Previously, if you had LDAPAuthBackend enabled, we basically blocked
any other auth backends from working at all, by requiring the user's
login flow include verifying the user's LDAP password.
We still want to enforce that in the case that the account email
matches LDAP_APPEND_DOMAIN, but there's a reasonable corner case:
Having effectively guest users from outside the LDAP domain.
We don't want to allow creating a Zulip-level password for a user
inside the LDAP domain, so we still verify the LDAP password in that
flow, but if the email is allowed to register (due to invite or
whatever) but is outside the LDAP domain for the organization, we
allow it to create an account and set a password.
For the moment, this solution only covers EmailAuthBackend. It's
likely that just extending the list of other backends we check for in
the new conditional on `email_auth_backend` would be correct, but we
haven't done any testing for those cases, and with auth code paths,
it's better to disallow than allow untested code paths.
Fixes#9422.
This should significantly improve the user experience for creating
additional accounts on zulipchat.com.
Currently, disabled in production pending some work on visual styling.
This will let us defer configuring outbound email to the end of the
install procedure, so we can greatly simplify it by consolidating
several scripted steps.
The new flow could be simplified further by giving the user the full
form in the first place, rather than first a form for just their
email address and then a form with the other details. We'll leave
that improvement for a separate change.
Now, there's just one spot at the beginning of the function where we
inspect the string key the user gave us; and after that point, we not
only have validated that string but in fact are working from our own
record that it pointed to, not the string itself.
This simplifies the code a bit, e.g. by not repeatedly searching the
database for the key (and hoping everything agrees so that we keep
getting the same row), and it will simplify adding logic to inspect
row attributes like `presume_email_valid`.
There's no use case for presenting a key that's invalid; if we haven't
given the user a valid key, we needn't send them to a URL that
presents an invalid one. And the code is simpler to think about if
the only keys that can exist (after the validation at the top of the
function) are valid ones.
Apart from the case where creation_key is None, but invalid, and
settings.OPEN_REALM_CREATION is True so that we'd previously let the
invalid key slide, this is a pure refactor.
This is a little cleaner in that the try/except blocks for
SMTPException are a lot narrower; and it'll facilitate an upcoming
change to sometimes skip sending mail.
Eventually this check for the realm will be done in get_object_from_key
itself. Rewriting this to fit the pattern in get_object_from_key.
No change to behavior.
Commit d4ee3023 and its parent have the history behind this code.
Since d4ee3023^, all new PreregistrationUser objects, except those for
realm creation, have a non-None `realm`. Since d4ee3023, any legacy
PreregistrationUsers, with a `realm` of None despite not being for
realm creation, are treated as expired. Now, we ignore them
completely, and remove any that exist from the database.
The user-visible effect is to change the error message for
registration (or invitation) links created before d4ee3023^ to be
"link does not exist", rather than "link expired".
This change will at most affect users upgrading straight from 1.7 or
earlier to 1.8 (rather than from 1.7.1), but I think that's not much
of a concern (such installations are probably long-running
installations, without many live registration or invitation links).
[greg: tweaked commit message]
[Modified by greg to (1) keep `USERNAME_FIELD = 'email'`,
(2) silence the corresponding system check, and (3) ban
reusing a system bot's email address, just like we do in
realm creation.]
As we migrate to allow reuse of the same email with multiple realms,
we need to replace the old "no email reuse" validators. Because
stealing the email for a system bot would be problematic, we still ban
doing so.
This commit only affects the realm creation logic, not registering an
account in an existing realm.
The one thing this bit of logic is used for is to decide whether
there's an existing user which is a mirror dummy that we should
activate. This change causes us to ignore such an existing user if
it's on some other realm, and go straight into `do_create_user`.
This completes the last commit's work to fix CVE-2017-0910, applying
to any invite links already created before the fix was deployed. With
this change, all new-user registrations must match an explicit realm
in the PreregistrationUser row, except when creating a new realm.
[greg: rewrote commit message]
We would allow a user with a valid invitation for one realm to use it
on a different realm instead. On a server with multiple realms, an
authorized user of one realm could use this (by sending invites to
other email addresses they control) to create accounts on other
realms. (CVE-2017-0910)
With this commit, when sending an invitation, we record the inviting
user's realm on the PreregistrationUser row; and when registering a
user, we check that the PregistrationUser realm matches the realm the
user is trying to register on. This resolves CVE-2017-0910 for
newly-sent invitations; the next commit completes the fix.
[greg: rewrote commit message]
Previously, this was a ValidationError, but that doesn't really make
sense, since this condition reflects an actual bug in the code.
Because this happened to be our only test coverage the ValidationError
catch on line 84 of registration.py, we add nocoverage there for now.
I remember being really confused by this function in the past, and I finally
figured it out. It should be removed, and the dev_url added by
00-realm-creation should call a function that just gets the confirmation_key
from outbox like all of the backend tests, but until then this comment
should help.
This change:
* Prevents weird potential attacks like taking a valid confirmation link
(say an unsubscribe link), and putting it into the URL of a multiuse
invite link. I don't know of any such attacks one could do right now, but
reasoning about it is complicated.
* Makes the code easier to read, and in the case of confirmation/views.py,
exposes something that needed refactoring anyway (USER_REGISTRATION and
INVITATION should have different endpoints, and both of those endpoints
should be in zerver/views/registration, not this file).
Most of these have more to do with authentication in general than with
registering a new account. `create_preregistration_user` could go
either way; we move it to `auth` so we can make the imports go only in
one direction.
Tweaked by tabbott to have the field before the invitation is
completed be called invite_as_admins, not invited_as_admins, for
readability.
Fixes#6834.
Wherever possible, we always want to move checking for error
conditions to the views code, so that we don't need to worry about
handling failures with (in this case) a user that's half-created
because a DefaultStreamGroup doesn't exist.
This effectively implements the feature of default stream groups,
except for a UI, nice styling, etc.
Note that we're careful to not have this do anything in an
organization that doesn't have any default stream groups.
While it's totally fine to put a leading '.' before the cookie domain
for normal hostnames and browsers will just strip them, if you're
using an IP address, it doesn't work, because .127.0.0.1 (for example)
is just invalid, and the cookie won't be set.
This fixes an issue where after installing with an IP address, realm
creation would end with being stuck at a blank page for
/accounts/login/subdomain/.
While our recent changing to hide /register means we don't need a nice
pretty error message here, eventually we'll want to clean up the error
message.
Fixes#7047.
This new function extractions the bit of logic we use after creating a
new user account to log them in and send them to the home page,
without emailing the user about their new login.
Use this new variable to determine if the user already exists while
doing registration. While doing login through GitHub if we press
*Go back to login*, we pass email using email variable. As a result,
the login page starts showing the "User already exists error" if we
don't change the variable.
Previously, Zulip's server logs would not show which user or client
was involved in login or user registration actions, which made
debugging more annoying than it needed to be.
Unlike creating a stream, there's really no reason one would want to
call the function to create a realm while uncertain whether that realm
already existed.
This should significantly improve the user experience for new users
signing up with GitHub/Google auth. It comes complete with tests for
the various cases. Further work may be needed for LDAP to not prompt
for a password, however.
Fixes#886.
Both the queue processor and ScheduledJob emails need to sometimes pass a
to_user_id and sometimes pass a to_email, and it's more convenient to just
have one function that they can call that can handle either.
Also removes the now redundant send_email_to_user.
This prevents users from accidentally sending a confirmation link
specific to their account to their Zulip administrator if they reply
to the invitation, invitation reminder, account confirmation, or new
email confirmation emails.
No change in behavior.
Also makes the first step towards converting all uses of
settings.ZULIP_ADMINISTRATOR and settings.NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS to
FromAddress.*.
Once everything is converted, it will be easier to ensure that future
development doesn't break backwards compatibility with the old style of
settings emails.
This will allow for customized senders for emails, e.g. 'Zulip Digest' for
digest emails and 'Zulip Missed Messages' for missed message emails.
Also:
* Converts the sender name to always be "Zulip", if the from_email used to
be settings.NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS or settings.ZULIP_ADMINISTRATOR.
* Changes the default value of settings.NOREPLY_EMAIL_ADDRESS in the
prod_setting_template to no longer have a display name. The only use of
that display name was in the email pathway.
I think it makes sense to wrest the email sending from confirmation, now
that we have a clean email-sending interface in send_email. A few other
reasons:
* send_confirmation is get_link_for_object followed by send_email, but those
two functions have no arguments in common.
* Sending email through confirmation obfuscates the context dict, and is a
relatively complicated piece of the codebase anyone trying to deal with
the email system has to understand.
* The three emails previously being sent through confirmation don't have
that much in common, other than that they happen to have a confirmation
link in them.
The .split('/')[-1] in registration.py is a hack, but a hack used several
places in the codebase, so maybe one day get_link_for_object will also
return the confirmation_key.
We're about to make a change where we no longer deal with confirmation
objects in these email pathways.
The "if settings.DEVELOPMENT and realm_creation" is a bit of a hack, but no
worse a hack as was there before, I think. I think it's also less confusing
if the method signature matches what happens in production.
Server settings should just be added to the context in build_email, so that
the individual email pathways (and later, the email testing framework)
doesn't have to worry about it.
Tim Abbott
Vishnu Ks
rht
neiljp (Neil Pilgrim)
Greg Price
Aditya Bansal
Rishi Gupta
Vishnu Ks
Umair Khan
Steve Howell
James Rowan
Jack Zhang
Maxim Averin
umkay