolved ticket which is closed, there will have never a solution.

It is important to keep this ticket opens.