If SAML_REQUIRE_LIMIT_TO_SUBDOMAINS is enabled, the configured IdPs will
be validated and cleaned up when the saml backend is initialized.
settings.py would be a tempting and more natural place to do this
perhaps, but in settings.py we don't do logging and we wouldn't be able
to write a test for it.
In development env, we use `get_secret` to get
`SOCIAL_AUTH_GITLAB_KEY` from `dev-secrets.conf`. But in
production env, we don't need this as we ask the user
to set that value in `prod_settings_template.py`.
This restricts the code from looking `zulip-secrets.conf`
for `social_auth_gitlab_key` in production env.
We plan to use these records to check and record the schema of Zulip's
events for the purposes of API documentation.
Based on an original messier commit by tabbott.
In theory, a nicer version of this would be able to work directly off
the mypy type system, but this will be good enough for our use case.
SOCIAL_AUTH_SAML_SECURITY_CONFIG["authnRequestsSigned"] override in
settings.py in a previous commit wouldn't work on servers old enough to
not have the SAML settings in their settings.py - due to
SOCIAL_AUTH_SAML_SECURITY_CONFIG being undefined.
This commit fixes that.
This applies rate limiting (through a decorator) of authenticate()
functions in the Email and LDAP backends - because those are the ones
where we check user's password.
The limiting is based on the username that the authentication is
attempted for - more than X attempts in Y minutes to a username is not
permitted.
If the limit is exceeded, RateLimited exception will be raised - this
can be either handled in a custom way by the code that calls
authenticate(), or it will be handled by RateLimitMiddleware and return
a json_error as the response.
This legacy cross-realm bot hasn't been used in several years, as far
as I know. If we wanted to re-introduce it, I'd want to implement it
as an embedded bot using those common APIs, rather than the totally
custom hacky code used for it that involves unnecessary queue workers
and similar details.
Fixes#13533.
Zulip has had a small use of WebSockets (specifically, for the code
path of sending messages, via the webapp only) since ~2013. We
originally added this use of WebSockets in the hope that the latency
benefits of doing so would allow us to avoid implementing a markdown
local echo; they were not. Further, HTTP/2 may have eliminated the
latency difference we hoped to exploit by using WebSockets in any
case.
While we’d originally imagined using WebSockets for other endpoints,
there was never a good justification for moving more components to the
WebSockets system.
This WebSockets code path had a lot of downsides/complexity,
including:
* The messy hack involving constructing an emulated request object to
hook into doing Django requests.
* The `message_senders` queue processor system, which increases RAM
needs and must be provisioned independently from the rest of the
server).
* A duplicate check_send_receive_time Nagios test specific to
WebSockets.
* The requirement for users to have their firewalls/NATs allow
WebSocket connections, and a setting to disable them for networks
where WebSockets don’t work.
* Dependencies on the SockJS family of libraries, which has at times
been poorly maintained, and periodically throws random JavaScript
exceptions in our production environments without a deep enough
traceback to effectively investigate.
* A total of about 1600 lines of our code related to the feature.
* Increased load on the Tornado system, especially around a Zulip
server restart, and especially for large installations like
zulipchat.com, resulting in extra delay before messages can be sent
again.
As detailed in
https://github.com/zulip/zulip/pull/12862#issuecomment-536152397, it
appears that removing WebSockets moderately increases the time it
takes for the `send_message` API query to return from the server, but
does not significantly change the time between when a message is sent
and when it is received by clients. We don’t understand the reason
for that change (suggesting the possibility of a measurement error),
and even if it is a real change, we consider that potential small
latency regression to be acceptable.
If we later want WebSockets, we’ll likely want to just use Django
Channels.
Signed-off-by: Anders Kaseorg <anders@zulipchat.com>
These are leftovers from where we had default settings in the
settings.py file. Now that the files are separate those references to
"below" are not correct.
Anders Kaseorg
Mateusz Mandera
Dinesh
Vishnu KS
Dinesh
Tim Abbott