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 D20039. Ref T13242. If installs want users to install a specific application, reference particular help, etc., let them customize the MFA enrollment message so they can make it say "if you have issues, see this walkthrough on the corporate wiki" or whatever.
Test Plan:
{F6164340}
{F6164341}
{F6164342}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13242
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20043
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 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:
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 D20025. Ref T13231. Although I'm not currently planning to actually upstream a Duo MFA provider, it's probably easiest to put most of the support pieces in the upstream until T5055.
Test Plan: Used a test script to make some (mostly trivial) API calls and got valid results back, so I think the parameter signing is correct.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13231
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20026
Summary: Depends on D20024. See D20022. Put something in place temporarily until we build out validation at some point.
Test Plan: Sent myself a test message.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20025
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 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 D20018. Ref T13222. When you add a new MFA configuration, you can technically (?) guess your way through it with brute force. It's not clear why this would ever really be useful (if an attacker can get here and wants to add TOTP, they can just add TOTP!) but it's probably bad, so don't let users do it.
This limit is fairly generous because I don't think this actually part of any real attack, at least today with factors we're considering.
Test Plan:
- Added TOTP, guessed wrong a ton of times, got rate limited.
- Added TOTP, guessed right, got a TOTP factor configuration added to my account.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20019
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:
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:
Depends on D20011. Ref T920. This change lets a "MetaMTAMail" storage object represent various different types of messages, and makes "all" the `bin/mail` stuff "totally work" with messages of non-email types.
In practice, a lot of the related tooling needs some polish/refinement, but the basics work.
Test Plan: Used `echo beep boop | bin/mail send-test --to epriestley --type sms` to send myself SMS.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20012
Summary:
Depends on D20010. Ref T920. Allow users to designate which contact number is "primary": the number we'll actually send stuff to.
Since this interacts in weird ways with "disable", just do a "when any number is touched, put all of the user's rows into the right state" sort of thing.
Test Plan:
- Added numbers, made numbers primary, disabled a primary number, un-disabled a number with no primaries. Got sensible behavior in all cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20011
Summary: Depends on D20008. Ref T920. Continue fleshing out contact number behaviors.
Test Plan:
- Enabled and disabled a contact number.
- Saw list, detail views reflect change.
- Added number X, disabled it, added it again (allowed), enabled the disabled one ("already in use" exception).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20010
Summary:
Depends on D20006. Ref T13222. Currently, the "MFA Is Required" gate doesn't let you do anything else, but you'll need to be able to access "Contact Numbers" if an install provides SMS MFA.
Tweak this UI to give users limited access to settings, so they can set up contact numbers and change their language.
(This is a little bit fiddly, and I'm doing it early on partly so it can get more testing as these changes move forward.)
Test Plan: {F6146136}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20008
Summary:
Ref T920. To send you SMS messages, we need to know your phone number.
This adds bare-bone basics (transactions, storage, editor, etc).
From here:
**Disabling Numbers**: I'll let you disable numbers in an upcoming diff.
**Primary Number**: I think I'm just going to let you pick a number as "primary", similar to how email works. We could imagine a world where you have one "MFA" number and one "notifications" number, but this seems unlikely-ish?
**Publishing Numbers (Profile / API)**: At some point, we could let you say that a number is public / "show on my profile" and provide API access / directory features. Not planning to touch this for now.
**Non-Phone Numbers**: Eventually this could be a list of other similar contact mechanisms (APNS/GCM devices, Whatsapp numbers, ICQ number, twitter handle so MFA can slide into your DM's?). Not planning to touch this for now, but the path should be straightforward when we get there. This is why it's called "Contact Number", not "Phone Number".
**MFA-Required + SMS**: Right now, if the only MFA provider is SMS and MFA is required on the install, you can't actually get into Settings to add a contact number to configure SMS. I'll look at the best way to deal with this in an upcoming diff -- likely, giving you partial access to more of Setings before you get thorugh the MFA gate. Conceptually, it seems reasonable to let you adjust some other settings, like "Language" and "Accessibility", before you set up MFA, so if the "you need to add MFA" portal was more like a partial Settings screen, maybe that's pretty reasonable.
**Verifying Numbers**: We'll probably need to tackle this eventually, but I'm not planning to worry about it for now.
Test Plan: {F6137174}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: avivey, PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T920
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19988
Summary:
Ref T13222. This updates the CLI tools and documentation for the changes in D19975.
The flags `--type` and `--all-types` retain their current meaning. In most cases, `bin/auth strip --type totp` is sufficient and you don't need to bother looking up the relevant provider PHID. The existing `bin/auth list-factors` is also unchanged.
The new `--provider` flag allows you to select configs from a particular provider in a more granular way. The new `bin/auth list-mfa-providers` provides an easy way to get PHIDs.
(In the Phacility cluster, the "Strip MFA" action just reaches into the database and deletes rows manually, so this isn't terribly important. I verified that the code should still work properly.)
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/auth list-mfa-providers`.
- Stripped by user / type / provider.
- Grepped for `list-factors` and `auth strip`.
- Hit all (?) of the various possible error cases.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19976
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: See https://secure.phabricator.com/D18901#249481. Update the docs and a warning string to reflect the new reality that `bin/auth recover` is now able to recover any account, not just administrators.
Test Plan: Mk 1 eyeball
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20007
Summary:
Depends on D19994. See PHI1027. If an install has customized the "Welcome Mail" message, include it in welcome mail. A special custom message from the profile screen overrides it, if provided.
(I fiddled with putting the custom message as "placeholder" text in the remarkup area as a hint, but newlines in "placeholder" text appear to have issues in Safari and Firefox. I think this is probably reasonably clear as-is.)
Make both render remarkup-into-text so things like links work properly, as it's reasonably likely that installs will want to link to things.
Test Plan:
- With custom "Welcome Mail" text, sent mail with no custom override (got custom text) and a custom override (got overridden text).
- Linked to some stuff, got sensible links in the mail (`bin/mail show-outbound`).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19995
Summary: Depends on D19992. Ref T13222. If administrators provide a custom login message, show it on the login screen.
Test Plan:
{F6137930}
- Viewed login screen with and without a custom message.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19994
Summary:
Ref T13222. Long ago, we had a Config option (`welcome.html`) to let you dump HTML onto the login screen, but this was relatively hard to use and not good from a security perspective.
In some cases this was obsoleted by Dashboards, but there's at least some remaining set of use cases for actual login instructions on the login screen. For example, WMF has some guidance on //which// SSO mechanism to use based on what types of account you have. On `secure`, users assume they can register by clicking "Log In With GitHub" or whatever, and it might reduce frustration to tell them upfront that registration is closed.
Some other types of auth messaging could also either use customization or defaults (e.g., the invite/welcome/approve mail).
We could do this with a bunch of Config options, but I'd generally like to move to a world where there's less stuff in Config and more configuration is contextual. I think it tends to be easier to use, and we get a lot of fringe benefits (granular permissions, API, normal transaction logs, more abililty to customize workflows and provide contextual help/hints, etc). Here, for example, we can provide a remarkup preview, which would be trickier with Config.
This does not actually do anything yet.
Test Plan: {F6137541}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19992
Summary:
Ref T13222. Currently, if a remote address fails a few login attempts (5) in a short period of time (15 minutes) we require a CAPTCHA for each additional attempt.
This relies on:
- Administrators configuring ReCAPTCHA, which they may just not bother with.
- Administrators being comfortable with Google running arbitrary trusted Javascript, which they may not be comfortable with.
- ReCAPTCHA actually being effective, which seems likely true for unsophisticated attackers but perhaps less true for more sophisticated attackers (see <https://github.com/ecthros/uncaptcha2>, for example).
(For unsophisticated attackers and researchers, "Rumola" has been the standard CAPTCHA bypass tool for some time. This is an extension that pays humans to solve CAPTCHAs for you. This is not practical at "brute force a strong password" scale. Google appears to have removed it from the Chrome store. The "submit the captcha back to Google's APIs" trick probably isn't practical at brute-force-scale either, but it's easier to imagine weaponizing that than weaponizing human solvers.)
Add a hard gate behind the CAPTHCA wall so that we fail into a secure state if there's no CAPTCHA or the attacker can defeat CAPTCHAs at a very low cost.
The big downside to this is that an attacker who controls your remote address (e.g., is behind the same NAT device you're behind on corpnet) can lock you out of your account. However:
- That //should// be a lot of access (although maybe this isn't that high of a barrier in many cases, since compromising a "smart fridge" or "smart water glass" or whatever might be good enough).
- You can still do "Forgot password?" and login via email link, although this may not be obvious.
Test Plan:
- Logged in normally.
- Failed many many login attempts, got hard gated.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19997
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:
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 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 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 D19903. Ref T13222. This was a Facebook-specific thing from D6202 that I believe no other install ever used, and I'm generally trying to move away from the old "event" system (the more modern modular/engine patterns generally replace it).
Just drop support for this. Since the constant is being removed, anything that's actually using it should break in an obvious way, and I'll note this in the changelog.
There's no explicit replacement but I don't think this hook is useful for anything except "being Facebook in 2013".
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `TYPE_AUTH_WILLLOGIN`.
- Logged in.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19904
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 D19896. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Add a core "Sign With MFA" transaction type which prompts you for MFA and marks your transactions as MFA'd.
This is a one-shot gate and does not keep you in MFA.
Test Plan:
- Used "Sign with MFA", got prompted for MFA, answered MFA, saw transactions apply with MFA metadata and markers.
- Tried to sign alone, got appropriate errors.
- Tried to sign no-op changes, got appropriate errors.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19897
Summary:
Depends on D19919. Ref T11351. This method appeared in D8802 (note that "get...Object" was renamed to "get...Transaction" there, so this method was actually "new" even though a method of the same name had existed before).
The goal at the time was to let Harbormaster post build results to Diffs and have them end up on Revisions, but this eventually got a better implementation (see below) where the Harbormaster-specific code can just specify a "publishable object" where build results should go.
The new `get...Object` semantics ultimately broke some stuff, and the actual implementation in Differential was removed in D10911, so this method hasn't really served a purpose since December 2014. I think that broke the Harbormaster thing by accident and we just lived with it for a bit, then Harbormaster got some more work and D17139 introduced "publishable" objects which was a better approach. This was later refined by D19281.
So: the original problem (sending build results to the right place) has a good solution now, this method hasn't done anything for 4 years, and it was probably a bad idea in the first place since it's pretty weird/surprising/fragile.
Note that `Comment` objects still have an unrelated method with the same name. In that case, the method ties the `Comment` storage object to the related `Transaction` storage object.
Test Plan: Grepped for `getApplicationTransactionObject`, verified that all remaining callsites are related to `Comment` objects.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19920
Summary:
Depends on D19918. Ref T11351. In D19918, I removed all calls to this method. Now, remove all implementations.
All of these implementations just `return $timeline`, only the three sites in D19918 did anything interesting.
Test Plan: Used `grep willRenderTimeline` to find callsites, found none.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19919
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:
Depends on D19886. Ref T13222. Clean up MFA challenges after they expire.
(There's maybe some argument to keeping these around for a little while for debugging/forensics, but I suspect it would never actually be valuable and figure we can cross that bridge if we come to it.)
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/garbage collect --collector ...` and saw old MFA challenges collected.
- Triggered a new challenge, GC'd again, saw it survive GC while still active.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19888
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:
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: Depends on D19785. Ref T13217. This converts many of the most common clause construction pathways to the new %Q / %LQ / %LO / %LA / %LJ semantics.
Test Plan: Browsed around a bunch, saw fewer warnings and no obvious behavioral errors. The transformations here are generally mechanical (although I did them by hand).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: hach-que
Maniphest Tasks: T13217
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19789
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 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 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:
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:
Depends on D19585. Ref T13164. This is a precursor for D19586, which causes Editors to start doing more explicit CAN_EDIT checks.
Passwords have an Editor, but don't actually define a CAN_EDIT capability. Define one (you can edit a password if you can edit the object the password is associated with).
(Today, this object is always a User -- this table just unified VCS passwords and Account passwords so they can be handled more consistently.)
Test Plan:
- With D19586, ran unit tests and got a pass.
- Edited my own password.
- Tried to edit another user's password and wasn't permitted to.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19592
Summary:
Fixes T12397. Ref T13164. See PHI801.
Several installs have hit various use cases where the path on disk where Phabricator lives changes at runtime. Currently, `bin/ssh-auth` caches a flat file which includes the path to `bin/ssh-exec`, so this may fall out of date if `phabricator/` moves.
These use cases have varying strengths of legitimacy, but "we're migrating to a new set of hosts and the pool is half old machines and half new machines" seems reasonably compelling and not a problem entirely of one's own making.
Test Plan:
- Compared output on `master` to output after change, found them byte-for-byte identical.
- Moved `phabricator/` to `phabricator2/`, ran `bin/ssh-auth`, got updated output.
- Added a new SSH key, saw it appear in the output.
- Grepped for `AUTHFILE_CACHEKEY` (no hits).
- Dropped the cache, verified that the file regenerates cleanly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13164, T12397
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19568
Summary:
Ref T13065. `mailKey`s are a private secret for each object. In some mail configurations, they help us ensure that inbound mail is authentic: when we send you mail, the "Reply-To" is "T123+456+abcdef".
- The `T123` is the object you're actually replying to.
- The `456` is your user ID.
- The `abcdef` is a hash of your user account with the `mailKey`.
Knowing this hash effectively proves that Phabricator has sent you mail about the object before, i.e. that you legitimately control the account you're sending from. Without this, anyone could send mail to any object "From" someone else, and have comments post under their username.
To generate this hash, we need a stable secret per object. (We can't use properties like the PHID because the secret has to be legitimately secret.)
Today, we store these in `mailKey` properties on the actual objects, and manually generate them. This results in tons and tons and tons of copies of this same ~10 lines of code.
Instead, just store them in the Mail application and generate them on demand. This change also anticipates possibly adding flags like "must encrypt" and "original subject", which are other "durable metadata about mail transmission" properties we may have use cases for eventually.
Test Plan:
- See next change for additional testing and context.
- Sent mail about Herald rules (next change); saw mail keys generate cleanly.
- Destroyed a Herald rule with a mail key, saw the mail properties get nuked.
- Grepped for `getMailKey()` and converted all callsites I could which aren't the copy/pasted boilerplate present in 50 places.
- Used `bin/mail receive-test --to T123` to test normal mail receipt of older-style objects and make sure that wasn't broken.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13065
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19399
Summary:
Ref T4340. Some "Register/Login" and "Link External Account" buttons are forms which submit to third-party sites. Whitelist these targets when pages render an OAuth form.
Safari, at least, also prevents a redirect to a third-party domain after a form submission to the local domain, so when we first redirect locally (as with Twitter and other OAuth1 providers) we need to authorize an additional URI.
Test Plan: Clicked all my registration buttons locally without hitting CSP issues.
Maniphest Tasks: T4340
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19159
Summary:
Depends on D19155. Ref T13094. Ref T4340.
We can't currently implement a strict `form-action 'self'` content security policy because some file downloads rely on a `<form />` which sometimes POSTs to the CDN domain.
Broadly, stop generating these forms. We just redirect instead, and show an interstitial confirm dialog if no CDN domain is configured. This makes the UX for installs with no CDN domain a little worse and the UX for everyone else better.
Then, implement the stricter Content-Security-Policy.
This also removes extra confirm dialogs for downloading Harbormaster build logs and data exports.
Test Plan:
- Went through the plain data export, data export with bulk jobs, ssh key generation, calendar ICS download, Diffusion data, Paste data, Harbormaster log data, and normal file data download workflows with a CDN domain.
- Went through all those workflows again without a CDN domain.
- Grepped for affected symbols (`getCDNURI()`, `getDownloadURI()`).
- Added an evil form to a page, tried to submit it, was rejected.
- Went through the ReCaptcha and Stripe flows again to see if they're submitting any forms.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13094, T4340
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19156
Summary: See D19117. Instead of automatically figuring this out inside `phutil_tag()`, explicitly add rel="noreferrer" at the application level to all external links.
Test Plan:
- Grepped for `_blank`, `isValidRemoteURIForLink`, checked all callsites for user-controlled data.
- Created a link menu item, verified noreferrer in markup.
- Created a link custom field, verified no referrer in markup.
- Verified noreferrer for `{nav href=...}`.
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19118
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:
Depends on D19009. Ref T13053. For "Must Encrypt" mail, we must currently strip the "Thread-Topic" header because it sometimes contains sensitive information about the object.
I don't actually know if this header is useful or anyting uses it. My understanding is that it's an Outlook/Exchange thing, but we also implement "Thread-Index" which I think is what Outlook/Exchange actually look at. This header may have done something before we implemented "Thread-Index", or maybe never done anything. Or maybe older versions of Excel/Outlook did something with it and newer versions don't, or do less. So it's possible that an even better fix here would be to simply remove this, but I wasn't able to convince myself of that after Googling for 10 minutes and I don't think it's worth hours of installing Exchange/Outlook to figure out. Instead, I'm just trying to simplify our handling of this header for now, and maybe some day we'll learn more about Exchange/Outlook and can remove it.
In a number of cases we already use the object monogram or PHID as a "Thread-Topic" without users ever complaining, so I think that if this header is useful it probably isn't shown to users, or isn't shown very often (e.g., only in a specific "conversation" sub-view?). Just use the object PHID (which should be unique and stable) as a thread-topic, everywhere, automatically.
Then allow this header through for "Must Encrypt" mail.
Test Plan: Processed some local mail, saw object PHIDs for "Thread-Topic" headers.
Reviewers: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13053
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19012
Summary: Depends on D18928. Ref T13043. Add some automated test coverage for SSH revocation rules.
Test Plan: Ran tests, got a clean bill of health.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18929
Summary:
Ref T13043. In an earlier change I updated this langauge from "Deactivate" to "Revoke", but the behavior doesn't quite match.
This table has a unique key on `<isActive, keyBody>`, which enforces the rule that "a key can only be active for one unique user".
However, we set `isActive` to `null` when we revoke a key, and multiple rows are allowed to have the value `<null, "asdf">` (since a `null` column in a unique key basically means "don't enforce this unique key").
This is intentional, to support this workflow:
- You add key X to bot A.
- Whoops, wrong account.
- You revoke key X from bot A.
- You add key X to bot B.
This isn't necessarily a great workflow -- ideally, you'd throw key X away and go generate a new key after you realize you made a mistake -- but it's the sort of practical workflow that users are likely to expect and want to see work ("I don't want to generate a new key, it's already being used by 5 other services and cycling it is a ton of work and this is just a test install for my dog anyway."), and there's no technical reason we can't support it.
To prevent users from adding keys on the revocation list back to their account, just check explicitly.
(This is probably better in general anyway, because "cert-authority" support from PHI269 may mean that two keys are "equivalent" even if their text differs, and we may not be able to rely on a database test anyway.)
Test Plan:
- Added the key `ssh-rsa asdf` to my account.
- Revoked it.
- Tried to add it again.
- Before patch: worked.
- After patch: error, "this key has been revoked".
- Added it to a different account (the "I put it on the wrong bot" workflow).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18928
Summary:
Depends on D18908. Ref T13043. Allow users to get information about what revokers do with a new `--list` flag.
You can use `--list --type <key>` to get information about a specfic revoker.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/auth revoke --list`, saw a list of revokers with useful information.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18910
Summary:
Depends on D18907. Ref T13043. Ref T12509. We have some weird old password digest behavior that isn't terribly concerning, but also isn't great.
Specifically, old passwords were digested in weird ways before being hashed. Notably, account passwords were digested with usernames, so your password stops working if your username is chagned. Not the end of the world, but silly.
Mark all existing hashes as "v1", and automatically upgrade then when they're used or changed. Some day, far in the future, we could stop supporting these legacy digests and delete the code and passwords and just issue upgrade advice ("Passwords which haven't been used in more than two years no longer work."). But at least get things on a path toward sane, modern behavior.
Test Plan: Ran migration. Spot-checked that everthing in the database got marked as "v1". Used an existing password to login successfully. Verified that it was upgraded to a `null` (modern) digest. Logged in with it again.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043, T12509
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18908
Summary:
Depends on D18906. Ref T13043. When SSH keys are edited, we normally include a warning that if you don't recognize the activity you might have problems in the mail body.
Currently, this warning is also shown for revocations with `bin/auth revoke --type ssh`. However, these revocations are safe (revocations are generally not dangerous anyway) and almost certainly legitimate and administrative, so don't warn users about them.
Test Plan:
- Created and revoked a key.
- Creation mail still had warning; revocation mail no longer did.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18907
Summary:
Depends on D18904. Ref T13043. If an attacker compromises a victim's session and bypasses their MFA, they can try to guess the user's current account password by making repeated requests to change it: if they guess the right "Old Password", they get a different error than if they don't.
I don't think this is really a very serious concern (the attacker already got a session and MFA, if configured, somehow; many installs don't use passwords anyway) but we get occasional reports about it from HackerOne. Technically, it's better policy to rate limit it, and this should reduce the reports we receive.
Test Plan: Tried to change password over and over again, eventually got rated limited. Used `bin/auth unlimit` to clear the limit, changed password normally without issues.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18906
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. This cleans some things up to prepare for moving account passwords to shared infrastructure.
Currently, the (very old, fairly unusual) `bin/accountadmin` tool can set account passwords. This is a bit weird, generally not great, and makes upgrading to shared infrastructure more difficult. Just get rid of this to simplify things. Many installs don't have passwords and this is pointless and unhelpful in those cases.
Instead, let `bin/auth recover` recover any account, not just administrator accounts. This was a guardrail against administrative abuse, but it has always seemed especially flimsy (since anyone who can run the tool can easily comment out the checks) and I use this tool in cluster support with some frequency, occasionally just commenting out the checks. This is generally a better solution than actually setting a password on accounts anyway. Just get rid of the check and give users enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot with if they truly desire.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/accountadmin`, didn't get prompted to swap passwords anymore.
- Ran `bin/auth recover` to recover a non-admin account.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18901
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 T13043. I'd like to replace the manual credential revocation in the Phacility export workflow with shared code in `bin/auth revoke`, but we need it to run non-interactively. Add a `--force` flag purely to make our lives easier.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/auth revoke --everywhere ...` with and without `--force`. Got prompted without, got total annihilation with.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18895
Summary:
Ref T13043. Currently:
- Passwords are stored separately in the "VCS Passwords" and "User" tables and don't share as much code as they could.
- Because User objects are all over the place in the code, password hashes are all over the place too (i.e., often somewhere in process memory). This is a very low-severity, theoretical sort of issue, but it could make leaving a stray `var_dump()` in the code somewhere a lot more dangerous than it otherwise is. Even if we never do this, third-party developers might. So it "feels nice" to imagine separating this data into a different table that we rarely load.
- Passwords can not be //revoked//. They can be //deleted//, but users can set the same password again. If you believe or suspect that a password may have been compromised, you might reasonably prefer to revoke it and force the user to select a //different// password.
This change prepares to remedy these issues by adding a new, more modern dedicated password storage table which supports storing multiple password types (account vs VCS), gives passwords real PHIDs and transactions, supports DestructionEngine, supports revocation, and supports `bin/auth revoke`.
It doesn't actually make anything use this new table yet. Future changes will migrate VCS passwords and account passwords to this table.
(This also gives third party applications a reasonable place to store password hashes in a consistent way if they have some need for it.)
Test Plan: Added some basic unit tests to cover general behavior. This is just skeleton code for now and will get more thorough testing when applications move.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18894
Summary: Ref T13043. Adds CLI support for revoking SSH keys. Also retargets UI language from "Deactivate" to "Revoke" to make it more clear that this is a one-way operation. This operation is already correctly implemented as a "Revoke" operation.
Test Plan: Used `bin/auth revoke --type ssh` to revoke keys, verified they became revoked (with proper transactions) in the UI. Revoked keys from the web UI flow.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18893
Summary: Ref T13043. Allows CLI revocation of login sessions.
Test Plan: Used `bin/auth revoke --type session` with `--from` and `--everywhere` to revoke sessions. Saw accounts get logged out in web UI.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13043
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18892
Summary:
See PHI223. Ref T13024. There's a remaining registration/login order issue after the other changes in T13024: we lose track of the current URI when we go through the MFA flow, so we can lose "Set Password" at the end of the flow.
Specifically, the flow goes like this today:
- User clicks the welcome link in email.
- They get redirected to the "set password" settings panel.
- This gets pre-empted by Legalpad (although we'll potentially survive this with the URI intact).
- This also gets pre-empted by the "Set MFA" workflow. If the user completes this flow, they get redirected to a `/auth/multifactor/?id=123` sort of URI to highlight the factor they added. This causes us to lose the `/settings/panel/password/blah/blah?key=xyz` URI.
The ordering on this is also not ideal; it's preferable to start with a password, then do the other steps, so the user can return to the flow more easily if they are interrupted.
Resolve this by separating the "change your password" and "set/reset your password" flows onto two different pages. This copy/pastes a bit of code, but both flows end up simpler so it feels reasonable to me overall.
We don't require a full session for "set/reset password" (so you can do it if you don't have MFA/legalpad yet) and do it first.
This works better and is broadly simpler for users.
Test Plan:
- Required MFA + legalpad, invited a user via email, registered.
- Before: password set flow got lost when setting MFA.
- After: prompted to set password, then sign documents, then set up MFA.
- Reset password (with MFA confgiured, was required to MFA first).
- Tried to reset password without a valid reset key, wasn't successful.
- Changed password using existing flow.
- Hit various (all?) error cases (short password, common password, mismatch, missing password, etc).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18840
Summary:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/activation-link-in-welcome-mail-only-works-if-new-user-isnt-semi-logged-in/740/7>.
In T13024, I rewrote the main menu bar to hide potentially sensitive items (like notification and message counts and saved search filters) until users fully log in.
However, the "Log In" item got caught in this too. For clarity, rename `shouldAllowPartialSessions()` to `shouldRequireFullSession()` (since logged-out users don't have any session at all, so it would be a bit misleading to say that "Log In" "allows" a partial session). Then let "Log In" work again for logged-out users.
(In most cases, users are prompted to log in when they take an action which requires them to be logged in -- like creating or editing an object, or adding comments -- so this item doesn't really need to exist. However, it aligns better with user expectations in many cases to have it present, and some reasonable operations like "Check if I have notifications/messages" don't have an obvious thing to click otherwise.)
Test Plan: Viewed site in an incognito window, saw "Log In" button again. Browsed normally, saw normal menu.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18818
Summary: Depends on D18791. Ref T13024. This clears up another initialization order issue, where an unverified address could prevent MFA enrollment.
Test Plan: Configured both verification required and MFA required, clicked "Add Factor", got a dialog for the workflow.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18792
Summary:
Depends on D18790. Ref T13024. Fixes T8335. Currently, "unapproved" and "disabled" users are bundled together. This prevents users from completing some registration steps (verification, legalpad documents, MFA enrollment) before approval.
Separate approval out and move it to the end so users can do all the required enrollment stuff on their end before we roadblock them.
Test Plan: Required approval, email verification, signatures, and MFA. Registered an account. Verified email, signed documents, enrolled in MFA, and then got prompted to wait for approval.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13024, T8335
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18791
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:
See PHI78. The user was getting this message and (reasonably) interpreted it to mean "reset mail can never be sent to unverified addresses".
Reword it to be more clear, albeit an entire paragraph long. I don't really have a good solution in these cases where we'd need a whole page to explain what's happening (this, plus "we can't tell you which address you should use because an attacker could get information if we did" and "this rule defuses the risk that an opportunistic attacker may try to compromise your account after you add an email you don't own by mistake"). We could write it up separately and link to it, but I feel like that stuff tends to get out of date.
Just land somewhere in the middle.
Test Plan: {F5189105}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18630
Summary: Ref T12964. This feels like a cheat, but works well. Just redirect the user back to the form they came from instead of to the key page.
Test Plan: Add a key to a user profile, add a key to an Alamanac device. Grep for PhabricatorAuthSSHKeyTableView and check all locations.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12964
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18445
Summary: Cursory research indicates that "login" is a noun, referring to a form, and "log in" is a verb, referring to the action of logging in. I went though every instances of 'login' I could find and tried to clarify all this language. Also, we have "Phabricator" on the registration for like 4-5 times, which is a bit verbose, so I tried to simplify that language as well.
Test Plan: Tested logging in and logging out. Pages feel simpler.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18322
Summary:
Ref M1476. Currently, `setColor('simple')` is meaningful. Instead, `setButtonType('simple')`.
Depends on D18047.
Test Plan: Looked at UI examples, Phame, Auth. Notifications mooted by D18047.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18048
