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 D19901. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Currently, the MFA code and the (older, not-really-transactional) token code don't play nicely.
In particular, if the Editor throws we tend to get half an effect applied.
For now, just make this work. Some day it could become more modern so that the transaction actually applies the write.
Test Plan: Awarded and rescinded tokens from an MFA-required object.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19902
Summary:
Depends on D19900. Ref T13222. See PHI873. When an object requires MFA, we currently require MFA for every transaction.
This includes some ambiguous cases like "unsubscribe", but also includes "mention", which seems like clearly bad behavior.
Allow an "MFA" object to be the target of mentions, "edit child tasks", etc.
Test Plan:
- Mentioned an MFA object elsewhere (no MFA prompt).
- Made an MFA object a subtask of a non-MFA object (no MFA prompt).
- Tried to edit an MFA object normally (still got an MFA prompt).
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19901
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 D19898. Ref T13222. See PHI873. Allow objects to opt into an "MFA is required for all edits" mode.
Put tasks in this mode if they're in a status that specifies it is an `mfa` status.
This is still a little rough for now:
- There's no UI hint that you'll have to MFA. I'll likely add some hinting in a followup.
- All edits currently require MFA, even subscribe/unsubscribe. We could maybe relax this if it's an issue.
Test Plan:
- Edited an MFA-required object via comments, edit forms, and most/all of the extensions. These prompted for MFA, then worked correctly.
- Tried to edit via Conduit, failed with a reasonably comprehensible error.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19899
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:
See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/how-to-get-total-time-spent-on-a-task-in-minutes-or-hours/2241>.
Phrequent has two nearly-identical copies of its rendering code: one for old "property event" objects and one for newer "curtain" objects. In the upstream, both trackable object types (tasks and revisions) use curtains, so throw away the old code since it isn't reachable. Third-party trackable objects can update to the curtain UI, but it's unlikely they exist.
Render the remaining curtain UI with more precision, so we show "Time Spent: 2d, 11h, 49m" instead of "Time Spent: 2d".
Test Plan: {F6074404}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19927
Summary:
Depends on D19928. See <https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/firehose-webhook-not-working-with-self-hosted-requestbin-instance/2240/>.
Currently, we report "hook" and "silent", which are raw internal codes.
Instead, report human-readable labels so the user gets a better hint about what's going on ("In Silent Mode").
Also, render a "hey, you're in silent mode so none of this will work" reminder banner in this UI.
Test Plan:
{F6074421}
Note:
- New warning banner.
- Table has more human-readable text ("In Silent Mode").
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19929
Summary: Ref T11351. We only query for images by PHID or by Mock, so the only key we need for now is `<mockPHID>`.
Test Plan: Ran `bin/storage upgrade`.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19934
Summary:
Depends on D19924. Ref T11351. Like in D19924, apply these transactions by accepting PHIDs instead of objects so we don't need to juggle the `Image` objects down to PHIDs in `applyInitialEffects`.
(Validation is a little light here for now, but only first-party code can reach this, and you can't violate policies or do anything truly bad even if you could pick values to feed in here.)
Test Plan: Created and edited Mocks; added, removed, and reordered images in a Pholio Mock.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19926
Summary:
Depends on D19923. Ref T11351. Currently, this transaction takes an `Image` as the `newValue` and uses some magic to reduce it into PHIDs by the time we're done.
This creates some problems today where I'd like to get rid of `applyInitialEffects` for MFA code. In the future, it creates a problem becuase there's no way to pass an entire `Image` object over the API.
Instead, create the `Image` first, then just provide the PHID. This is generally simpler, will work well with the API in the future, and stops us from needing any `applyInitialEffects` stuff.
Test Plan: Replaced images in a Pholio mock.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19924
Summary: Depends on D19922. Ref T11351. These query classes have some slightly weird behavior, including `public static function loadImages(...)`. Convert all this stuff into more standard query patterns.
Test Plan: Grepped for callsites, browsed around in Pholio.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19923
Summary: Depends on D19921. Ref T11351. Ref T13065. Update Pholio to use the shared mail infrastructure. See D19670 for a previous change in this vein.
Test Plan: Ran upgrade, spot-checked that everything made it into the new table alive.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13065, T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19922
Summary:
Depends on D19920. Ref T11351. Currently, "images" and "all images" are attached to Mocks separately, and `getImages()` gets you only some images.
Clean this up slightly:
- One attach method; attach everything.
- Two getters, one for "images" (returns all images); one for "active images" (returns active images).
Test Plan: Browsed around Pholio without any apparent behavioral changes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19921
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 D19914. Ref T11351. Some of the Phoilo rabbit holes go very deep.
`PhabricatorApplicationTransactionInterface` currently requires you to implement `willRenderTimeline()`. Almost every object just implements this as `return $timeline`; only Pholio, Diffusion, and Differential specialize it. In all cases, they are specializing it mostly to render inline comments.
The actual implementations are a bit of a weird mess and the way the data is threaded through the call stack is weird and not very modern.
Try to clean this up:
- Stop requiring `willRenderTimeline()` to be implemented.
- Stop requiring `getApplicationTransactionViewObject()` to be implemented (only the three above, plus Legalpad, implement this, and Legalpad's implementation is a no-op). These two methods are inherently pretty coupled for almost any reasonable thing you might want to do with the timeline.
- Simplify the handling of "renderdata" and call it "View Data". This is additional information about the current view of the transaction timeline that is required to render it correctly. This is only used in Differential, to decide if we can link an inline comment to an anchor on the same page or should link it to another page. We could perhaps do this on the client instead, but having this data doesn't seem inherently bad to me.
- If objects want to customize timeline rendering, they now implement `PhabricatorTimelineInterface` and provide a `TimelineEngine` which gets a nice formal stack.
This leaves a lot of empty `willRenderTimeline()` implementations hanging around. I'll remove these in the next change, it's just going to be deleting a couple dozen copies of an identical empty method implementation.
Test Plan:
- Viewed audits, revisions, and mocks with inline comments.
- Used "Show Older" to page a revision back in history (this is relevant for "View Data").
- Grepped for symbols: willRenderTimeline, getApplicationTransactionViewObject, Legalpad classes.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19918
Summary:
Ref T11351. In Pholio, we currently use a `mockID`, but a `mockPHID` is generally preferable / more modern / more flexible. In particular, we need PHIDs to load handles and prefer PHIDs when exposing information to the API, and using PHIDs internally makes a bunch of things easier/better/faster and ~nothing harder/worse/slower.
I'll add some inlines about a few things.
Test Plan: Ran migrations, spot-checked database for sanity. Loaded Pholio, saw data unchanged. Created and edited images.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19914
Summary: Depends on D19895. Ref T13222. This is a simple behavioral improvement for the current MFA implementation in Legalpad: don't MFA the user and //then// realize that they forgot to actually check the box.
Test Plan:
- Submitted form without the box checked, got an error saying "check the box" instead of MFA.
- Submitted the form with the box checked, got an MFA prompt.
- Passed the MFA gate, got a signed form.
- Tried to sign another form, hit MFA timed lockout.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13222
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19896
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:
Fixes https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/error-on-project-creation-or-edition-with-php7-3/2236
I didn't actually repro this because I don't have php 7.3 installed. I'm also not sure if the `break; break` was intentional or not, since I'm not sure you could ever reach two consecutive break statements.
Test Plan: Created some projects. Didn't actually try to hit the code that fires if you're making a project both a subproject and a milestone.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19925
Summary: Suppress an unhelpful Almanac transaction and document the location of the secret clustering management capability. I thought maybe implementing `shouldHide` and checking for `isCreate` would work, but the binding apparently gets created before an interface is bound to it.
Test Plan: Looked at a fresh binding and didn't see "Unknown Object(??)", ran bin/diviner and saw expected output.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19917
Summary:
Depends on D19912. Ref T11351. Images currently use `getMock()->getPolicy()` stuff to define policies. This causes bugs with object policies like "Subscribers", since the policy engine tries to evaluate the subscribers //for the image// when the intent is to evaluate the subscribers for the mock.
Move this to ExtendedPolicies to fix the behavior, and give Images sensible policy behavior when they aren't attached to a mock (specifically: only the user who created the image can see it).
Test Plan: Applied migrations, created and edited mocks and images without anything blowing up. Set mock visibility to "Subscribers", everything worked great.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19913
Summary: Depends on D19911. Ref T11351. `MarkupInterface` has mostly been replaced with `PHUIRemarkupView`, and isn't really doing anything for us here. Get rid of it to simplify the code.
Test Plan: Viewed various mocks with descriptions and image descriptions, saw remarkup presented properly.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19912
Summary: Depends on D19910. Ref T11351. Minor changes to make this behave in a more modern way.
Test Plan:
- Destroyed a mock.
- Lipsum'd a mock.
- Poked around, edited/viewed mocks.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19911
Summary:
Ref T11351. My end goal is to remove `applyInitialEffects()` from Pholio to clear the way for D19897.
Start with some query modernization.
Test Plan: Browsed Pholio, nothing appeared to have changed.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T11351
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19910
Summary:
See https://discourse.phabricator-community.org/t/typeahead-returning-only-archived-results/2220. Ref T12538.
If a user has more than 100 disabled projects matching their search term, only disabled projects will be returned in the typeahead search results.
Test Plan: Harcoded hard limit in `PhabricatorTypeaheadModularDatasourceController` to force truncation of search results, observed active project on top of results as expected.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Maniphest Tasks: T12538
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19907
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: Continue clean up of super-old code. I am pretty proud of "defrocked", but would also consider "dethroned", "ousted", "unseated", "unmade", or "disenfranchised". I feel like there's a word for being kicked out of Hogwarts and having your wizarding powers revoked, but it is not leaping to mind.
Test Plan: Promoted/demoted users to/from admin, attempted to demote myself and observed preserved witty text, checked user timelines, checked feed, checked DB for sanity, including `user_logs`. I didn't test exposing this via Conduit to attempt promoting a user without having admin access.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19891
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: I added this recently for debugging test notifications, but goofed up the markup, thought it was just some weird layout issue, and never got back to it.
Test Plan: {F6063455}
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19892
Summary: Cleaning up more super-old code from `PhabricatorUserEditor`. Also fix user logging in approve transactions. I'm not sure how it worked at all previously.
Test Plan: Created new users, renamed them, checked DB for sanity. Entered invalid names, duplicate names, and empty names, got appropriate error messages.
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
Subscribers: Korvin
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19887
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 T13218. This is the last public-facing API call for `loadRelatives/loadOneRelative`. This just "primed" objects to make the other calls work and had no direct effects.
Test Plan:
- Ran `bin/fact analyze`.
- Used `bin/storage upgrade -f --apply` to apply `20181031.board.01.queryreset.php`, which uses `LiskMigrationIterator`.
- Browsed user list.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: yelirekim
Maniphest Tasks: T13218
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19878
Summary: Ref T13218. This is like `loadOneWhere(...)` but with more dark magic. Get rid of it.
Test Plan:
- Forced `20130219.commitsummarymig.php` to hit this code and ran it with `bin/storage upgrade --force --apply ...`.
- Ran `20130409.commitdrev.php` with `bin/storage upgrade --force --apply ...`.
- Called `user.search` to indirectly get primary email information.
- Did not test Releeph at all.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Subscribers: PHID-OPKG-gm6ozazyms6q6i22gyam
Maniphest Tasks: T13218
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19876
Summary: Ref T13218. See that task for some discussion. `loadRelatives()` is like `loadAllWhere(...)` except that it does enormous amounts of weird magic which we've moved away from.
Test Plan: Did not test whatsoever since these changes are in Releeph.
Reviewers: amckinley
Reviewed By: amckinley
Maniphest Tasks: T13218
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19874
