SEP-30 Recoverysigner: multi-party key management of Stellar accounts

141 views
Skip to first unread message

Leigh McCulloch

unread,
Apr 24, 2020, 1:26:30 PM4/24/20
to Stellar Developers

Hi devs,


We’ve been working on a proposal for multi-party key management of Stellar accounts so that an individual could use multiple servers to recover control of a Stellar account where no individual server has control of the account.


The draft exists in SEP-30 Recoverysigner: multi-party key management of Stellar accounts. Howard and I are working on an experimental implementation, and we have a very simple web client that exercises the process of registration and recovery with 1+ servers. We’re planning to experiment with it in Vega, the Latin-America-focused cross-border payment and saving app SDF is working on, when that launches.


This thread is the best place for general discussion regarding the proposal. If you see specific issues or improvements, opening issues, pull requests, or alternative proposals on the stellar-protocol repository is also welcome!


Proposal:

https://github.com/stellar/stellar-protocol/blob/master/ecosystem/sep-0030.md


Experimental Implementation:

Server: https://github.com/stellar/go/tree/master/exp/services/recoverysigner

Issues: https://github.com/stellar/go/issues?q=is%3Aopen+exp%2Fservices%2Frecoverysigner

Demo Client: https://github.com/stellar/recoverysigner-demo-client


Cheers,

Leigh McCulloch

Stellar Development Foundation


Leigh McCulloch

unread,
May 18, 2020, 10:35:51 PM5/18/20
to Stellar Developers
Hi devs,

I am exploring how SEP-30 could be changed to support the rotation of signing keys. The motivation for why is that any system that stores and uses keys may need to support changing those keys for a number reasons including:
  • Routine best practice.
  • In response to a key being leaked.
  • In response to a key being compromised.
  • As a requirement to meet a compliance standard.
I have a draft proposal that builds on the existing protocol outlined at the link below. If you see specific issues or improvements or alternative approaches to achieve this please share here or at the link below.


Thanks,
Leigh McCulloch
Stellar Development Foundation

Leigh McCulloch

unread,
Dec 18, 2020, 8:22:27 PM12/18/20
to Stellar Developers
Hi devs,

I'm modifying the draft proposal for SEP-30 to remove the urlencoded form data as an acceptable content type for requests. We've been using dual content-types in some SEPs for a while and have discovered that on more complex requests with nested objects and arrays there is no standard or common way to represent these in form data, while it is straight-forward in JSON. This change removes that content-type from requests for SEP-30 and is only being made because the proposal is still in draft state. Given the difficulty to build the form requests for this SEP it is unlikely anyone is using that request format.


Please reply here if this would be a breaking change for an integration you have or are aware. I'll merge the PR on December 23rd.

Thanks,
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages