this is in line with our settings during registration. user verification
involves the browser popping up a PIN prompt. Since the user has already
entered their password correctly to get to this stage, we don't need any
more proof of Something They Know, so there's no need for this.
both routes are already valid, however, the link from sign-in sends to
the old link. it fetches whichever URL is second in the route decorator
list when you call `url_for`. Swapping the order around keeps the routes
valid but starts pointing users to the new url.
_complete_webauthn_authentication -> _verify_webauthn_authentication
This function just does verification of the actual auth process -
checking the challenge is correct, the signature matches the public key
we have stored in our database, etc.
verify_webauthn_login -> _complete_webauthn_login_attempt
This function doesn't do any actual verification, we've already verified
the user is who they say they are (or not), it's about marking the
attempt, either unsuccessful (we bump the failed_login_count in the db)
or successful (we set the logged_in_at and current_session_id in the
db).
This change also informs changes to the names of methods on the user
model and in user_api_client.
flashes are consumed by the jinja template calling get_flashed_messages
in flash_messages.html.
When you call `abort(403)` the 403 error page is rendered, with the
flashed message on it. However, the webauthn endpoints just return that
page to the ajax `fetch`, which ignores the response and just reloads
the page.
Instead of calling abort, we can just return an empty response body and
the 403 error code, so that the flashed messages stay in the session and
will be rendered when the `GET /two-factor-webauthn` request happens
after the js reloads the page.
the js fetch function is really not designed to work with 302s. when it
receives a 302, it automatically follows it and fetches the next page.
This is awkward because I don't want js to do all this in ajax, I want
the browser to get the new URL so it can load the page.
A better approach is to view the admin endpoint as a more pure API: the
js sends a request for authentication to the admin app, and the admin
app responds with a 200 indicating success, and then a payload of
relevant data with that.
The relevant data in this case is "Which URL should I redirect to", it
might be the user's list of services page, or it might be a page telling
them that their email needs revalidating.
this doesn't include timeouts or other errors on the browser side - the
main thing this catches is if the token doesn't belong to the user.
However I'm not entirely clear if that's something that will be caught
at this point, or if the browser would reject that key as it's not in
the credentials passed in to the begin_authentication process.
the js `fetch` function will follow redirects blindly and return you the
final 200 response. when there's an error, we don't want to go anywhere,
and we want to use the flask `flash` functionality to pop up an error
page (the likely reason for seeing this is using a yubikey that isn't
associated with your user). using `flash` and then
`window.location.reload()` handles this fine.
However, when the user does log in succesfully we need to properly log
them in - this includes:
* checking their account isn't over the max login count
* resetting failed login count to 0 if not
* setting a new session id in the database (so other browser windows are
logged out)
* checking if they need to revalidate their email access (every 90 days)
* clearing old user out of the cache
This code all happens in the ajax function rather than being in a
separate redirect, so that you can't just navigate to the login flow. I
wasn't able to unit test that function due how it uses the session and
other flask globals, so moved the auth into its own function so it's
easy to stub out all that CBOR nonsense.
TODO: We still need to pass any `next` URLs through the chain from login
page all the way through the javascript AJAX calls and redirects to the
log_in_user function
The flow of the code is roughly as follows:
user clicks button on webauthn page
js sends GET request
python reads GET request, sets up login challenge
python returns login challenge in response
js reads GET response, passes login challenge to browser
browser asks user to touch yubikey
browser returns yubikey challenge response data to js
js sends POST request with yubikey challenge response data
python reads yubikey challenge and compares with users creds from db
if its a match, python signs user in
The login challenge is a PublicKeyCredentialRequestOptions: [1]
The browser function we call is navigator.credentials.get(): [2]
The response to the challenge from the browser is a PublicKeyCredential: [3]
The python server does all the work setting those up and tearing them
back down again (and checking them against the values we have stored in
the database), but we need to do work to convert them to-and-from CBOR.
[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PublicKeyCredentialRequestOptions
[2] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/CredentialsContainer/get
[3] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PublicKeyCredential
if user has `webauthn_auth` as their auth type, then redirect them to an
interstitial that prompts them to click on a button which right now just
logs to the JS console, but in a future commit will open up the webauthn
browser prompt
content is unsurprisingly not final.
without the need for verification.
This is for when the email takes too long to arrive and the service
users cannot update it as a result.
A more streamlined solution has been proposed where we could send
a link in the verification email to the users and clicking that
link would add/update reply-email-to address.
That would require a bit more work so right now I am proposing this
as a quick stop gap so that we don't have to go to the database
manually to add the reply-to email address.
This closes a security loophole, where the auth type of a Platform
Admin could be unwittingly changed when they accept an invite, or
by an admin of a service they are a member of.
when getting a list of security keys
Also test separately that we are correctly choosing key out of list
of security keys. Previously we have done it as a part
of testing pages where where we were calling API to get a list
of keys, but then choosing one of those keys based on id.
Also remove redundant second test credential after PR review
Also remove redundant return value from mocks in update name tests
When we are unable to delete security key because it's the last
one for that user, API throws an error. Here we catch that error
and display useful message to the user.
Use security key instead of webauthn credential
in user facing message - for consistency and readability.
We use security key term in user facing stuff and webauthn
credential in the code.
Previously we could only select a provider when using the test
channel, but this is also required for others channels when we
do tests on the production network with individual MNOs.
In order to reduce duplication and improve consistency, I've reused
the new broadcast_service_name_tag macro to show the setting.
At the moment if you’re invited to a live broadcast service you get the
training mode tour. This is misleading, and could make people think they
weren’t in danger of sending a real alert.
This commit adds a short, 2 step tour for users invited to a live
broadcast service.
Because we were redirecting in all cases the error message wasn’t being
shown.
This commit changes the endpoint to respond with content (including an
error message) if the `POST` is not successful.
We want people to be really sure before sending a live broadcast, not
just clicking through the green buttons.
This commit adds a checkbox which explains exactly the consequences of
what they’re about to do, tailored to the channel they’re on, and the
area chosen by the person creating the alert.
Previously we would raise a 500 error in a variety of cases:
- If a second key was being registered simultaneously (e.g. in a
separate tab), which means the registration state could be missing
after the first registration completes. That smells like an attack.
- If the server-side verification failed e.g. origin verification,
challenge verification, etc. The library seems to use 'ValueError'
for all such errors [1] (after auditing its 'raise' statements, and
excluding AttestationError [2], since we're not doing that).
- If a key is used that attempts to sign with an unsupported
algorithm. This would normally raise a NotImplemented error as part
of verifying attestation [3], but we don't do that, so we need to
verify the algorithm is supported by the library manually.
This adds error handling to return a 400 response and error message
in these cases, since the error is not unexpected (i.e. not a 500).
A 400 seems more appropriate than a 403, since in many cases it's
not clear if the request data is valid.
I've used CBOR for the transport encoding, to match the successful
request / response encoding. Note that the ordering of then/catch
matters in JS - we don't want to catch our own throws!
[1]: 142587b3e6/fido2/server.py (L255)
[2]: c42d9628a4/fido2/attestation/base.py (L39)
[3]: c42d9628a4/fido2/cose.py (L92)
This passes existing credentials in the server response, to allow
the browser to prevent re-registering the same key for the same
user. Registering the same key multiple times doesn't seem to be
an issue technically; the user has likely got their keys mixed up.
- Chrome says "you don't need to register it again".
- Safari exits with an InvalidStateError.
- Firefox exits with a DOMException.
This adds Yubico's FIDO2 library and two APIs for working with the
"navigator.credentials.create()" function in JavaScript. The GET
API uses the library to generate options for the "create()" function,
and the POST API decodes and verifies the resulting credential. While
the options and response are dict-like, CBOR is necessary to encode
some of the byte-level values, which can't be represented in JSON.
Much of the code here is based on the Yubico library example [1][2].
Implementation notes:
- There are definitely better ways to alert the user about failure, but
window.alert() will do for the time being. Using location.reload() is
also a bit jarring if the page scrolls, but not a major issue.
- Ideally we would use window.fetch() to do AJAX calls, but we don't
have a polyfill for this, and we use $.ajax() elsewhere [3]. We need
to do a few weird tricks [6] to stop jQuery trashing the data.
- The FIDO2 server doesn't serve web requests; it's just a "server" in
the sense of WebAuthn terminology. It lives in its own module, since it
needs to be initialised with the app / config.
- $.ajax returns a promise-like object. Although we've used ".fail()"
elsewhere [3], I couldn't find a stub object that supports it, so I've
gone for ".catch()", and used a Promise stub object in tests.
- WebAuthn only works over HTTPS, but there's an exception for "localhost"
[4]. However, the library is a bit too strict [5], so we have to disable
origin verification to avoid needing HTTPS for dev work.
[1]: c42d9628a4/examples/server/server.py
[2]: c42d9628a4/examples/server/static/register.html
[3]: 91453d3639/app/assets/javascripts/updateContent.js (L33)
[4]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/55971593/navigator-credentials-is-null-on-local-server
[5]: c42d9628a4/fido2/rpid.py (L69)
[6]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12394622/does-jquery-ajax-or-load-allow-for-responsetype-arraybuffer
When showing what auth type user uses to sign in, add a text
for users with webauthn.
On password change or sign in, throw not implemented error
if user uses webauthn auth.
