1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://we.phorge.it/source/phorge.git synced 2024-09-22 18:28:47 +02:00
Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
epriestley
068263a6df Move LDAP to new registration flow
Summary:
Ref T1536. LDAP is very likely the worst thing in existence.

This has some rough edges (error handling isn't perfect) but is already better than the current LDAP experience! durrr

Test Plan: Registered and logged in using LDAP.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran, mbishopim3

Maniphest Tasks: T1536

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6177
2013-06-16 10:18:34 -07:00
epriestley
a12a6d5c7d Add Disqus OAuth to new flows
Summary: Ref T1536. Adds Disqus as a Provider.

Test Plan: Registered and logged in with Disqus.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran

Maniphest Tasks: T1536

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6165
2013-06-16 10:16:14 -07:00
epriestley
1329b7b51e Add password authentication and registration to new registration
Summary:
Ref T1536. Ref T1930. Code is not reachable.

This provides password authentication and registration on the new provider/adapter framework.

I sort of cheated a little bit and don't really route any password logic through the adapter (instead, this provider uses an empty adapter and just sets the type/domain on it). I think the right way to do this //conceptually// is to treat username/passwords as an external black box which the adapter communicates with. However, this creates a lot of practical implementation and UX problems:

  - There would basically be two steps -- in the first one, you interact with the "password black box", which behaves like an OAuth provider. This produces some ExternalAccount associated with the username/password pair, then we go into normal registration.
  - In normal registration, we'd proceed normally.

This means:

  - The registration flow would be split into two parts, one where you select a username/password (interacting with the black box) and one where you actually register (interacting with the generic flow). This is unusual and probably confusing for users.
  - We would need to do a lot of re-hashing of passwords, since passwords currently depend on the username and user PHID, which won't exist yet during registration or the "black box" phase. This is a big mess I don't want to deal with.
  - We hit a weird condition where two users complete step 1 with the same username but don't complete step 2 yet. The box knows about two different copies of the username, with two different passwords. When we arrive at step 2 the second time we have a lot of bad choices about how to reoslve it, most of which create security problems. The most stragihtforward and "pure" way to resolve the issues is to put password-auth usernames in a separate space, but this would be incredibly confusuing to users (your login name might not be the same as your username, which is bizarre).
  - If we change this, we need to update all the other password-related code, which I don't want to bother with (at least for now).

Instead, let registration know about a "default" registration controller (which is always password, if enabled), and let it require a password. This gives us a much simpler (albeit slightly less pure) implementation:

  - All the fields are on one form.
  - Password adapter is just a shell.
  - Password provider does the heavy lifting.

We might make this more pure at some point, but I'm generally pretty satisfied with this.

This doesn't implement the brute-force CAPTCHA protection, that will be coming soon.

Test Plan: Registered with password only and logged in with a password. Hit various error conditions.

Reviewers: btrahan

Reviewed By: btrahan

CC: aran, chad

Maniphest Tasks: T1536, T1930

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6164
2013-06-16 10:15:49 -07:00