- This is a 'front-port' of the already existing patch on v1.21 and
v1.20, but applied on top of what Gitea has done to rework the LTA
mechanism. Forgejo will stick with the reworked mechanism by the Forgejo
Security team for the time being. The removal of legacy code (AES-GCM) has been
left out.
- The current architecture is inherently insecure, because you can
construct the 'secret' cookie value with values that are available in
the database. Thus provides zero protection when a database is
dumped/leaked.
- This patch implements a new architecture that's inspired from: [Paragonie Initiative](https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies).
- Integration testing is added to ensure the new mechanism works.
- Removes a setting, because it's not used anymore.
(cherry picked from commit e3d6622a63)
(cherry picked from commit fef1a6dac5)
(cherry picked from commit b0c5165145)
(cherry picked from commit 7ad51b9f8d)
(cherry picked from commit 64f053f383)
(cherry picked from commit f5e78e4c20)
Conflicts:
services/auth/auth_token_test.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/2069
(cherry picked from commit f69fc23d4b)
Part of #27065
This reduces the usage of `db.DefaultContext`. I think I've got enough
files for the first PR. When this is merged, I will continue working on
this.
Considering how many files this PR affect, I hope it won't take to long
to merge, so I don't end up in the merge conflict hell.
---------
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Before:
* `{{.locale.Tr ...}}`
* `{{$.locale.Tr ...}}`
* `{{$.root.locale.Tr ...}}`
* `{{template "sub" .}}`
* `{{template "sub" (dict "locale" $.locale)}}`
* `{{template "sub" (dict "root" $)}}`
* .....
With context function: only need to `{{ctx.Locale.Tr ...}}`
The "ctx" could be considered as a super-global variable for all
templates including sub-templates.
To avoid potential risks (any bug in the template context function
package), this PR only starts using "ctx" in "head.tmpl" and
"footer.tmpl" and it has a "DataRaceCheck". If there is anything wrong,
the code can be fixed or reverted easily.
Bumping `github.com/golang-jwt/jwt` from v4 to v5.
`github.com/golang-jwt/jwt` v5 is bringing some breaking changes:
- standard `Valid()` method on claims is removed. It's replaced by
`ClaimsValidator` interface implementing `Validator()` method instead,
which is called after standard validation. Gitea doesn't seem to be
using this logic.
- `jwt.Token` has a field `Valid`, so it's checked in `ParseToken`
function in `services/auth/source/oauth2/token.go`
---------
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
The PKCE flow according to [RFC
7636](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7636) allows for secure
authorization without the requirement to provide a client secret for the
OAuth app.
It is implemented in Gitea since #5378 (v1.8.0), however without being
able to omit client secret.
Since #21316 Gitea supports setting client type at OAuth app
registration.
As public clients are already forced to use PKCE since #21316, in this
PR the client secret check is being skipped if a public client is
detected. As Gitea seems to implement PKCE authorization correctly
according to the spec, this would allow for PKCE flow without providing
a client secret.
Also add some docs for it, please check language as I'm not a native
English speaker.
Closes #17107
Closes #25047
This change prevents Gitea from bypassing the manual approval process
for newly registered users when OIDC is used.
- Resolves https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/23392
Signed-off-by: Gary Moon <gary@garymoon.net>
Close #24062
At the beginning, I just wanted to fix the warning mentioned by #24062
But, the cookie code really doesn't look good to me, so clean up them.
Complete the TODO on `SetCookie`:
> TODO: Copied from gitea.com/macaron/macaron and should be improved
after macaron removed.
To avoid duplicated load of the same data in an HTTP request, we can set
a context cache to do that. i.e. Some pages may load a user from a
database with the same id in different areas on the same page. But the
code is hidden in two different deep logic. How should we share the
user? As a result of this PR, now if both entry functions accept
`context.Context` as the first parameter and we just need to refactor
`GetUserByID` to reuse the user from the context cache. Then it will not
be loaded twice on an HTTP request.
But of course, sometimes we would like to reload an object from the
database, that's why `RemoveContextData` is also exposed.
The core context cache is here. It defines a new context
```go
type cacheContext struct {
ctx context.Context
data map[any]map[any]any
lock sync.RWMutex
}
var cacheContextKey = struct{}{}
func WithCacheContext(ctx context.Context) context.Context {
return context.WithValue(ctx, cacheContextKey, &cacheContext{
ctx: ctx,
data: make(map[any]map[any]any),
})
}
```
Then you can use the below 4 methods to read/write/del the data within
the same context.
```go
func GetContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key any) any
func SetContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key, value any)
func RemoveContextData(ctx context.Context, tp, key any)
func GetWithContextCache[T any](ctx context.Context, cacheGroupKey string, cacheTargetID any, f func() (T, error)) (T, error)
```
Then let's take a look at how `system.GetString` implement it.
```go
func GetSetting(ctx context.Context, key string) (string, error) {
return cache.GetWithContextCache(ctx, contextCacheKey, key, func() (string, error) {
return cache.GetString(genSettingCacheKey(key), func() (string, error) {
res, err := GetSettingNoCache(ctx, key)
if err != nil {
return "", err
}
return res.SettingValue, nil
})
})
}
```
First, it will check if context data include the setting object with the
key. If not, it will query from the global cache which may be memory or
a Redis cache. If not, it will get the object from the database. In the
end, if the object gets from the global cache or database, it will be
set into the context cache.
An object stored in the context cache will only be destroyed after the
context disappeared.
Fixes #19555
Test-Instructions:
https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/21441#issuecomment-1419438000
This PR implements the mapping of user groups provided by OIDC providers
to orgs teams in Gitea. The main part is a refactoring of the existing
LDAP code to make it usable from different providers.
Refactorings:
- Moved the router auth code from module to service because of import
cycles
- Changed some model methods to take a `Context` parameter
- Moved the mapping code from LDAP to a common location
I've tested it with Keycloak but other providers should work too. The
JSON mapping format is the same as for LDAP.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
The regular login flow can use a `redirect_to` cookie to ensure the user
ends their authentication flow on the same page as where they started
it.
This commit adds the same functionality to the OAuth login URLs, so that
you can use URLs like these to directly use a specific OAuth provider:
`/user/oauth2/{provider}?redirect_to={post-login path}`
Only the `auth.SignInOAuth()` function needed a change for this, as the
rest of the login flow is aware of this cookie and uses it properly
already.
Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification.
Fix #16132
Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github>
Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>
The OAuth spec [defines two types of
client](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-2.1),
confidential and public. Previously Gitea assumed all clients to be
confidential.
> OAuth defines two client types, based on their ability to authenticate
securely with the authorization server (i.e., ability to
> maintain the confidentiality of their client credentials):
>
> confidential
> Clients capable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., client implemented on a secure server with
> restricted access to the client credentials), or capable of secure
client authentication using other means.
>
> **public
> Clients incapable of maintaining the confidentiality of their
credentials (e.g., clients executing on the device used by the resource
owner, such as an installed native application or a web browser-based
application), and incapable of secure client authentication via any
other means.**
>
> The client type designation is based on the authorization server's
definition of secure authentication and its acceptable exposure levels
of client credentials. The authorization server SHOULD NOT make
assumptions about the client type.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.4
> Authorization servers MUST record the client type in the client
registration details in order to identify and process requests
accordingly.
Require PKCE for public clients:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8252#section-8.1
> Authorization servers SHOULD reject authorization requests from native
apps that don't use PKCE by returning an error message
Fixes #21299
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
According to the OAuth spec
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-6 when "Refreshing
an Access Token"
> The authorization server MUST ... require client authentication for
confidential clients
Fixes #21418
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Support OAuth2 applications created by admins on the admin panel, they
aren't owned by anybody.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Lauris BH <lauris@nix.lv>
This fixes error "unauthorized_client: invalid client secret" when
client includes secret in Authorization header rather than request body.
OAuth spec permits both.
Sanity validation that client id and client secret in request are
consistent with Authorization header.
Improve error descriptions. Error codes remain the same.
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: zeripath <art27@cantab.net>
Fixes #21282
As suggested by the [OAuth RFC](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749)
(quoted below), it's helpful to give more detail in the description
> error_description
OPTIONAL. Human-readable ASCII
[[USASCII](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6749#ref-USASCII)] text
providing **additional information, used to assist the client developer
in understanding the error that occurred.**
Values for the "error_description" parameter MUST NOT include characters
outside the set %x20-21 / %x23-5B / %x5D-7E.
The code introduced by #18185 gets the error from response after it was processed by goth.
That is incorrect, as goth (and golang.org/x/oauth) doesn't really care about the error, and it sends a token request with an empty authorization code to the server anyway, which always results in a `oauth2: cannot fetch token: 400 Bad Request` error from goth.
It means that unless the "state" parameter is omitted from the error response (which is required to be present, according to [RFC 6749, Section 4.1.2.1](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-4.1.2.1)) or the page is reloaded (makes the session invalid), a 500 Internal Server Error page will be displayed.
This fixes it by handling the error before the request is passed to goth.
* Apply DefaultUserIsRestricted in CreateUser
* Enforce system defaults in CreateUser
Allow for overwrites with CreateUserOverwriteOptions
* Fix compilation errors
* Add "restricted" option to create user command
* Add "restricted" option to create user admin api
* Respect default setting.Service.RegisterEmailConfirm and setting.Service.RegisterManualConfirm where needed
* Revert "Respect default setting.Service.RegisterEmailConfirm and setting.Service.RegisterManualConfirm where needed"
This reverts commit ee95d3e8dc.
Do a refactoring to the CSRF related code, remove most unnecessary functions.
Parse the generated token's issue time, regenerate the token every a few minutes.
* Remove `db.DefaultContext` usage in routers, use `ctx` directly
* Use `ctx` directly if there is one, remove some `db.DefaultContext` in `services`
* Use ctx instead of db.DefaultContext for `cmd` and some `modules` packages
* fix incorrect context usage
There was an unfortunate regression in #17962 where following detection of the
UserProhibitLogin error the err is cast to a pointer by mistake.
This causes a panic due to an interface error.
Fix #18561
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Fix OAuth Source Edit Page to ensure restricted and group settings are set
* Also tolerate []interface in the groups
Fix #18432
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Refactor jwt.StandardClaims to RegisteredClaims
go-jwt/jwt has deprecated the StandardClaims interface to use RegisteredClaims
instead. This PR migrates to use this new format.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
* Apply suggestions from code review
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com>
Migrate from U2F to Webauthn
Co-authored-by: Andrew Thornton <art27@cantab.net>
Co-authored-by: 6543 <6543@obermui.de>
Co-authored-by: wxiaoguang <wxiaoguang@gmail.com>
