Summary:
Fixes T13475. Sometimes, we issue a "no op" / "default permit" / "unchallenged" MFA token, when a user with no MFA configured does something which is configured to attempt (but not strictly require) MFA.
An example of this kind of action is changing a username: usernames may be changed even if MFA is not set up.
(Some other operations, notably "Sign With MFA", strictly require that MFA actually be set up.)
When a user with no MFA configured takes a "try MFA" action, we see that they have no factors configured and issue a token so they can continue. This is correct. However, this token causes the assocaited timeline story to get an MFA badge.
This badge is incorrect or at least wildly misleading, since the technical assertion it currently makes ("the user answered any configured MFA challenge to do this, if one exists") isn't explained properly and isn't useful anyway.
Instead, only badge the story if the user actually has MFA and actually responded to some kind of MFA challege. The badge now asserts "this user responded to an MFA challenge", which is expected/desired.
Test Plan:
- As a user with no MFA, renamed a user. Before patch: badged story. After patch: no badge.
- As a user with MFA, renamed a user. Got badged stories in both cases.
Maniphest Tasks: T13475
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20958
Summary:
Depends on D20670. Ref T13343. The user activity message log types are currently hard-coded, so only upstream code can really use the log construct.
Under the theory that we're going to keep this log around going forward (just focus it a little bit), modularize things so the log is extensible.
Test Plan:
Grepped for `UserLog::`, viewed activity logs in People and Settings.
(If I missed something here -- say, misspelled a constant -- the effect should just be that older logs don't get a human-readable label, so stakes are very low.)
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13343
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20671
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/unhandled-exception-when-logging-in-with-mfa/2828>. The recent changes to turn `msort()` on a vector an error have smoked out a few more of these mistakes.
These cases do not meaningfully rely on sort stability so there's no real bug being fixed, but we'd still prefer `msortv()`.
Test Plan: Viewed MFA and External Account settings panels. Did a `git grep 'msort(' | grep -i vector` for any more obvious callsites, but none turned up.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20587
Summary:
Depends on D20407. Ref T13272. This updates the "add panel" (which has two flavors: "add existing" and "create new") and "remove panel" flows to work with the new duplicate-friendly storage format.
- We now modify panels by "panelKey", not by panel PHID, so one dashboard may have multiple copies of the same panel and we can still figure out what's going on.
- We now work with "contextPHID", not "dashboardID", to make some flows with tab panels (or other nested panels in the future) easier.
The only major remaining flow is the Javascript "move panels around with drag-and-drop" flow.
Test Plan:
- Added panels to a dashboard with "Create New Panel".
- Added panels to a dashboard with "Add Existing Panel".
- Removed panels from a dashboard.
- Added and removed duplicate panels, got a correctly-functioning dashboard that didn't care about duplicates.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13272
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20408
Summary:
Ref T13259. If we miss the separate CSRF step in Duo and proceed directly to prompting, we may fail to build a response which turns into a real control and fatal on `null->setLabel()`.
Instead, let MFA providers customize their "bare prompt dialog" response, then make Duo use the same "you have an outstanding request" response for the CSRF and no-CSRF workflows.
Test Plan: Hit Duo auth on a non-CSRF workflow (e.g., edit an MFA provider with Duo enabled). Previously: `setLabel()` fatal. After patch: smooth sailing.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13259
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20234
Summary: Depends on D20037. Ref T13222. Ref T7667. Although administrators can now disable MFA from the web UI, at least require that they survive MFA gates to do so. T7667 (`bin/auth lock`) should provide a sturdier approach here in the long term.
Test Plan: Created and edited MFA providers, was prompted for MFA.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222, T7667
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20038
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: 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 D20023. Ref T13222. Although I think this isn't strictly necessary from a pure security perspective (since you can't modify the primary number while you have MFA SMS), it seems like a generally good idea.
This adds a slightly new MFA mode, where we want MFA if it's available but don't strictly require it.
Test Plan: Disabled, enabled, primaried, unprimaried, and edited contact numbers. With MFA enabled, got prompted for MFA. With no MFA, no prompts.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20024
Summary:
Depends on D20017. Ref T13222. Currently, if you:
- type some text at a TOTP gate;
- wait ~60 seconds for the challenge to expire;
- submit the form into a "Wait patiently" message; and
- mash that wait button over and over again very patiently
...you still rack up rate limiting points, because the hidden text from your original request is preserved and triggers the "is the user responding to a challenge" test. Only perform this test if we haven't already decided that we're going to make them wait.
Test Plan:
- Did the above; before patch: rate limited; after patch: not rate limited.
- Intentionally typed a bunch of bad answers which were actually evaluated: rate limited properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20018
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 T12509.
- Remove the "phabricator.csrf-key" configuration option in favor of automatically generating an HMAC key.
- Upgrade two hasher callsites (one in CSRF itself, one in providing a CSRF secret for logged-out users) to SHA256.
- Extract the CSRF logic from `PhabricatorUser` to a standalone engine.
I was originally going to do this as two changes (extract logic, then upgrade hashes) but the logic had a couple of very silly pieces to it that made faithful extraction a little silly.
For example, it computed `time_block = (epoch + (offset * cycle_frequency)) / cycle_frequency` instead of `time_block = (epoch / cycle_frequency) + offset`. These are equivalent but the former was kind of silly.
It also computed `substr(hmac(substr(hmac(secret)).salt))` instead of `substr(hmac(secret.salt))`. These have the same overall effect but the former is, again, kind of silly (and a little bit materially worse, in this case).
This will cause a one-time compatibility break: pages loaded before the upgrade won't be able to submit contained forms after the upgrade, unless they're open for long enough for the Javascript to refresh the CSRF token (an hour, I think?). I'll note this in the changelog.
Test Plan:
- As a logged-in user, submitted forms normally (worked).
- As a logged-in user, submitted forms with a bad CSRF value (error, as expected).
- As a logged-out user, hit the success and error cases.
- Visually inspected tokens for correct format.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19946
Summary:
Depends on D19905. Ref T13222. In D19843, I refactored this stuff but `$jump_into_hisec` was dropped.
This is a hint to keep the upgraded session in hisec mode, which we need to do a password reset when using a recovery link. Without it, we double prompt you for MFA: first to upgrade to a full session, then to change your password.
Pass this into the engine properly to avoid the double-prompt.
Test Plan:
- Used `bin/auth recover` to get a partial session with MFA enabled and a password provider.
- Before: double MFA prompt.
- After: session stays upgraded when it becomes full, no second prompt.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19906
Summary:
Depends on D19904. Ref T13226. Ref T13222. Currently, partial sessions (where you've provided a primary auth factor like a password, but not yet provided MFA) work like normal sessions: they're good for 30 days and extend indefinitely under regular use.
This behavior is convenient for full sessions, but normal users don't ever spend 30 minutes answering MFA, so there's no real reason to do it for partial sessions. If we add login alerts in the future, limiting partial sessions to a short lifetime will make them more useful, since an attacker can't get one partial session and keep extending it forever while waiting for an opportunity to get past your MFA.
Test Plan:
- Did a partial login (to the MFA prompt), checked database, saw a ~29 minute partial session.
- Did a full login, saw session extend to ~30 days.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13226, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19905
Summary:
Depends on D19902. Ref T13222. This is mostly a "while I'm in here..." change since MFA is getting touched so much anyway.
Doing cluster support, I sometimes need to log into user accounts on instances that have MFA. I currently accomplish this by doing `bin/auth recover`, getting a parital session, and then forcing it into a full session in the database. This is inconvenient and somewhat dangerous.
Instead, allow `bin/auth recover` to generate a link that skips the "partial session" stage: adding required MFA, providing MFA, and signing legalpad documents.
Anyone who can run `bin/auth recover` can do this anyway, this just reduces the chance I accidentally bypass MFA on the wrong session when doing support stuff.
Test Plan:
- Logged in with `bin/auth recover`, was prompted for MFA.
- Logged in with `bin/auth recover --force-full-session`, was not prompted for MFA.
- Did a password reset, followed reset link, was prompted for MFA.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19903
Summary:
Depends on D19899. Ref T13222. When we prompt you for one-shot MFA, we currently give you a lot of misleading text about your session staying in "high security mode".
Differentiate between one-shot and session upgrade MFA, and give the user appropriate cues and explanatory text.
Test Plan:
- Hit one-shot MFA on an "mfa" task in Maniphest.
- Hit session upgrade MFA in Settings > Multi-Factor.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19900
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 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 T13225. We store a digest of the session key in the session table (not the session key itself) so that users with access to this table can't easily steal sessions by just setting their cookies to values from the table.
Users with access to the database can //probably// do plenty of other bad stuff (e.g., T13134 mentions digesting Conduit tokens) but there's very little cost to storing digests instead of live tokens.
We currently digest session keys with HMAC-SHA1. This is fine, but HMAC-SHA256 is better. Upgrade:
- Always write new digests.
- We still match sessions with either digest.
- When we read a session with an old digest, upgrade it to a new digest.
In a few months we can throw away the old code. When we do, installs that skip upgrades for a long time may suffer a one-time logout, but I'll note this in the changelog.
We could avoid this by storing `hmac256(hmac1(key))` instead and re-hashing in a migration, but I think the cost of a one-time logout for some tiny subset of users is very low, and worth keeping things simpler in the long run.
Test Plan:
- Hit a page with an old session, got a session upgrade.
- Reviewed sessions in Settings.
- Reviewed user logs.
- Logged out.
- Logged in.
- Terminated other sessions individually.
- Terminated all other sessions.
- Spot checked session table for general sanity.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13225, T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19883
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. I'm preparing to introduce a new MFA "Challenge" table which stores state about challenges we've issued (to bind challenges to sessions and prevent most challenge reuse).
This table will reference sessions (since each challenge will be bound to a particular session) but sessions currently don't have PHIDs. Give them PHIDs and slightly modernize some related code.
Test Plan:
- Ran migrations.
- Verified table got PHIDs.
- Used `var_dump()` to dump an organic user session.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19881
Summary:
Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, when applications prompt users to enter MFA, their session upgrades as a side effect.
In some cases (like managing your email addresses) it makes sense to upgrade your session for a little while since it's common to make multiple edits in sequence (add a new address, make it primary, remove an old address). We generally want MFA to stay out of the way and not feel annoying.
In other cases, we don't expect multiple high-security actions in a row. Notably, PHI873 looks at more "one-shot" use cases where a prompt is answering a specific workflow. We already have at least one of these in the upstream: answering an MFA prompt when signing a Legalpad document.
Introduce a "token" workflow (in contrast to the existing "session") workflow that just does a one-shot prompt without upgrading your session statefully. Then, make Legalpad use this new workflow.
Note that this workflow has a significant problem: if the form submission is invalid for some other reason, we re-prompt you on resubmit. In Legalpad, this workflow looks like:
- Forget to check the "I agree" checkbox.
- Submit the form.
- Get prompted for MFA.
- Answer MFA prompt.
- Get dumped back to the form with an error.
- When you fix the error and submit again, you have to do another MFA check.
This isn't a fatal flaw in Legalpad, but would become a problem with wider adoption. I'll work on fixing this (so the MFA token sticks to the form) in the next set of changes.
Roughly, this is headed toward "MFA sticks to the form/workflow" instead of "MFA sticks to the user/session".
Test Plan:
- Signed a legalpad document with MFA enabled.
- Was prompted for MFA.
- Session no longer upgraded (no purple "session in high security" badge).
- Submitted form with error, answered MFA, fixed error, submitted form again.
- Bad behavior: got re-prompted for MFA. In the future, MFA should stick to the form.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19843
Summary:
Ref T6960. Ref T13217. Ref T13216. Depends on D19811. Use the recently-introduced "%P" conversion ("Password/Secret") to load sessions in SessionEngine.
This secret isn't critical to protect (it's the //hash// of the actual secret and not useful to attackers on its own) but it shows up on every page in DarkConsole and is an obvious case where `%P` is a more appropriate conversion.
Test Plan:
Note "*********" in the middle of the output here, instead of a session key hash:
{F6012805}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13217, T13216, T6960
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19812
Summary: Depends on D19789. Ref T13217. Continue updating things to use the new %Q-flavored conversions instead of smushing a bunch of strings together.
Test Plan: Browsed around, far fewer errors. These changes are largely mechanical in nature.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19790
Summary:
Ref T13216. We occasionally receive HackerOne reports concerned that you can select your username as a password. I suspect very few users actually do this and that this is mostly a compliance/checklist sort of issue, not a real security issue.
On this install, we have about 41,000 user accounts. Of these, 100 have their username as a password (account or VCS). A substantial subset of these are either explicitly intentional ("demo", "bugmenot") or obvious test accounts ("test" in name, or name is a nonsensical string of gibberish, or looks like "tryphab" or similar) or just a bunch of numbers (?), or clearly a "researcher" doing this on purpose (e.g., name includes "pentest" or "xss" or similar).
So I'm not sure real users are actually very inclined to do this, and we can't really ever stop them from picking awful passwords anyway. But we //can// stop researchers from reporting that this is an issue.
Don't allow users to select passwords which contain words in a blocklist: their username, real name, email addresses, or the install's domain name. These words also aren't allowed to contain the password (that is, neither your password nor your username may be a substring of the other one). We also do a little normalization to try to split apart email addresses, domains, and real names, so I can't have "evan1234" as my password.
Test Plan:
- Added unit tests and made them pass.
- Tried to set my password to a bunch of variations of my username / email / domain name / real name / etc, got rejected.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13216
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19776
Summary:
Ref T13197. See PHI873. Record when a user has MFA'd and add a little icon to the transaction, similar to the exiting "Silent" icon.
For now, this just makes this stuff more auditable. Future changes may add ways to require MFA for certain specific transactions, outside of the ones that already always require MFA (like revealing credentials).
Test Plan: {F5877960}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13197
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19665
Summary: Ref T13054. Fixes T12714. Applies read locks to all transactions instead of only a very select subset (chat messages in Conpherence).
Test Plan: See <T13054#235650> for discussion and testing.
Maniphest Tasks: T13054, T12714
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19059
Summary:
Ref T13043. This moves user account passwords to the new shared infrastructure.
There's a lot of code changes here, but essentially all of it is the same as the VCS password logic in D18898.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration.
- Spot checked table for general sanity.
- Logged in with an existing password.
- Hit all error conditions on "change password", "set password", "register new account" flows.
- Verified that changing password logs out other sessions.
- Verified that revoked passwords of a different type can't be selected.
- Changed passwords a bunch.
- Verified that salt regenerates properly after password change.
- Tried to login with the wrong password, which didn't work.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18903
Summary:
Ref T13043. We have ~4 copies of this logic (registration, lost password recovery, set password, set VCS password).
Currently it varies a bit from case to case, but since it's all going to be basically identical once account passwords swap to the new infrastructure, bring it into the Engine so it can live in one place.
This also fixes VCS passwords not being affected by `account.minimum-password-length`.
Test Plan: Hit all errors in "VCS Password" panel. Successfully changed password.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18902
Summary:
Ref T13043. In D18898 I moved VCS passwords to the new shared infrastructure.
Before account passwords can move, we need to make two changes:
- For legacy reasons, VCS passwords and Account passwords have different "digest" algorithms. Both are more complicated than they should be, but we can't easily fix it without breaking existing passwords. Add a `PasswordHashInterface` so that objects which can have passwords hashes can implement custom digest logic for each password type.
- Account passwords have a dedicated external salt (`PhabricatorUser->passwordSalt`). This is a generally reasonable thing to support (since not all hashers are self-salting) and we need to keep it around so existing passwords still work. Add salt support to `AuthPassword` and make it generate/regenerate when passwords are updated.
Then add a nice story about password digestion.
Test Plan: Ran migrations. Used an existing VCS password; changed VCS password. Tried to use a revoked password. Unit tests still pass. Grepped for callers to legacy `PhabricatorHash::digestPassword()`, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18900
Summary:
Ref T13043. When we verify a password and a better hasher is available, we automatically upgrade the stored hash to the stronger hasher.
Add test coverage for this workflow and fix a few bugs and issues, mostly related to shuffling the old hasher name into the transaction.
This doesn't touch anything user-visible yet.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18897
Summary:
Ref T13043. This provides a new piece of shared infrastructure that VCS passwords and account passwords can use to validate passwords that users enter.
This isn't reachable by anything yet.
The test coverage of the "upgrade" flow (where we rehash a password to use a stronger hasher) isn't great in this diff, I'll expand that in the next change and then start migrating things.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of unit tests.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18896
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: This supports doing a bunch of sales funnel tracking on Phacility.
Test Plan: See next diff.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16890
Summary: Ref T11132, significantly cleans up the Config app, new layout, icons, spacing, etc. Some minor todos around re-designing "issues", mobile support, and maybe another pass at actual Group pages.
Test Plan: Visit and test every page in the config app, set new items, resolve setup issues, etc.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam, Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T11132
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16468
Summary: Switches over to new property UI boxes, splits core and apps into separate pages. Move Versions into "All Settings". I think there is some docs I likely need to update here as well.
Test Plan: Click on each item in the sidebar, see new headers.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16429
Summary:
Ref T11098. This primarily fixes Conduit calls to `*.edit` methods failing when trying to access user preferences.
(The actual access is a little weird, since it seems like we're building some UI stuff inside a policy query, but that's an issue for another time.)
To fix this, consolidate the "we're about to run some kind of request with this user" code and run it consistently for web, conduit, and SSH sessions.
Additionally, make sure we swap things to the user's translation.
Test Plan:
- Ran `maniphest.edit` via `arc call-conduit`, no more settings exception.
- Set translation to ALL CAPS, got all caps output from `ssh` and Conduit.
Reviewers: avivey, chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T11098
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16066
Summary:
Ref T4103. Ref T10078. This moves profile image caches to new usercache infrastructure.
These dirty automatically based on configuration and User properties, so add some stuff to make that happen.
This reduces the number of queries issued on every page by 1.
Test Plan: Browsed around, changed profile image, viewed as self, viewed as another user, verified no more query to pull this information on every page
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4103, T10078
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16040
Summary:
Ref T4103. Ref T10078. Currently, when a user misses a cache we just build it for them.
This is the behavior we want for the the viewer (so we don't have to build every cache up front if we don't actually need them), but not the right behavior for other users (since it allows performance problems to go undetected).
Make inline cache generation strict by default, then make sure all the things that rely on cache data request the correct data (well, all of the things identified by unit tests, at least: there might be some more stuff I haven't hit yet).
This fixes test failures in D16040, and backports a piece of that change.
Test Plan: Identified and then fixed failures with `arc unit --everything`.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4103, T10078
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16042
Summary:
Ref T4103. Currently, we issue a `SELECT * FROM user_preferences ... WHERE userPHID = ...` on every page to load the viewer's settings.
There are several other questionable data accesses on every page too, most of which could benefit from improved caching strategies (see T4103#178122).
This query will soon get more expensive, since it may need to load several objects (e.g., the user's settings and their "role profile" settings). Although we could put that data on the User and do both in one query, it's nicer to put it on the Preferences object ("This inherits from profile X") which means we need to do several queries.
Rather than paying a greater price, we can cheat this stuff into the existing query where we load the user's session by providing a user cache table and doing some JOIN magic. This lets us issue one query and try to get cache hits on a bunch of caches cheaply (well, we'll be in trouble at the MySQL JOIN limit of 61 tables, but have some headroom).
For now, just get it working:
- Add the table.
- Try to get user settings "for free" when we load the session.
- If we miss, fill user settings into the cache on-demand.
- We only use this in one place (DarkConsole) for now. I'll use it more widely in the next diff.
Test Plan:
- Loaded page as logged-in user.
- Loaded page as logged-out user.
- Examined session query to see cache joins.
- Changed settings, saw database cache fill.
- Toggled DarkConsole on and off.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T4103
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16001
Summary: Ref T7673. This is really just so I can force admin.phacility.com logout when you log out of an instance, but there are a few other things we could move here eventually, like the WILLREGISTERUSER event.
Test Plan: Logged out of an instance, got logged out of parent (see next change).
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T7673
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15629
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:
Ref T10603. This converts existing hard-codes to modular constants.
Also removes one small piece of code duplication.
Test Plan:
- Performed one-time logins.
- Performed a password reset.
- Verified temporary tokens were revoked properly.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Maniphest Tasks: T10603
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D15476
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
