* DEV: Add a dedicated Admin::StaffController base controller
The current parent(Admin:AdminController) for all admin-related controllers
uses a filter that allows only staff(admin, moderator) users.
This refactor makes Admin::AdminController filter for only admins as the name suggests and
introduces a base controller dedicated for staff-related endpoints.
* DEV: Set staff-only controllers parent to Admin::StaffController
Refactor staff-only controllers to inherit newly introduced
Admin::StaffController abstract controller. This conveys the
purpose of the parent controller better unlike the previously used parent
controller.
When calling the API to delete a user:
```
curl -X DELETE "https://discourse.example.com/admin/users/159.json" \
-H "Content-Type: multipart/form-data;" \
-H "Api-Key: ***" \
-H "Api-Username: ***" \
-F "delete_posts=true" \
-F "block_email=false" \
-F "block_urls=false" \
-F "block_ip=false"
```
Setting the parameters `block_email`, `block_urls` and `block_ip`explicitly to `false` did not work because the values weren't being parsed to boolean.
This commit migrates all bookmarks to be polymorphic (using the
bookmarkable_id and bookmarkable_type) columns. It also deletes
all the old code guarded behind the use_polymorphic_bookmarks setting
and changes that setting to true for all sites and by default for
the sake of plugins.
No data is deleted in the migrations, the old post_id and for_topic
columns for bookmarks will be dropped later on.
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.
Discourse users and associated accounts are created or updated when a
user logins or connects the account using their account preferences.
This new API can be used to create associated accounts and users too,
if necessary.
It's very easy to forget to add `require 'rails_helper'` at the top of every core/plugin spec file, and omissions can cause some very confusing/sporadic errors.
By setting this flag in `.rspec`, we can remove the need for `require 'rails_helper'` entirely.
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.
Administrators can use second factor to confirm granting admin access
without using email. The old method of confirmation via email is still
used as a fallback when second factor is unavailable.
* FIX: Revoking admin or moderator status doesn't require refresh to delete/anonymize/merge user
On the /admin/users/<id>/<username> page, there are action buttons that are either visible or hidden depending on a few fields from the AdminDetailsSerializer: `can_be_deleted`, `can_be_anonymized`, `can_be_merged`, `can_delete_all_posts`.
These fields are updated when granting/revoking admin or moderator status. However, those updates were not being reflected on the page. E.g. if a user is granted moderation privileges, the 'anonymize user' and 'merge' buttons still appear on the page, which is inconsistent with the backend state of the user. It requires refreshing the page to update the state.
This commit fixes that issue, by syncing the client model state with the server state when handling a successful response from the server. Now, when revoking privileges, the buttons automatically appear without refreshing the page. Similarly, when granting moderator privileges, the buttons automatically disappear without refreshing the page.
* Add detailed user response to spec for changed routes.
Add tests to verify that the revoke_moderation, grant_moderation, and revoke_admin routes return a response formatted according to the AdminDetailedUserSerializer.
Over the years we accrued many spelling mistakes in the code base.
This PR attempts to fix spelling mistakes and typos in all areas of the code that are extremely safe to change
- comments
- test descriptions
- other low risk areas
This makes behavior consistent with documentation:
API:
> Will send an email with this message when present
Web UI:
> Optionally, provide more information about the suspension and it will be emailed to the user
The 'Discourse SSO' protocol is being rebranded to DiscourseConnect. This should help to reduce confusion when 'SSO' is used in the generic sense.
This commit aims to:
- Rename `sso_` site settings. DiscourseConnect specific ones are prefixed `discourse_connect_`. Generic settings are prefixed `auth_`
- Add (server-side-only) backwards compatibility for the old setting names, with deprecation notices
- Copy `site_settings` database records to the new names
- Rename relevant translation keys
- Update relevant translations
This commit does **not** aim to:
- Rename any Ruby classes or methods. This might be done in a future commit
- Change any URLs. This would break existing integrations
- Make any changes to the protocol. This would break existing integrations
- Change any functionality. Further normalization across DiscourseConnect and other auth methods will be done separately
The risks are:
- There is no backwards compatibility for site settings on the client-side. Accessing auth-related site settings in Javascript is fairly rare, and an error on the client side would not be security-critical.
- If a plugin is monkey-patching parts of the auth process, changes to locale keys could cause broken error messages. This should also be unlikely. The old site setting names remain functional, so security-related overrides will remain working.
A follow-up commit will be made with a post-deploy migration to delete the old `site_settings` rows.
Users could be silenced or suspended by two staff members at the same time and
would not be aware of it. This commit shows an error message if another penalty
has been applied.
These fields are required when using the UI and if `suspend_until`
params isn't used the user never is actually suspended so we should
require these fields when suspending a user.
This reverts commit 20780a1eee.
* SECURITY: re-adds accidentally reverted commit:
03d26cd6: ensure embed_url contains valid http(s) uri
* when the merge commit e62a85cf was reverted, git chose the 2660c2e2 parent to land on
instead of the 03d26cd6 parent (which contains security fixes)
The main thrust of this PR is to take all the conditional checks based on the `enable_bookmarks_with_reminders` away and only keep the code from the `true` path, making bookmarks with reminders the core bookmarks feature. There is also a migration to create `Bookmark` records out of `PostAction` bookmarks for a site.
### Summary
* Remove logic based on whether enable_bookmarks_with_reminders is true. This site setting is now obsolete, the old bookmark functionality is being removed. Retain the setting and set the value to `true` in a migration.
* Use the code from the rake task to create a database migration that creates bookmarks from post actions.
* Change the bookmark report to read from the new table.
* Get rid of old endpoints for bookmarks
* Link to the new bookmarks list from the user summary page
* DEV: Use `render_json_error` (Adds specs for Admin::GroupsController)
* DEV: Use a specific error on blank category slug (Fixes a `render_json_error` warning)
* DEV: Use a specific error on reviewable claim conflict (Fixes a `render_json_error` warning)
* DEV: Use specific errors in Admin::UsersController (Fixes `render_json_error` warnings)
* FIX: PublishedPages error responses
* FIX: TopicsController error responses (There was an issue of two separate `Topic` instances for the same record. This makes sure there's only one up-to-date instance.)
* DEPRECATION: Remove support for api creds in query params
This commit removes support for api credentials in query params except
for a few whitelisted routes like rss/json feeds and the handle_mail
route.
Several tests were written to valid these changes, but the bulk of the
spec changes are just switching them over to use header based auth so
that they will pass without changing what they were actually testing.
Original commit that notified admins this change was coming was created
over 3 months ago: 2db2003187
* fix tests
* Also allow iCalendar feeds
Co-authored-by: Rafael dos Santos Silva <xfalcox@gmail.com>
This commit ensures that an error is thrown when a user fails to be
removed from a group instead of silently failing.
This means when using the api you will receive a 400 instead of a 200 if
there is a failure. The remove group endpoint allows the removal of
multiple users, this change means that if you try to delete 10 users,
but 1 of them fails you will receive a 400 instead of 200 even though
the other 9 were removed successfully. Rather than adding a bunch more
complexity I think this is more than adequate for most use cases.
- Allow revoking keys without deleting them
- Auto-revoke keys after a period of no use (default 6 months)
- Allow multiple keys per user
- Allow attaching a description to each key, for easier auditing
- Log changes to keys in the staff action log
- Move all key management to one place, and improve the UI
