Summary:
Fixes T3732. Ref T1205. Ref T3116.
External accounts (like emails used as identities, Facebook accounts, LDAP accounts, etc.) are stored in "ExternalAccount" objects.
Currently, we have a very restrictive `CAN_VIEW` policy for ExternalAccounts, to add an extra layer of protection to make sure users can't use them in unintended ways. For example, it would be bad if a user could link their Phabricator account to a Facebook account without proper authentication. All of the controllers which do sensitive things have checks anyway, but a restrictive CAN_VIEW provided an extra layer of protection. Se T3116 for some discussion.
However, this means that when grey/external users take actions (via email, or via applications like Legalpad) other users can't load the account handles and can't see anything about the actor (they just see "Restricted External Account" or similar).
Balancing these concerns is mostly about not making a huge mess while doing it. This seems like a reasonable approach:
- Add `CAN_EDIT` on these objects.
- Make that very restricted, but open up `CAN_VIEW`.
- Require `CAN_EDIT` any time we're going to do something authentication/identity related.
This is slightly easier to get wrong (forget CAN_EDIT) than other approaches, but pretty simple, and we always have extra checks in place anyway -- this is just a safety net.
I'm not quite sure how we should identify external accounts, so for now we're just rendering "Email User" or similar -- clearly not a bug, but not identifying. We can figure out what to render in the long term elsewhere.
Test Plan:
- Viewed external accounts.
- Linked an external account.
- Refreshed an external account.
- Edited profile picture.
- Viewed sessions panel.
- Published a bunch of stuff to Asana/JIRA.
- Legalpad signature page now shows external accounts.
{F171595}
Reviewers: chad, btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3732, T1205, T3116
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D9767
Summary:
Ref T4371. Ref T4699. Fixes T3994.
Currently, we're very conservative about sending errors back to users. A concern I had about this was that mistakes could lead to email loops, massive amounts of email spam, etc. Because of this, I was pretty hesitant about replying to email with more email when I wrote this stuff.
However, this was a long time ago. We now have Message-ID deduplication, "X-Phabricator-Sent-This-Mail", generally better mail infrastructure, and rate limiting. Together, these mechanisms should reasonably prevent anything crazy (primarily, infinite email loops) from happening.
Thus:
- When we hit any processing error after receiving a mail, try to send the author a reply with details about what went wrong. These are limited to 6 per hour per address.
- Rewrite most of the errors to be more detailed and informative.
- Rewrite most of the errors in a user-facing voice ("You sent this mail..." instead of "This mail was sent..").
- Remove the redundant, less sophisticated code which does something similar in Differential.
Test Plan:
- Using `scripts/mail/mail_receiver.php`, artificially received a pile of mail.
- Hit a bunch of different errors.
- Saw reasonable error mail get sent to me.
- Saw other reasonable error mail get rate limited.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
Subscribers: epriestley
Maniphest Tasks: T3994, T4371, T4699
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8692
Summary:
There are quite a few tests in Arcanist, libphutil and Phabricator that do something similar to `$this->assertEqual(false, ...)` or `$this->assertEqual(true, ...)`.
This is unnecessarily verbose and it would be cleaner if we had `assertFalse` and `assertTrue` methods.
Test Plan: I contemplated adding a unit test for the `getCallerInfo` method but wasn't sure if it was required / where it should live.
Reviewers: epriestley, #blessed_reviewers
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D8460
Summary: Adds "verified" and "secretKey" to Legalpad document signatures. For logged in users using an email address they own, things are verified right away. Otherwise, the email is sent a verification letter. When the user clicks the link the signature is marked verified.
Test Plan: signed the document with a bogus email address not logged in. verified the email that would be sent looked good from command line. followed link and successfully verified bogus email address
Reviewers: epriestley
Reviewed By: epriestley
CC: Korvin, epriestley, aran, asherkin
Maniphest Tasks: T4283
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7930
Summary:
Mailbox sometimes (?) changes the case of the email address (?). Be more liberal in what we accept.
Also fix a minor output bug.
Test Plan: Sent mail to `e1+...` instead of `E1+...`, verified it arrived.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7575
Summary:
Small step forward which improves existing stuff or lays groudwork for future stuff:
- Currently, to check for email verification, we have to single-query the email address on every page. Instead, denoramlize it into the user object.
- Migrate all the existing users.
- When the user verifies an email, mark them as `isEmailVerified` if the email is their primary email.
- Just make the checks look at the `isEmailVerified` field.
- Add a new check, `isUserActivated()`, to cover email-verified plus disabled. Currently, a non-verified-but-not-disabled user could theoretically use Conduit over SSH, if anyone deployed it. Tighten that up.
- Add an `isApproved` flag, which is always true for now. In a future diff, I want to add a default-on admin approval queue for new accounts, to prevent configuration mistakes. The way it will work is:
- When the queue is enabled, registering users are created with `isApproved = false`.
- Admins are sent an email, "[Phabricator] New User Approval (alincoln)", telling them that a new user is waiting for approval.
- They go to the web UI and approve the user.
- Manually-created accounts are auto-approved.
- The email will have instructions for disabling the queue.
I think this queue will be helpful for new installs and give them peace of mind, and when you go to disable it we have a better opportunity to warn you about exactly what that means.
Generally, I want to improve the default safety of registration, since if you just blindly coast through the path of least resistance right now your install ends up pretty open, and realistically few installs are on VPNs.
Test Plan:
- Ran migration, verified `isEmailVerified` populated correctly.
- Created a new user, checked DB for verified (not verified).
- Verified, checked DB (now verified).
- Used Conduit, People, Diffusion.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: chad, aran
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D7572
Summary:
Ref T1536. This is the schema code for `PhabricatorExternalAccount` which was previously in D4647. I'm splitting it out so I can put it earlier in the sequence and because it's simple and standalone.
Expands `PhabricatorExternalAccount` to have everything we need for the rest of registration.
Test Plan: Implemented the remainder of new registration on top of this.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1536
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D6169
Summary:
Moves all remaining mail handling into ReplyHandlers.
Farewell, `getPhabricatorToInformation()`! You were a bad method and no one liked you.
Ref T1205.
Test Plan:
- Used test console to send mail to Revisions, Tasks, Conpherences and Commits (these all actually work).
- Used test console to send mail to Requests, Macros, Questions and Mocks (these accept the mail but don't do anything with it, but didn't do anything before either).
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5953
Summary: Ref T1205. Moves the handling logic for these email types to reply handlers.
Test Plan: Used test form to send conpherence and maniphest mail.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5945
Summary: Currently this is fairly hard-coded. Instead, make it use available receivers. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Used mail form to send mail to various objects (Dnn, Tnn, Cnn, etc.). Only some of these work right now because the receiver thing still hard-codes a bunch of junk.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5944
Summary:
Ref T1205. Finally able to delete a big chunk of this nastiness.
Make MailReceivers responsible for validating senders. For object creation receivers (bugs, conpherences) this just means that users must not be disabled. For other receivers the senders must be able to see the objects, have the right hashes, etc., according to policy.
Test Plan: Added a bunch of test cases (everything except policy). Verified behavior via the Receive test console.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5943
Summary: Copies sender identification logic into MailReceivers and makes it basically sane. The mess we run into after this try/catch is terrifying so I'm avoiding actually getting rid of any of it quite yet. Ref T1205.
Test Plan: Added a bit of test coverage. Used Receiver test console to verify some additional behaviors.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: Afaque_Hussain, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5931
Summary: Ref T3183. We should accept addresses like `"New Bug" <bugs@example.com>` to match `bugs@example.com`.
Test Plan: Ran unit tests.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: aran
Maniphest Tasks: T3183
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5923
Summary:
Ref T1205. Continuation of D5915.
Currently, `PhabricatorMetaMTAReceivedMail` has //all// the logic for routing mail. In particular:
- New mail receivers in applications must edit it.
- Mail receivers don't drop out when applications are uninstalled.
Applications have some logic in subclasses of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler`, but this class is a bit of a mess. It is also heavily based on the assumption that mail receivers are objects (like revisions), but this is not true in at least two cases today (creating new tasks with `bugs@`, creating a new Conpherence thread) and likely other cases in the future (e.g., revision-by-mail).
Move this logic into a new `PhabricatorMailReceiver` classtree. This is similar to `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` but a bit cleaner and more general. I plan to heavily reduce the responsibilities of `PhabricatorMailReplyHandler` or possibly eliminate it entirely.
For now, the new classtree doesn't do much of interest. The only behavioral change this diff causes is that Phabricator will now reject mail to an application when that application is uninstalled.
I also moved all the `ReplyHandler` classes into `mail/` directories in their respective applications.
Test Plan: Unit tests, used receive test to route mail to various objects.
Reviewers: btrahan
Reviewed By: btrahan
CC: Afaque_Hussain, edward, aran
Maniphest Tasks: T1205
Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D5922
