Discourse has the Discourse Connect Provider protocol that makes it possible to
use a Discourse instance as an identity provider for external sites. As a
natural extension to this protocol, this PR adds a new feature that makes it
possible to use Discourse as a 2FA provider as well as an identity provider.
The rationale for this change is that it's very difficult to implement 2FA
support in a website and if you have multiple websites that need to have 2FA,
it's unrealistic to build and maintain a separate 2FA implementation for each
one. But with this change, you can piggyback on Discourse to take care of all
the 2FA details for you for as many sites as you wish.
To use Discourse as a 2FA provider, you'll need to follow this guide:
https://meta.discourse.org/t/-/32974. It walks you through what you need to
implement on your end/site and how to configure your Discourse instance. Once
you're done, there is only one additional thing you need to do which is to
include `require_2fa=true` in the payload that you send to Discourse.
When Discourse sees `require_2fa=true`, it'll prompt the user to confirm their
2FA using whatever methods they've enabled (TOTP or security keys), and once
they confirm they'll be redirected back to the return URL you've configured and
the payload will contain `confirmed_2fa=true`. If the user has no 2FA methods
enabled however, the payload will not contain `confirmed_2fa`, but it will
contain `no_2fa_methods=true`.
You'll need to be careful to re-run all the security checks and ensure the user
can still access the resource on your site after they return from Discourse.
This is very important because there's nothing that guarantees the user that
will come back from Discourse after they confirm 2FA is the same user that
you've redirected to Discourse.
Internal ticket: t62183.
* FEATURE: Let sites add a sitemap.xml file.
This PR adds the same features discourse-sitemap provides to core. Sitemaps are only added to the robots.txt file if the `enable_sitemap` setting is enabled and `login_required` disabled.
After merging discourse/discourse-sitemap#34, this change will take priority over the sitemap plugin because it will disable itself. We're also using the same sitemaps table, so our migration won't try to create it
again using `if_not_exists: true`.
Previous to this change if any of the assets were not allowed extensions
they would simply be silently ignored, this could lead to broken themes
that are very hard to debug
This commit introduces a new use_polymorphic_bookmarks site setting
that is default false and hidden, that will be used to help continuous
development of polymorphic bookmarks. This setting **should not** be
enabled anywhere in production yet, it is purely for local development.
This commit uses the setting to enable create/update/delete actions
for polymorphic bookmarks on the server and client side. The bookmark
interactions on topics/posts are all usable. Listing, searching,
sending bookmark reminders, and other edge cases will be handled
in subsequent PRs.
Comprehensive UI tests will be added in the final PR -- we already
have them for regular bookmarks, so it will just be a matter of
changing them to be for polymorphic bookmarks.
Tags (and tag groups) can be configured so that they can only be used in specific categories and (optionally) restrict topics in these categories to be able to add/use only these tags. These restrictions work as expected when a topic is created without going through the review queue; however, if the topic has to be reviewed by a moderator then these restrictions currently aren't checked before the topic is sent to the review queue, but they're checked later when a moderator tries to approve the topic. This is because if a user manages to submit a topic that doesn't meet the restrictions, moderators won't be able to approve and it'll be stuck in the review queue.
This PR prevents topics that don't meet the tags requirements from being sent to the review queue and shows the poster an error message that indicates which tags that cannot be used.
Internal ticket: t60562.
Previously, if an admin user tried to add/remove
users to another user's ignored list, it would
be added to their own ignore list because the
controller used current_user. Now for admins only
a source_user_id parameter can be passed through,
which will be used to ignore the target user for
that source user.
When creating files with create-multipart, if the file
size was somehow zero we were showing a very unhelpful
error message to the user. Now we show a nicer message,
and proactively don't call the API if we know the file
size is 0 bytes in JS, along with extra console logging
to help with debugging.
This PR adds an extra description to the 2FA page when granting a user admin access. It also introduces a general system for adding customized descriptions that can be used by future actions.
(Follow-up to dd6ec65061)
* FEATURE: upload an avatar option for uploading avatars with selectable avatars
Allow staff or users at or above a trust level to upload avatars even when the site
has selectable avatars enabled.
Everyone can still pick from the list of avatars. The option to upload is shown
below the selectable avatar list.
refactored boolean site setting into an enum with the following values:
disabled: No selectable avatars enabled (default)
everyone: Show selectable avatars, and allow everyone to upload custom avatars
tl1: Show selectable avatars, but require tl1+ and staff to upload custom avatars
tl2: Show selectable avatars, but require tl2+ and staff to upload custom avatars
tl3: Show selectable avatars, but require tl3+ and staff to upload custom avatars
tl4: Show selectable avatars, but require tl4 and staff to upload custom avatars
staff: Show selectable avatars, but only allow staff to upload custom avatars
no_one: Show selectable avatars. No users can upload custom avatars
Co-authored-by: Régis Hanol <regis@hanol.fr>
Similar site settings exist for likes and edits and the new ones work
in a similar way.
By default, users below TL2 have a limit of 20, the limit is increased
by 1.5 for TL2 users up to 30, by 2 for TL3 users up to 40 and by 3 for
TL4 users up to 60.
2FA support in Discourse was added and grown gradually over the years: we first
added support for TOTP for logins, then we implemented backup codes, and last
but not least, security keys. 2FA usage was initially limited to logging in,
but it has been expanded and we now require 2FA for risky actions such as
adding a new admin to the site.
As a result of this gradual growth of the 2FA system, technical debt has
accumulated to the point where it has become difficult to require 2FA for more
actions. We now have 5 different 2FA UI implementations and each one has to
support all 3 2FA methods (TOTP, backup codes, and security keys) which makes
it difficult to maintain a consistent UX for these different implementations.
Moreover, there is a lot of repeated logic in the server-side code behind these
5 UI implementations which hinders maintainability even more.
This commit is the first step towards repaying the technical debt: it builds a
system that centralizes as much as possible of the 2FA server-side logic and
UI. The 2 main components of this system are:
1. A dedicated page for 2FA with support for all 3 methods.
2. A reusable server-side class that centralizes the 2FA logic (the
`SecondFactor::AuthManager` class).
From a top-level view, the 2FA flow in this new system looks like this:
1. User initiates an action that requires 2FA;
2. Server is aware that 2FA is required for this action, so it redirects the
user to the 2FA page if the user has a 2FA method, otherwise the action is
performed.
3. User submits the 2FA form on the page;
4. Server validates the 2FA and if it's successful, the action is performed and
the user is redirected to the previous page.
A more technically-detailed explanation/documentation of the new system is
available as a comment at the top of the `lib/second_factor/auth_manager.rb`
file. Please note that the details are not set in stone and will likely change
in the future, so please don't use the system in your plugins yet.
Since this is a new system that needs to be tested, we've decided to migrate
only the 2FA for adding a new admin to the new system at this time (in this
commit). Our plan is to gradually migrate the remaining 2FA implementations to
the new system.
For screenshots of the 2FA page, see PR #15377 on GitHub.
* FIX: Don't accept accents in slug if generation_method == 'ascii'
Fixes bug reported in:
- https://meta.discourse.org/t/404-when-trying-to-edit-category-with-accent-in-slug/214762
- https://meta.discourse.org/t/formatting-and-accents-in-urls/215734/5
Assuming `SiteSetting.slug_generation_method == 'ascii'.
If the user provides a slug containing non-ascii characters while
creating the category, the user will receive a 404 error just
after saving the category since the slug will be escaped anyway but
Category.find_by_slug_path won't escape the category slug
causing the Edit Page of the category to be inaccessible.
This commit checks the provided slug and raises an error if the
provided slugcontains non-ascii characters ensuring that the
provided value is consistent with the site settings.
It also changes Category.find_by_slug_path to always escape the slug,
since if present, it is escaped anyway in Category.ensure_slug to
prevent the 404 in the Edit Category Page in case the user already
have some category with a non-ascii slug.
* Removed trailing whitespace
This can happen if the topic to which a user is invited is in a private
category and the user was not invited to one of the groups that can see
that specific category.
This used to be a warning and this commit makes it an error.
Inspired by [this suggestion](https://meta.discourse.org/t/what-is-a-here-mention/217878/3) from G Ann Campbell
> I suppose the description of the “here mention” field could be improved to something like:
> "Name used for @here mention to allow a privileged user to notify up to 10 people participating in the thread. Must not…"
Allows to write custom code blocks:
```
```mermaid height=200,foo=bar
test
```
```
Which will then get converted to:
```
<pre data-code-wrap="mermaid" data-code-height="200" data-code-foo="bar">
<code class="lang-nohighlight">
test
</code>
</pre>
```
* Chinese segmenetation will continue to rely on cppjieba
* Japanese segmentation will use our port of TinySegmenter
* Korean currently does not rely on segmentation which was dropped in c677877e4f
* SiteSetting.search_tokenize_chinese_japanese_korean has been split
into SiteSetting.search_tokenize_chinese and
SiteSetting.search_tokenize_japanese respectively
- Limit bulk re-invite to 1 time per day
- Move bulk invite by csv behind a site setting (hidden by default)
- Bump invite expiry from 30 -> 90 days
## Updates to rate_limiter
When limiting reinvites I found that **staff** are never limited in any way. So I updated the **rate_limiter** model to allow for a few things:
- add an optional param of `staff_limit`, which (when included and passed values, and the user passes `.staff?`) will override the default `max` & `secs` values and apply them to the user.
- in the case you **do** pass values to `staff_limit` but the user **does not** pass `staff?` the standard `max` & `secs` values will be applied to the user.
This should give us enough flexibility to
1. continue to apply a strict rate limit to a standard user
2. but also apply a secondary (less strict) limit to staff
This commit adds a check that runs regularly as per
2d68e5d942 which tests the
credentials of groups with SMTP or IMAP enabled. If any issues
are found with those credentials a high priority problem is added to the
admin dashboard.
This commit also formats the admin dashboard differently if
there are high priority problems, bringing them to the top of
the list and highlighting them.
The problem will be cleared if the issue is fixed before the next
problem check, or if the group's settings are updated with a valid
credential.
* FEATURE: hide_email_address_taken forces use of email in forgot password form
This strengthens this site setting which is meant to be used to harden sites
that are experiencing abuse on forgot password routes.
Previously we would only deny letting people know if forgot password worked on not
New change also bans usage of username for forgot password when enabled
We send the reminder using the GroupMessage class, which supports removing previous messages. We can't match them by raw because they could mention different moderators. Also, I had to change the subject to remove dynamically generated values, which is necessary for finding them.
This commit introduces a new site setting "google_oauth2_hd_groups". If enabled, group information will be fetched from Google during authentication, and stored in the Discourse database. These 'associated groups' can be connected to a Discourse group via the "Membership" tab of the group preferences UI.
The majority of the implementation is generic, so we will be able to add support to more authentication methods in the near future.
https://meta.discourse.org/t/managing-group-membership-via-authentication/175950
We don't need it anymore. Actually, I removed using of it on the client side a long time ago, when I was working on improving blank page syndrome on user activity pages (see https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/14311).
This PR also removes some old resource strings that we don't use anymore. We have new strings for blank pages.
We have a couple of site setting, `slow_down_crawler_user_agents` and `slow_down_crawler_rate`, that are meant to allow site owners to signal to specific crawlers that they're crawling the site too aggressively and that they should slow down.
When a crawler is added to the `slow_down_crawler_user_agents` setting, Discourse currently adds a `Crawl-delay` directive for that crawler in `/robots.txt`. Unfortunately, many crawlers don't support the `Crawl-delay` directive in `/robots.txt` which leaves the site owners no options if a crawler is crawling the site too aggressively.
This PR replaces the `Crawl-delay` directive with proper rate limiting for crawlers added to the `slow_down_crawler_user_agents` list. On every request made by a non-logged in user, Discourse will check the User Agent string and if it contains one of the values of the `slow_down_crawler_user_agents` list, Discourse will only allow 1 request every N seconds for that User Agent (N is the value of the `slow_down_crawler_rate` setting) and the rest of requests made within the same interval will get a 429 response.
The `slow_down_crawler_user_agents` setting becomes quite dangerous with this PR since it could rate limit lots if not all of anonymous traffic if the setting is not used appropriately. So to protect against this scenario, we've added a couple of new validations to the setting when it's changed:
1) each value added to setting must 3 characters or longer
2) each value cannot be a substring of tokens found in popular browser User Agent. The current list of prohibited values is: apple, windows, linux, ubuntu, gecko, firefox, chrome, safari, applewebkit, webkit, mozilla, macintosh, khtml, intel, osx, os x, iphone, ipad and mac.
When this setting is turned on, it will check that normalized emails
are unique. Normalized emails are emails without any dots or plus
aliases.
This setting can be used to block use of aliases of the same email
address.
Use @here to mention all users that were allowed to topic directly or
through group, who liked topics or read the topic. Only first 10 users
will be notified.
When rendering the markdown code blocks we replace the
offending characters in the output string with spans highlighting a textual
representation of the character, along with a title attribute with
information about why the character was highlighted.
The list of characters stripped by this fix, which are the bidirectional
characters considered relevant, are:
U+202A
U+202B
U+202C
U+202D
U+202E
U+2066
U+2067
U+2068
U+2069
* FIX: small copy fix for embedding.sample
* FIX: improve copy for site_description and short_site_description
As part of the setup wizard, improve the description of these two
strings to add context on where they will be used, so that it is
clearer how to write each one.
Meta discussion: https://meta.discourse.org/t/unclear-double-question-in-setup-wizard/208344/
