Summary:
Ref T7152. This substantially completes the upstream login flow. Basically, we just cookie you and push you through normal registration, with slight changes:
- All providers allow registration if you have an invite.
- Most providers get minor text changes to say "Register" instead of "Login" or "Login or Register".
- The Username/Password provider changes to just a "choose a username" form.
- We show the user that they're accepting an invite, and who invited them.
Then on actual registration:
- Accepting an invite auto-verifies the address.
- Accepting an invite auto-approves the account.
- Your email is set to the invite email and locked.
- Invites get to reassign nonprimary, unverified addresses from other accounts.
But 98% of the code is the same.
Test Plan:
- Accepted an invite.
- Verified a new address on an existing account via invite.
- Followed a bad invite link.
- Tried to accept a verified invite.
- Reassigned an email by accepting an unverified, nonprimary invite on a new account.
- Verified that reassigns appear in the activity log.
{F291493}
{F291494}
{F291495}
{F291496}
{F291497}
{F291498}
{F291499}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7152
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11737
Summary: Ref T7153. I am not sure if this is 100% correct because sometimes you have to POST vs GET and I don't know if the redirect response will / can do the right thing? I think options to fix this would be to 1) restrict this functionality to JUST the Phabricator OAuth provider type or 2) something really fancy with an HTTP(S) future. The other rub right now is when you logout you get half auto-logged in again... Thoughts on that?
Test Plan: setup my local instance to JUST have phabricator oauth available to login. was presented with the dialog automagically...!
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin, epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T7153
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11701
Summary:
Ref T6870. Since it does not make sense to redirect the user to the login form after they log in, we try not to set the login form as the `next` cookie.
However, the current check is hard-coded to `/auth/start/`, and the form can also be served at `/login/`. This has no real effect on normal users, but did make debugging T6870 confusing.
Instead of using a hard-coded path check, test if the controller was delegated to. If it was, store the URI. If it's handling the request without delegation, don't.
Test Plan:
- Visited login form at `/login/` and `/auth/start/`, saw it not set a next URI.
- Visited login form at `/settings/` (while logged out), saw it set a next URI.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley, lpriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T6870
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D11292
Summary: Ran `arc lint --apply-patches --everything` over rP, mainly to change double quotes to single quotes where appropriate. These changes also validate that the `ArcanistXHPASTLinter::LINT_DOUBLE_QUOTE` rule is working as expected.
Test Plan: Eyeballed it.
Reviewers: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Reviewed By: #blessed_reviewers, epriestley
Subscribers: epriestley, Korvin, hach-que
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9431
Summary:
Fixes T3471. Specific issues:
- Add the ability to set a temporary cookie (expires when the browser closes).
- We overwrote 'phcid' on every page load. This creates some issues with browser extensions. Instead, only write it if isn't set. To counterbalance this, make it temporary.
- Make the 'next_uri' cookie temporary.
- Make the 'phreg' cookie temporary.
- Fix an issue where deleted cookies would persist after 302 (?) in some cases (this is/was 100% for me locally).
Test Plan:
- Closed my browser, reopned it, verified temporary cookies were gone.
- Logged in, authed, linked, logged out.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3471
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8537
Summary:
Fixes T3793. There's a lot of history here, see D4012, T2102. Basically, the problem is that things used to work like this:
- User is logged out and accesses `/xyz/`. After they login, we'd like to send them back to `/xyz/`, so we set a `next_uri` cookie.
- User's browser has a bunch of extensions and now makes a ton of requests for stuff that doesn't exist, like `humans.txt` and `apple-touch-icon.png`. We can't distinguish between these requests and normal requests in a general way, so we write `next_uri` cookies, overwriting the user's intent (`/xyz/`).
To fix this, we made the 404 page not set `next_uri`, in D4012. So if the browser requests `humans.txt`, we 404 with no cookie, and the `/xyz/` cookie is preserved. However, this is bad because an attacker can determine if objects exist and applications are installed, by visiting, e.g., `/T123` and seeing if they get a 404 page (resource really does not exist) or a login page (resource exists). We'd rather not leak this information.
The comment in the body text describes this in more detail.
This diff sort of tries to do the right thing most of the time: we write the cookie only if we haven't written it in the last 2 minutes. Generally, this should mean that the original request to `/xyz/` writes it, all the `humans.txt` requests don't write it, and things work like users expect. This may occasionally do the wrong thing, but it should be very rare, and we stop leaking information about applications and objects.
Test Plan: Logged out, clicked around / logged in, used Charles to verify that cookies were set in the expected way.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3793
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8047
Summary:
Ref T4339. Ref T4310. Currently, sessions look like `"afad85d675fda87a4fadd54"`, and are only issued for logged-in users. To support logged-out CSRF and (eventually) external user sessions, I made two small changes:
- First, sessions now have a "kind", which is indicated by a prefix, like `"A/ab987asdcas7dca"`. This mostly allows us to issue session queries more efficiently: we don't have to issue a query at all for anonymous sessions, and can join the correct table for user and external sessions and save a query. Generally, this gives us more debugging information and more opportunity to recover from issues in a user-friendly way, as with the "invalid session" error in this diff.
- Secondly, if you load a page and don't have a session, we give you an anonymous session. This is just a secret with no special significance.
This does not implement CSRF yet, but gives us a client secret we can use to implement it.
Test Plan:
- Logged in.
- Logged out.
- Browsed around.
- Logged in again.
- Went through link/register.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4310, T4339
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8043
Summary: Ref T4339. We have more magical cookie names than we should, move them all to a central location.
Test Plan: Registered, logged in, linked account, logged out. See inlines.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T4339
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8041
Summary: We currently have a lot of calls to `addCrumb(id(new PhabricatorCrumbView())->...)` which can be expressed much more simply with a convenience method. Nearly all crumbs are only textual.
Test Plan:
- This was mostly automated, then I cleaned up a few unusual sites manually.
- Bunch of grep / randomly clicking around.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: hach-que, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7787
Summary:
^\s+(['"])dust\1\s*=>\s*true,?\s*$\n
Test Plan: Looked through the diff.
Reviewers: chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6769
Summary:
Ref T1536. Currently, when you install Phabricator you're dumped on the login screen and have to consult the documentation to learn about `bin/accountadmin`.
Instead, detect that an install is running first-time setup:
- It has no configured providers; and
- it has no user accounts.
We can safely deduce that such an install isn't configured yet, and let the user create an admin account from the web UI.
After they login, we raise a setup issue and lead them to configure authentication.
(This could probably use some UI and copy tweaks.)
Test Plan:
{F46738}
{F46739}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: chad
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6228
Summary:
Ref T1536. This is extremely reachable and changes the login code to the new stuff.
Notes:
- I've hard-disabled password registration since I want installs to explicitly flip it on via config if they want it. New installs will get it by default in the future, but old installs shouldn't have their auth options change.
- Google doesn't let us change the redirect URI, so keep the old one working.
- We need to keep a bit of LDAP around for now for LDAP import.
- **Facebook:** This causes substantive changes in what login code is executed.
Test Plan:
- Logged in / logged out / registered, hit new flows.
- Logged in with google.
- Verified no password registration by default.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: chad
CC: wez, nh, aran, mbishopim3
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6222
Summary: Ref T1536. This script basically exists to restore access if/when users shoot themselves in the foot by disabling all auth providers and can no longer log in.
Test Plan: {F46411}
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6205
Summary:
Ref T1536. Facebook currently does a check which should be on-login in registration hooks, and this is generally a reasonable hook to provide.
The "will login" event allows listeners to reject or modify a login, or just log it or whatever.
NOTE: This doesn't cover non-web logins right now -- notably Conduit. That's presumably fine.
(This can't land for a while, it depends on about 10 uncommitted revisions.)
Test Plan: Logged out and in again.
Reviewers: wez, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6202
Summary:
Ref T1445. Ref T1536. Although we have separate CSRF protection and have never been vulnerable to OAuth hijacking, properly implementing the "state" parameter provides a little more certainty.
Before OAuth, we set a random value on the client, and pass its hash as the "state" parameter. Upon return, validate that (a) the user has a nonempty "phcid" cookie and (b) the OAuth endpoint passed back the correct state (the hash of that cookie).
Test Plan: Logged in with all OAuth providers, which all apparently support `state`.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran, arice
Maniphest Tasks: T1445, T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6179
Summary:
Ref T1536. None of this code is reachable.
Implements new-auth login (so you can actually login) and login validation (which checks that cookies were set correctly).
Test Plan: Manually enabled FB auth, went through the auth flow to login/logout. Manually hit most of the validation errors.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6162
Summary:
Ref T1536. Code is intentionally made unreachable (see PhabricatorAuthProviderOAuthFacebook->isEnabled()).
This adds:
- A provider-driven "start" screen (this has the list of ways you can login/register).
- Registration actually works.
- Facebook OAuth works.
@chad, do you have any design ideas on the start screen? I think we poked at it before, but the big issue was that there were a limitless number of providers. Today, we have:
- Password
- LDAP
- Facebook
- GitHub
- Phabricator
- Disqus
- Google
We plan to add:
- Asana
- An arbitrary number of additional instances of Phabricator
Users want to add:
- OpenID
- Custom providers
And I'd like to have these at some point:
- Stripe
- WePay
- Amazon
- Bitbucket
So basically any UI for this has to accommodate 300 zillion auth options. I don't think we need to solve any UX problems here (realistically, installs enable 1-2 auth options and users don't actually face an overwhelming number of choices) but making the login forms less ugly would be nice. No combination of prebuilt elements seems to look very good for this use case.
Test Plan: Registered a new acount with Facebook.
Reviewers: btrahan, chad
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6161
