9 Commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
epriestley
ce6fc5be90 Fix a looping workflow when trying to submit a partially-effectless transaction group
Summary:
Ref T13289. If you do this:

  - Subscribe to a task (so we don't generate a subscribe side-effect later).
  - Prepare a transaction group: sign with MFA, change projects (don't make any changes), add a comment.
  - Submit the transaction group.

...you'll get prompted "Some actions don't have any effect (the non-change to projects), apply remaining effects?".

If you confirm, you get MFA'd, but the MFA flow loses the "continue" confirmation, so you get trapped in a workflow loop of confirming and MFA'ing.

Instead, retain the "continue" bit through the MFA.

Also, don't show "You can't sign an empty transaction group" if there's a comment.

See also T13295, since the amount of magic here can probably be reduced. There's likely little reason for "continue" or "hisec" to be magic nowadays.

Test Plan:
  - Went through the workflow above.
  - Before: looping workflow.
  - After: "Continue" carries through the MFA gate.

Reviewers: amckinley

Reviewed By: amckinley

Maniphest Tasks: T13289

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20552
2019-05-23 19:16:17 -07:00
epriestley
13e4aeb590 Give MFA gates a more consistent UI
Summary: Depends on D20057. Currently, we show an "MFA" message on one of these and an "Error" message on the other, with different icons and colors. Use "MFA" for both, with the MFA icon / color.

Test Plan: Hit both varations, saw more consistency.

Reviewers: amckinley

Reviewed By: amckinley

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D20059
2019-01-30 06:16:32 -08:00
epriestley
c9ff6ce390 Add CSRF to SMS challenges, and pave the way for more MFA types (including Duo)
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
2019-01-24 15:10:57 -08:00
epriestley
1c89b3175f Improve UI messaging around "one-shot" vs "session upgrade" MFA
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
2018-12-28 00:11:36 -08:00
epriestley
b8cbfda07c Track MFA "challenges" so we can bind challenges to sessions and support SMS and other push MFA
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
2018-12-17 07:00:21 -08:00
epriestley
9481b9eff1 Allow "Can Configure Application" permissions to be configured
Summary:
Ref T13216. See PHI980. Currently, each application in {nav Applications > X > Configure} has a "Can Configure Application" permission which is hard-coded to "Administrators".

There's no technical reason for this, there just hasn't been a great use case for unlocking it. I think when I originally wrote it our protections against locking yourself out of things weren't that great (i.e., it was easier to set the policy to something that prevented you from editing it after the new policy took effect). Our protections are better now.

The major goal here is to let installs open up Custom Forms for given applications (mostly Maniphest) to more users, but the other options mostly go hand-in-hand with that.

Also, in developer mode, include stack traces for policy exceptions. This makes debugging weird stuff (like the indirect Config application errors here) easier.

Test Plan:
  - Granted "Can Configure Application" for Maniphest to all users.
  - Edited custom forms as a non-administrator.
  - Configured Maniphest as a non-administrator.
  - Installed/uninstalled Maniphest as a non-administrator.
  - Tried to lock myself out (got an error message).

{F6015721}

Reviewers: amckinley, joshuaspence

Reviewed By: joshuaspence

Subscribers: joshuaspence

Maniphest Tasks: T13216

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D19822
2018-11-19 07:25:41 -08:00
epriestley
c71d9c601f Pass all Throwables to Exception Handlers, not just Exceptions
Summary:
Ref T12855. PHP7 introduced "Throwables", which are sort of like super exceptions. Some errors that PHP raises at runtime have become Throwables instead of old-school errors now.

The major effect this has is blank pages during development under PHP7 for certain classes of errors: they skip all the nice "show a pretty error" handlers and

This isn't a compelete fix, but catches the most common classes of unexpected Throwable and sends them through the normal machinery. Principally, it shows a nice stack trace again instead of a blank page for a larger class of typos and minor mistakes.

Test Plan:
Before: blank page. After:

{F5007979}

Reviewers: chad, amckinley

Reviewed By: chad

Maniphest Tasks: T12855

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D18136
2017-06-20 05:44:51 -07:00
epriestley
95cf83f14e Convert some whiny exceptions into quiet MalformedRequest exceptions
Summary:
Fixes T11480. This cleans up the error logs a little by quieting three common errors which are really malformed requests:

  - The CSRF error happens when bots hit anything which does write checks.
  - The "wrong cookie domain" errors happen when bots try to use the `security.alternate-file-domain` to browse stuff like `/auth/start/`.
  - The "no phcid" errors happen when bots try to go through the login flow.

All of these are clearly communicated to human users, commonly encountered by bots, and not useful to log.

I collapsed the `CSRFException` type into a standard malformed request exception, since nothing catches it and I can't really come up with a reason why anything would ever care.

Test Plan:
Hit each error through some level of `curl -H ...` and/or fakery. Verified that they showed to users before/after, but no longer log.

Hit some other real errors, verified that they log.

Reviewers: chad

Reviewed By: chad

Maniphest Tasks: T11480

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D16402
2016-08-16 15:50:21 -07:00
epriestley
1fc60a9a6e Modularize Aphront exception handling
Summary:
Ref T1806. Ref T7173. Depends on D14047.

Currently, all exception handling is in this big messy clump in `AphrontDefaultApplicationConfiguration`.

Split it out into modular classes. This will let a future change add new classes in the Phacility cluster which intercept particular exceptions we care about and replaces the default, generic responses with more useful, tailored responses.

Test Plan:
{F777391}

- Hit a Conduit error (made a method throw).
- Hit an Ajax error (made comment preview throw).
- Hit a high security error (tried to edit TOTP).
- Hit a rate limiting error (added a bunch of email addresses).
- Hit a policy error (tried to look at something with no permission).
- Hit an arbitrary exception (made a randomc ontroller throw).

Reviewers: chad

Reviewed By: chad

Maniphest Tasks: T1806, T7173

Differential Revision: https://secure.phabricator.com/D14049
2015-09-03 10:04:42 -07:00