This uses an actual query to the backend to check if the subdomain is
available, using the same logic we would use to check when the
subdomain is in fact created.
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.
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]
We should omit these for mypy. For most class definitions,
mypy doesn't need `Any`, and it provides no real useful info.
For clever monkeypatches, you should provide a more specific
type than `Any`.
The original logic is buggy now that emails can belong to (and be
invited to) multiple realms.
The new logic in the `invites` queue worker also avoids the bug where
when the PreregistrationUser was gone by the time the queue worker got
to the invite (e.g., because it'd been revoked), we threw an exception.
[greg: fix upgrade-compatibility logic; add test; explain
revoked-invite race above]
This code changes frequently enough that errors are bound to creep in. The
main change is that this sends the original invitation email instead of the
reminder email, but I think that's fine.
We'll need the expanded test coverage when we move
check_prereg_key_and_redirect to zerver/views/registration.py to avoid
test failures, and these are also tests we should really have anyway.
For example, this means that if a user already has an account on one
realm and they try to make an account on another by hitting "Sign in
with Google" (rather than following the little "Register" link to a
"Sign up with Google" button instead), they'll get to make an account
instead of getting an error.
Until very recently, if the user existed on another realm, any attempt
to register with that email address had to fail in the end, so this
logic gave the user a useful error message early. We introduced it in
c23aaa178 "GitHub: Show error on login page for wrong subdomain"
back in 2016-10 for that purpose. No longer! We now support reusing
an email on multiple realms, so we let the user proceed instead.
This function's interface is kind of confusing, but I believe when its
callers use it properly, `invalid_subdomain` should only ever be true
when `user_profile` is None -- in which case the revised
`invalid_subdomain` condition in this commit can never actually fire,
and the `invalid_subdomain` parameter no longer has any effect. (At
least some unit tests call this function improperly in that respect.)
I've kept this commit to a minimal change, but it would be a good
followup to go through the call sites, verify that, eliminate the use
of `invalid_subdomain`, then remove it from the function entirely.
[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.
Just now this is largely redundant with `test_signup_already_active`;
but very soon when we allow reusing an email across realms, the logic
will diverge.
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.
The installation admin is not the right person to get support requests from
deactivated users, regardless of the situation.
Also updates the wording to be a bit more concise.
This was basically rewritten by tabbott, because the code is a lot
cleaner after just rewriting the ZulipPasswordResetForm code to no
longer copy the model of the original Django version.
Fixes#4733.
This adds tests for a new more cases. Some were already covered
elsewhere in the codebase, but it feels best for LoginTest to fully
cover OurAuthenticationForm.
We don't have our linter checking test files due to ultra-long strings
that are often present in test output that we verify. But it's worth
at least cleaning out all the ultra-long def lines.
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).
Archana BS
Vishnu Ks
rht
Tim Abbott
Greg Price
Rishi Gupta
Shreyansh Dwivedi
Steve Howell
Umair Khan