Summary: Now that we have a nice function for this, use it to simplify some code.
Test Plan: Ran through the Duo enroll workflow to make sure signing still works.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20053
Summary: Depends on D20038. Ref T13231. Although I planned to keep this out of the upstream (see T13229) it ended up having enough pieces that I imagine it may need more fixes/updates than we can reasonably manage by copy/pasting stuff around. Until T5055, we don't really have good tools for managing this. Make my life easier by just upstreaming this.
Test Plan: See T13231 for a bunch of workflow discussion.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20039
Summary: Depends on D20034. Ref T13222. This is just cleanup -- I thought we'd have like two of these, but we ended up having a whole lot in Duo and a decent number in SMS. Just let factors return a result explicitly if they can make a decision early. I think using `instanceof` for control flow is a lesser evil than using `catch`, on the balance.
Test Plan: `grep`, went through enroll/gate flows on SMS and Duo.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20035
Summary:
Depends on D20033. Ref T13222. Flesh this UI out a bit, and provide bit-strength information for TOTP.
Also, stop users from adding multiple SMS factors since this is pointless (they all always text your primary contact number).
Test Plan:
{F6156245}
{F6156246}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20034
Summary: Ref T13222. Providers can now be deprecated (existing factors still work, but users can't add new factors for the provider) or disabled (factors stop working, also can't add new ones).
Test Plan:
- Enabled, deprecated, and disabled some providers.
- Viewed provider detail, provider list.
- Viewed MFA settings list.
- Verified that I'm prompted for enabled + deprecated only at gates.
- Tried to disable final provider, got an error.
- Hit the MFA setup gate by enabling "Require MFA" with no providers, got a more useful message.
- Immediately forced a user to the "MFA Setup Gate" by disabling their only active provider with another provider enabled ("We no longer support TOTP, you HAVE to finish Duo enrollment to continue starting Monday.").
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20031
Summary:
Depends on D20026. Ref T13222. Ref T13231. The primary change here is that we'll no longer send you an SMS if you hit an MFA gate without CSRF tokens.
Then there's a lot of support for genralizing into Duo (and other push factors, potentially), I'll annotate things inline.
Test Plan: Implemented Duo, elsewhere.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20028
Summary:
Depends on D20022. Ref T13222. Since you can easily lock yourself out of your account by swapping to a bad number, prevent contact number edits while "contact number" MFA (today, always SMS) is enabled.
(Another approach would be to bind factors to specific contact numbers, and then prevent that number from being edited or disabled while SMS MFA was attached to it. However, I think that's a bit more complicated and a little more unwieldy, and ends up in about the same place as this. I'd consider it more strongly in the future if we had like 20 users say "I have 9 phones" but I doubt this is a real use case.)
Test Plan:
- With SMS MFA, tried to edit my primary contact number, disable it, and promote another number to become primary. Got a sensible error message in all cases.
- After removing SMS MFA, did all that stuff with no issues.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20023
Summary:
Depends on D20021. Ref T13222. This has a few rough edges, including:
- The challenges theselves are CSRF-able.
- You can go disable/edit your contact number after setting up SMS MFA and lock yourself out of your account.
- SMS doesn't require MFA so an attacker can just swap your number to their number.
...but mostly works.
Test Plan:
- Added SMS MFA to my account.
- Typed in the number I was texted.
- Typed in some other different numbers (didn't work).
- Cancelled/resumed the workflow, used SMS in conjunction with other factors, tried old codes, etc.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20022
Summary:
Depends on D20020. Ref T13222. This puts another step in the MFA enrollment flow: pick a provider; read text and click "Continue"; actually enroll.
This is primarily to stop CSRF attacks, since otherwise an attacker can put `<img src="phabricator.com/auth/settings/enroll/?providerPHID=xyz" />` on `cute-cat-pix.com` and get you to send yourself some SMS enrollment text messages, which would be mildly annoying.
We could skip this step if we already have a valid CSRF token (and we often will), but I think there's some value in doing it anyway. In particular:
- For SMS/Duo, it seems nice to have an explicit "we're about to hit your phone" button.
- We could let installs customize this text and give users a smoother onboard.
- It allows the relatively wordy enroll form to be a little less wordy.
- For tokens which can expire (SMS, Duo) it might save you from answering too slowly if you have to go dig your phone out of your bag downstairs or something.
Test Plan: Added factors, read text. Tried to CSRF the endpoint, got a dialog instead of a live challenge generation.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20021
Summary:
Depends on D20019. Ref T13222. Currently, TOTP uses a temporary token to make sure you've set up the app on your phone properly and that you're providing an answer to a secret which we generated (not an attacker-generated secret).
However, most factor types need some kind of sync token. SMS needs to send you a code; Duo needs to store a transaction ID. Turn this "TOTP" token into an "MFA Sync" token and lift the implementation up to the base class.
Also, slightly simplify some of the HTTP form gymnastics.
Test Plan:
- Hit the TOTP enroll screen.
- Reloaded it, got new secrets.
- Reloaded it more than 10 times, got told to stop generating new challenges.
- Answered a challenge properly, got a new TOTP factor.
- Grepped for removed class name.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20020
Summary:
Depends on D20016. Ref T920. This does nothing interesting on its own since the TOTP provider has no guidance/warnings, but landing it separately helps to simplify an upcoming SMS diff.
SMS will have these guidance messages:
- "Administrator: you haven't configured any mailer which can send SMS, like Twilio."
- "Administrator: SMS is weak."
- "User: you haven't configured a contact number."
Test Plan: {F6151283} {F6151284}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20017
Summary:
Ref T13222. Users configure "Factor Configs", which say "I have an entry on my phone for TOTP secret key XYZ".
Currently, these point at raw implementations -- always "TOTP" in practice.
To support configuring available MFA types (like "no MFA") and adding MFA types that need some options set (like "Duo", which needs API keys), bind "Factor Configs" to a "Factor Provider" instead.
In the future, several "Factors" will be available (TOTP, SMS, Duo, Postal Mail, ...). Administrators configure zero or more "MFA Providers" they want to use (e.g., "Duo" + here's my API key). Then users can add configs for these providers (e.g., "here's my Duo account").
Upshot:
- Factor: a PHP subclass, implements the technical details of a type of MFA factor (TOTP, SMS, Duo, etc).
- FactorProvider: a storage object, owned by administrators, configuration of a Factor that says "this should be available on this install", plus provides API keys, a human-readable name, etc.
- FactorConfig: a storage object, owned by a user, says "I have a factor for provider X on my phone/whatever with secret key Q / my duo account is X / my address is Y".
Couple of things not covered here:
- Statuses for providers ("Disabled", "Deprecated") don't do anything yet, but you can't edit them anyway.
- Some `bin/auth` tools need to be updated.
- When no providers are configured, the MFA panel should probably vanish.
- Documentation.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration with providers, saw configs point at the first provider.
- Ran migration without providers, saw a provider created and configs pointed at it.
- Added/removed factors and providers. Passed MFA gates. Spot-checked database for general sanity.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19975
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T13231. See PHI912. I'm planning to turn MFA providers into concrete objects, so you can disable and configure them.
Currently, we only support TOTP, which doesn't require any configuration, but other provider types (like Duo or Yubikey OTP) do require some configuration (server URIs, API keys, etc). TOTP //could// also have some configuration, like "bits of entropy" or "allowed window size" or whatever, if we want.
Add concrete objects for this and standard transaction / policy / query support. These objects don't do anything interesting yet and don't actually interact with MFA, this is just skeleton code for now.
Test Plan:
{F6090444}
{F6090445}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13231, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19935
Summary:
Depends on D19906. Ref T13222. This isn't going to win any design awards, but make the "wait" and "answered" elements a little more clear.
Ideally, the icon parts could be animated Google Authenticator-style timers (but I think we'd need to draw them in a `<canvas />` unless there's some clever trick that I don't know) or maybe we could just have the background be like a "water level" that empties out. Not sure I'm going to actually write the JS for either of those, but the UI at least looks a little more intentional.
Test Plan:
{F6070914}
{F6070915}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19908
Summary:
Depends on D19897. Ref T13222. See some discussion in D19890.
- Only rate limit users if they're actually answering a challenge, not if they're just clicking "Wait Patiently".
- Reduce the number of allowed attempts per hour from 100 back to 10.
- Reduce the TOTP window from +/- 2 timesteps (allowing ~60 seconds of skew) to +/- 1 timestep (allowing ~30 seconds of skew).
- Change the window where a TOTP response remains valid to a flat 60 seconds instead of a calculation based on windows and timesteps.
Test Plan:
- Hit an MFA prompt.
- Without typing in any codes, mashed "submit" as much as I wanted (>>10 times / hour).
- Answered prompt correctly.
- Mashed "Wait Patiently" as much as I wanted (>>10 times / hour).
- Guessed random numbers, was rate limited after 10 attempts.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19898
Summary:
Depends on D19894. Ref T13222. See PHI873. When you provide a correct response to an MFA challenge, we mark it as "answered".
Currently, we never let you reuse an "answered" token. That's usually fine, but if you have 2+ factors on your account and get one or more (but fewer than all of them) right when you submit the form, you need to answer them all again, possibly after waiting for a lockout period. This is needless.
When you answer a challenge correctly, add a hidden input with a code proving you got it right so you don't need to provide another answer for a little while.
Why not just put your response in a form input, e.g. `<input type="hidden" name="totp-response" value="123456" />`?
- We may allow the "answered" response to be valid for a different amount of time than the actual answer. For TOTP, we currently allow a response to remain valid for 60 seconds, but the actual code you entered might expire sooner.
- In some cases, there's no response we can provide (with push + approve MFA, you don't enter a code, you just tap "yes, allow this" on your phone). Conceivably, we may not be able to re-verify a push+approve code if the remote implements one-shot answers.
- The "responseToken" stuff may end up embedded in normal forms in some cases in the future, and this approach just generally reduces the amount of plaintext MFA we have floating around.
Test Plan:
- Added 2 MFA tokens to my account.
- Hit the MFA prompt.
- Provided one good response and one bad response.
- Submitted the form.
- Old behavior: good response gets locked out for ~120 seconds.
- New behavior: good response is marked "answered", fixing the other response lets me submit the form.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19895
Summary:
Depends on D19893. Ref T13222. See PHI873. A challenge is "answered" if you provide a valid response. A challenge is "completed" if we let you through the MFA check and do whatever actual action the check is protecting.
If you only have one MFA factor, challenges will be "completed" immediately after they are "answered". However, if you have two or more factors, it's possible to "answer" one or more prompts, but fewer than all of the prompts, and end up with "answered" challenges that are not "completed".
In the future, it may also be possible to answer all the challenges but then have an error occur before they are marked "completed" (for example, a unique key collision in the transaction code). For now, nothing interesting happens between "answered" and "completed". This would take the form of the caller explicitly providing flags like "wait to mark the challenges as completed until I do something" and "okay, mark the challenges as completed now".
This change prevents all token reuse, even on the same workflow. Future changes will let the answered challenges "stick" to the client form so you don't have to re-answer challenges for a short period of time if you hit a unique key collision.
Test Plan:
- Used a token to get through an MFA gate.
- Tried to go through another gate, was told to wait for a long time for the next challenge window.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19894
Summary:
Depends on D19890. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, we only validate TOTP responses against the current (realtime) timestep. Instead, also validate them against a specific challenge.
This mostly just moves us toward more specifically preventing responses from being reused, and supporting flows which must look more like this (SMS/push).
One rough edge here is that during the T+3 and T+4 windows (you request a prompt, then wait 60-120 seconds to respond) only past responses actually work (the current code on your device won't). For example:
- At T+0, you request MFA. We issue a T+0 challenge that accepts codes T-2, T-1, T+0, T+1, and T+2. The challenge locks out T+3 and T+4 to prevent the window from overlapping with the next challenge we may issue (see D19890).
- If you wait 60 seconds until T+3 to actually submit a code, the realtime valid responses are T+1, T+2, T+3, T+4, T+5. The challenge valid responses are T-2, T-1, T+0, T+1, and T+2. Only T+1 and T+2 are in the intersection. Your device is showing T+3 if the clock is right, so if you type in what's shown on your device it won't be accepted.
- This //may// get refined in future changes, but, in the worst case, it's probably fine if it doesn't. Beyond 120s you'll get a new challenge and a full [-2, ..., +2] window to respond, so this lockout is temporary even if you manage to hit it.
- If this //doesn't// get refined, I'll change the UI to say "This factor recently issued a challenge which has expired, wait N seconds." to smooth this over a bit.
Test Plan:
- Went through MFA.
- Added a new TOTP factor.
- Hit some error cases on purpose.
- Tried to use an old code a moment after it expired, got rejected.
- Waited 60+ seconds, tried to use the current displayed factor, got rejected (this isn't great, but currently expected).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19893
Summary:
Depends on D19889. Ref T13222. Some of this logic is either not-quite-right or a little more complicated than it needs to be.
Currently, we TTL TOTP challenges after three timesteps -- once the current code could no longer be used. But we actually have to TTL it after five timesteps -- once the most-future acceptable code could no longer be used. Otherwise, you can enter the most-future code now (perhaps the attacker compromises NTP and skews the server clock back by 75 seconds) and then an attacker can re-use it in three timesteps.
Generally, simplify things a bit and trust TTLs more. This also makes the "wait" dialog friendlier since we can give users an exact number of seconds.
The overall behavior here is still a little odd because we don't actually require you to respond to the challenge you were issued (right now, we check that the response is valid whenever you submit it, not that it's a valid response to the challenge we issued), but that will change in a future diff. This is just moving us generally in the right direction, and doesn't yet lock everything down properly.
Test Plan:
- Added a little snippet to the control caption to list all the valid codes to make this easier:
```
$key = new PhutilOpaqueEnvelope($config->getFactorSecret());
$valid = array();
foreach ($this->getAllowedTimesteps() as $step) {
$valid[] = self::getTOTPCode($key, $step);
}
$control->setCaption(
pht(
'Valid Codes: '.implode(', ', $valid)));
```
- Used the most-future code to sign `L3`.
- Verified that `L4` did not unlock until the code for `L3` left the activation window.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19890
Summary:
Depends on D19888. Ref T13222. When we issue an MFA challenge, prevent the user from responding to it in the context of a different workflow: if you ask for MFA to do something minor (award a token) you can't use the same challenge to do something more serious (launch nukes).
This defuses highly-hypothetical attacks where the attacker:
- already controls the user's session (since the challenge is already bound to the session); and
- can observe MFA codes.
One version of this attack is the "spill coffee on the victim when the code is shown on their phone, then grab their phone" attack. This whole vector really strains the bounds of plausibility, but it's easy to lock challenges to a workflow and it's possible that there's some more clever version of the "spill coffee" attack available to more sophisticated social engineers or with future MFA factors which we don't yet support.
The "spill coffee" attack, in detail, is:
- Go over to the victim's desk.
- Ask them to do something safe and nonsuspicious that requires MFA (sign `L123 Best Friendship Agreement`).
- When they unlock their phone, spill coffee all over them.
- Urge them to go to the bathroom to clean up immediately, leaving their phone and computer in your custody.
- Type the MFA code shown on the phone into a dangerous MFA prompt (sign `L345 Eternal Declaration of War`).
- When they return, they may not suspect anything (it would be normal for the MFA token to have expired), or you can spill more coffee on their computer now to destroy it, and blame it on the earlier spill.
Test Plan:
- Triggered signatures for two different documents.
- Got prompted in one, got a "wait" in the other.
- Backed out of the good prompt, returned, still prompted.
- Answered the good prompt.
- Waited for the bad prompt to expire.
- Went through the bad prompt again, got an actual prompt this time.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19889
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Ref T9770.
Currently, we support only TOTP MFA. For some MFA (SMS and "push-to-app"-style MFA) we may need to keep track of MFA details (e.g., the code we SMS'd you). There isn't much support for that yet.
We also currently allow free reuse of TOTP responses across sessions and workflows. This hypothetically enables some "spyglass" attacks where you look at someone's phone and type the code in before they do. T9770 discusses this in more detail, but is focused on an attack window starting when the user submits the form. I claim the attack window opens when the TOTP code is shown on their phone, and the window between the code being shown and being submitted is //much// more interesting than the window after it is submitted.
To address both of these cases, start tracking MFA "Challenges". These are basically a record that we asked you to give us MFA credentials.
For TOTP, the challenge binds a particular timestep to a given session, so an attacker can't look at your phone and type the code into their browser before (or after) you do -- they have a different session. For now, this means that codes are reusable in the same session, but that will be refined in the future.
For SMS / push, the "Challenge" would store the code we sent you so we could validate it.
This is mostly a step on the way toward one-shot MFA, ad-hoc MFA in comment action stacks, and figuring out what's going on with Duo.
Test Plan:
- Passed MFA normally.
- Passed MFA normally, simultaneously, as two different users.
- With two different sessions for the same user:
- Opened MFA in A, opened MFA in B. B got a "wait".
- Submitted MFA in A.
- Clicked "Wait" a bunch in B.
- Submitted MFA in B when prompted.
- Passed MFA normally, then passed MFA normally again with the same code in the same session. (This change does not prevent code reuse.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T9770
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19886
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, MFA implementations return this weird sort of ad-hoc dictionary from validation, which is later used to render form/control stuff.
I want to make this more formal to handle token reuse / session binding cases, and let MFA factors share more code around challenges. Formalize this into a proper object instead of an ad-hoc bundle of properties.
Test Plan:
- Answered a TOTP MFA prompt wrong (nothing, bad value).
- Answered a TOTP MFA prompt properly.
- Added new TOTP MFA, survived enrollment.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19885
Summary:
Ref T13222. Ref T12509. When you add a new MFA TOTP authenticator, we generate a temporary token to make sure you're actually adding the key we generated and not picking your own key.
That is, if we just put inputs in the form like `key=123, response=456`, users could pick their own keys by changing the value of `key` and then generating the correct `response`. That's probably fine, but maybe attackers could somehow force users to pick known keys in combination with other unknown vulnerabilities that might exist in the future. Instead, we generate a random key and keep track of it to make sure nothing funny is afoot.
As an additional barrier, we do the standard "store the digest, not the real key" sort of thing so you can't force a known value even if you can read the database (although this is mostly pointless since you can just read TOTP secrets directly if you can read the database). But it's pretty standard and doesn't hurt anything.
Update this from SHA1 to SHA256. This will break any TOTP factors which someone was in the middle of adding during a Phabricator upgrade, but that seems reasonable. They'll get a sensible failure mode.
Test Plan: Added a new TOTP factor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19884
Summary:
See <https://hackerone.com/reports/435648>. We currently use 80-bit TOTP keys. The RFC suggests 128 as a minimum and recommends 160.
The math suggests that doing the hashing for an 80-bit key is hard (slightly beyond the reach of a highly motivated state actor, today) but there's no reason not to use 160 bits instead to put this completely out of reach.
See some additional discussion on the HackerOne report about enormous key sizes, number of required observations, etc.
Test Plan: Added a new 160-bit TOTP factor to Google Authenticator without issue.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19792
Summary:
Ref T13202. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/2fa-input-box-isnt-hinted-as-a-password-so-browsers-suggest-auto-fills/1959>.
If browsers are autofilling this, I think browser behavior here is bad, but behavior is probably better on the balance if we hint this as `autocomplete="off"` and this is a minor concesssion.
Test Plan:
- I couldn't immediately get any browser to try to autofill this field (perhaps I've disabled autofill, or just not enabled it aggressively?), but this change didn't break anything.
- After the change, answered a TOTP prompt normally.
- After the change, inspected page content and saw `autocomplete="off"` on the `<input />` node.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13202
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19722
Summary: Noticed a couple of typos in the docs, and then things got out of hand.
Test Plan:
- Stared at the words until my eyes watered and the letters began to swim on the screen.
- Consulted a dictionary.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, yelirekim, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18693
Summary: Ref T12509. This encourages code to move away from HMAC+SHA1 by making the method name more obviously undesirable.
Test Plan: `grep`, browsed around.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D17632
Summary:
Finishes fixing T11365. rP28199bcb48 added the new numeric entry
control and used it for TOTP setup, but missed the case of entering
a factor when TOTP was already set up.
Test Plan:
Observe behaviour of TOTP setup and subsequent factor entry
in iOS browser, make sure they're consistent.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T11365
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16325
Summary:
Fixes T11365. I tested these variants:
- `<input type="number" />`
- `<input type="text" pattern="\d*" />`
Of these, this one (using `pattern`) appears to have the best behavior: it shows the correct keyboard on iOS mobile and does nothing on desktops.
Using `type="number"` causes unwanted sub-controls to appear in desktop Safari, and a numbers + symbols keyboard to appear on iOS (presumably so users can type "." and "-" and maybe ",").
Test Plan: Tested variants in desktop browsers and iOS simulator, see here and T11365 for discussion.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11365
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16323
Summary:
Ref T10603. We have a couple of sort of ad-hoc tokens, so start formalizing them. First up is MFA tokens.
Also adds a new config module panel for these.
Test Plan:
- Added MFA.
- Added MFA, intentionally fumbled the input, completed the workflow.
- Removed MFA.
- Viewed tokens, saw MFA sync tokens.
- Viewed new module config panel.
{F1177014}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15479
Summary:
Ref T10603. This makes minor updates to temporary tokens:
- Rename `objectPHID` (which is sometimes used to store some other kind of identifier instead of a PHID) to `tokenResource` (i.e., which resource does this token permit access to?).
- Add a `userPHID` column. For LFS tokens and some other types of tokens, I want to bind the token to both a resource (like a repository) and a user.
- Add a `properties` column. This makes tokens more flexible and supports custom behavior (like scoping LFS tokens even more tightly).
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/storage upgrade -f`, got a clean upgrade.
- Viewed one-time tokens.
- Revoked one token.
- Revoked all tokens.
- Performed a one-time login.
- Performed a password reset.
- Added an MFA token.
- Removed an MFA token.
- Used a file token to view a file.
- Verified file token was removed after viewing file.
- Linked my account to an OAuth1 account (Twitter).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15478
Summary:
I stumbled across this TODO and was worried that there was a glaring hole in MFA that I'd somehow forgotten about, but the TODO is just out of date.
These actions are rate limited properly by `PhabricatorAuthTryFactorAction`, which permits a maximum of 10 actions per hour.
- Remove the TODO.
- Add `bin/auth unlimit` to make it easier to reset rate limits if someone needs to do that for whatever reason.
Test Plan:
- Tried to brute force through MFA.
- Got rate limited properly after 10 failures.
- Reset rate limit with `bin/auth unlimit`.
- Saw the expected number of actions clear.
{F805288}
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: joshuaspence
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14105
Summary: See D14025. In all cases where we compare hashes, use strict, constant-time comparisons.
Test Plan: Logged in, logged out, added TOTP, ran Conduit, terminated sessions, submitted forms, changed password. Tweaked CSRF token, got rejected.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Subscribers: chenxiruanhai
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14026
Summary: Use `PhutilClassMapQuery` where appropriate.
Test Plan: Browsed around the UI to verify things seemed somewhat working.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D13429
Summary:
Ref T7152. This builds the core of email invites and implements all the hard logic for them, covering it with a pile of tests.
There's no UI to create these yet, so users can't actually get invites (and administrators can't send them).
This stuff is a complicated mess because there are so many interactions between accounts, email addresses, email verification, email primary-ness, and user verification. However, I think I got it right and got test coverage everwhere.
The degree to which this is exception-driven is a little icky, but I think it's a reasonable way to get the testability we want while still making it hard for callers to get the flow wrong. In particular, I expect there to be at least two callers (one invite flow in the upstream, and one derived invite flow in Instances) so I believe there is merit in burying as much of this logic inside the Engine as is reasonably possible.
Test Plan: Unit tests only.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7152
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11723
Summary:
Ref T4398. We have several auth-related systems which require (or are improved by) the ability to hand out one-time codes which expire after a short period of time.
In particular, these are:
- SMS multi-factor: we need to be able to hand out one-time codes for this in order to prove the user has the phone.
- Password reset emails: we use a time-based rotating token right now, but we could improve this with a one-time token, so once you reset your password the link is dead.
- TOTP auth: we don't need to verify/invalidate keys, but can improve security by doing so.
This adds a generic one-time code storage table, and strengthens the TOTP enrollment process by using it. Specifically, you can no longer edit the enrollment form (the one with a QR code) to force your own key as the TOTP key: only keys Phabricator generated are accepted. This has no practical security impact, but generally helps raise the barrier potential attackers face.
Followup changes will use this for reset emails, then implement SMS multi-factor.
Test Plan:
- Enrolled in TOTP multi-factor auth.
- Submitted an error in the form, saw the same key presented.
- Edited the form with web tools to provide a different key, saw it reject and the server generate an alternate.
- Change the expiration to 5 seconds instead of 1 hour, submitted the form over and over again, saw it cycle the key after 5 seconds.
- Looked at the database and saw the tokens I expected.
- Ran the GC and saw all the 5-second expiry tokens get cleaned up.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9217
Summary: Ref T4398. I found a reasonable-ish LGPLv3 library for doing this, which isn't too huge or unwieldy.
Test Plan:
- Scanned QR code with Authy.
- Scanned QR code with Google Authenticator.
{F149317}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8923
Summary:
Ref T4398. Allows auth factors to render and validate when prompted to take a hi-sec action.
This has a whole lot of rough edges still (see D8875) but does fundamentally work correctly.
Test Plan:
- Added two different TOTP factors to my account for EXTRA SECURITY.
- Took hisec actions with no auth factors, and with attached auth factors.
- Hit all the error/failure states of the hisec entry process.
- Verified hisec failures appear in activity logs.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8886
Summary:
Ref T4398. This is still pretty rough and isn't exposed in the UI yet, but basically works. Some missing features / areas for improvement:
- Rate limiting attempts (see TODO).
- Marking tokens used after they're used once (see TODO), maybe. I can't think of ways an attacker could capture a token without also capturing a session, offhand.
- Actually turning this on (see TODO).
- This workflow is pretty wordy. It would be nice to calm it down a bit.
- But also add more help/context to help users figure out what's going on here, I think it's not very obvious if you don't already know what "TOTP" is.
- Add admin tool to strip auth factors off an account ("Help, I lost my phone and can't log in!").
- Add admin tool to show users who don't have multi-factor auth? (so you can pester them)
- Generate QR codes to make the transfer process easier (they're fairly complicated).
- Make the "entering hi-sec" workflow actually check for auth factors and use them correctly.
- Turn this on so users can use it.
- Adding SMS as an option would be nice eventually.
- Adding "password" as an option, maybe? TOTP feels fairly good to me.
I'll post a couple of screens...
Test Plan:
- Added TOTP token with Google Authenticator.
- Added TOTP token with Authy.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T4398
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8875
