By default, Django sets up two handlers on this logger, one of them
its AdminEmailHandler. We have our own handler for sending email on
error, and we want to stick to that -- we like the format somewhat
better, and crucially we've given it some rate-limiting through
ZulipLimiter.
Since we cleaned out our logging config in e0a5e6fad, though, we've
been sending error emails through both paths. The config we'd had
before that for `django` was redundant with the config on the root --
but having *a* config there was essential for causing
`logging.config.dictConfig`, when Django passes it our LOGGING dict,
to clear out that logger's previous config. So, give it an empty
config.
Django by default configures two loggers: `django` and
`django.server`. We have our own settings for `django.server`
anyway, so this is the only one we need to add.
The stdlib `logging` and `logging.config` docs aren't 100% clear, and
while the source of `logging` is admirably straightforward the source
of `logging.config` is a little twisty, so it's not easy to become
totally confident that this has the right effect just by reading.
Fortunately we can put some of that source-diving to work in writing
a test for it.
This works around a bug in Django in handling the error case of a
client sending an inappropriate HTTP `Host:` header. Various
internal Django machinery expects to be able to casually call
`request.get_host()`, which will attempt to parse that header, so an
exception will be raised. The exception-handling machinery attempts
to catch that exception and just turn it into a 400 response... but
in a certain case, that machinery itself ends up trying to call
`request.get_host()`, and we end up with an uncaught exception that
causes a 500 response, a chain of tracebacks in the logs, and an email
to the server admins. See example below.
That `request.get_host` call comes in the midst of some CSRF-related
middleware, which doesn't even serve any function unless you have a
form in your 400 response page that you want CSRF protection for.
We use the default 400 response page, which is a 26-byte static
HTML error message. So, just send that with no further ado.
Example exception from server logs (lightly edited):
2017-10-08 09:51:50.835 ERR [django.security.DisallowedHost] Invalid HTTP_HOST header: 'example.com'. You may need to add 'example.com' to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
2017-10-08 09:51:50.835 ERR [django.request] Internal Server Error: /loginWithSetCookie
Traceback (most recent call last):
File ".../django/core/handlers/exception.py", line 41, in inner
response = get_response(request)
File ".../django/utils/deprecation.py", line 138, in __call__
response = self.process_request(request)
File ".../django/middleware/common.py", line 57, in process_request
host = request.get_host()
File ".../django/http/request.py", line 113, in get_host
raise DisallowedHost(msg)
django.core.exceptions.DisallowedHost: Invalid HTTP_HOST header: 'example.com'. You may need to add 'example.com' to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File ".../django/core/handlers/exception.py", line 109, in get_exception_response
response = callback(request, **dict(param_dict, exception=exception))
File ".../django/utils/decorators.py", line 145, in _wrapped_view
result = middleware.process_view(request, view_func, args, kwargs)
File ".../django/middleware/csrf.py", line 276, in process_view
good_referer = request.get_host()
File ".../django/http/request.py", line 113, in get_host
raise DisallowedHost(msg)
django.core.exceptions.DisallowedHost: Invalid HTTP_HOST header: 'example.com'. You may need to add 'example.com' to ALLOWED_HOSTS.
Apparently, this sockjs.tornado logging code resulted in a lot of
buggy error emails whenever a Zulip browser tried to reconnect on a
new IP. I don't see an obvious way to suppress them from within
sockjs, but that might be a good follow-up issue.
Fixes#6959.
The comment is pretty self-explanatory. The fact that Google Compute
Engine has this problem does not impress confidence about their
product, but hopefully this is the only really dumb thing they do.
Fixes#4839.
The original "quality score" was invented purely for populating
our password-strength progress bar, and isn't expressed in terms
that are particularly meaningful. For configuration and the core
accept/reject logic, it's better to use units that are readily
understood. Switch to those.
I considered using "bits of entropy", defined loosely as the log
of this number, but both the zxcvbn paper and the linked CACM
article (which I recommend!) are written in terms of the number
of guesses. And reading (most of) those two papers made me
less happy about referring to "entropy" in our terminology.
I already knew that notion was a little fuzzy if looked at
too closely, and I gained a better appreciation of how it's
contributed to confusion in discussing password policies and
to adoption of perverse policies that favor "Password1!" over
"derived unusual ravioli raft". So, "guesses" it is.
And although the log is handy for some analysis purposes
(certainly for a graph like those in the zxcvbn paper), it adds
a layer of abstraction, and I think makes it harder to think
clearly about attacks, especially in the online setting. So
just use the actual number, and if someone wants to set a
gigantic value, they will have the pleasure of seeing just
how many digits are involved.
(Thanks to @YJDave for a prototype that the code changes in this
commit are based on.)
This endpoint is part of the old tutorial, which we've removed, and
has some security downsides as well.
This includes a minor refactoring of the tests.
Create a new custom email backend which would automatically
logs the emails that are send in the dev environment as
well as print a friendly message in console to visit /emails
for accessing all the emails that are sent in dev environment.
Since django.core.mail.backends.console.EmailBackend is no longer
userd emails would not be printed to the console anymore.
In 1.2.15 version of django-auth-ldap, the authenticate() function of
LDAPBackend takes username and password as keyword arguments. This
commit updates the code to match this change.
Fixes#6588
It turns out that very little code change is required to support
GitHub auth on mobile. Ideally, this would come with tests, though
the complicated part of the code path is covered by the Google auth
version. But writing a test for this would take a long time, and I
think it's worth having the feature now, so I'll be doing tests as a
follow-up project.
The main change here is moving SOCIAL_AUTH_FIELDS_STORED_IN_SESSION to
be with the other hardcoded settings, since it's not something that
makes sense for a sysadmin to change. But while we're at it, we also
group the overall social auth settings separately from the
GitHub-specific settings.
This isn't something that a user can ever modify, so it doesn't belong
in DEFAULT_SETTINGS. While we're at it, we align the appearance of
the email gateway in the docs with whether this setting in the docs
will be valid.
This will help identify the settings that need attention: either
to remove, or to document for server admins, or to just add a
comment to explain.
Identified with the following shell "one-liner" (one 313-char line
as I originally ran it; indentation added here for clarity):
perl -lne 'next unless (/^DEFAULT_SETTINGS/../\}\)?$/);
next unless (/'\''(.*?)'\''/);
print $1' \
zproject/settings.py \
| while read var; do \
echo -n "$var: "; \
(grep -lw "$var" zproject/{prod_settings_template,{dev,test}_settings}.py \
|| echo none) \
| sed s,zproject/,,g \
| fmt -w1000; \
done
Tim Abbott
Alena Volkova
Greg Price
Umair Khan
Brock Whittaker
Vishnu Ks