- This is a 'front-port' of the already existing patch on v1.21 and
v1.20, but applied on top of what Gitea has done to rework the LTA
mechanism. Forgejo will stick with the reworked mechanism by the Forgejo
Security team for the time being. The removal of legacy code (AES-GCM) has been
left out.
- The current architecture is inherently insecure, because you can
construct the 'secret' cookie value with values that are available in
the database. Thus provides zero protection when a database is
dumped/leaked.
- This patch implements a new architecture that's inspired from: [Paragonie Initiative](https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies).
- Integration testing is added to ensure the new mechanism works.
- Removes a setting, because it's not used anymore.
This field adds the possibility to set the update date when modifying
an issue through the API.
A 'NoAutoDate' in-memory field is added in the Issue struct.
If the update_at field is set, NoAutoDate is set to true and the
Issue's UpdatedUnix field is filled.
That information is passed down to the functions that actually updates
the database, which have been modified to not auto update dates if
requested.
A guard is added to the 'EditIssue' API call, to checks that the
udpate_at date is between the issue's creation date and the current
date (to avoid 'malicious' changes). It also limits the new feature
to project's owners and admins.
(cherry picked from commit c524d33402)
Add a SetIssueUpdateDate() function in services/issue.go
That function is used by some API calls to set the NoAutoDate and
UpdatedUnix fields of an Issue if an updated_at date is provided.
(cherry picked from commit f061caa655)
Add an updated_at field to the API calls related to Issue's Labels.
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's labels.
(cherry picked from commit ea36cf80f5)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the issue's comment created to inform
about the modification of the issue's content, and is set as the
asset creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 96150971ca)
Checking Issue changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPIEditIssueWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 4926a5d7a2)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment creation
The update date is used as the comment creation date, and is applied to
the issue as the update creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 76c8faecdc)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for issue's comment edition
The update date is used as the comment update date, and is applied to
the issue as an update date.
(cherry picked from commit cf787ad7fd)
Add an updated_at field to the API call for comment's attachment creation
The update date is applied to the comment, and is set as the asset
creation date.
(cherry picked from commit 1e4ff424d3)
Checking Comment changes, with and without providing an updated_at date
Those unit tests are added:
- TestAPICreateCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithNoAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentWithNoAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit da932152f1)
Pettier code to set the update time of comments
Now uses sess.AllCols().NoAutoToime().SetExpr("updated_unix", ...)
XORM is smart enough to compose one single SQL UPDATE which all
columns + updated_unix.
(cherry picked from commit 1f6a42808d)
Issue edition: Keep the max of the milestone and issue update dates.
When editing an issue via the API, an updated_at date can be provided.
If the EditIssue call changes the issue's milestone, the milestone's
update date is to be changed accordingly, but only with a greater
value.
This ensures that a milestone's update date is the max of all issue's
update dates.
(cherry picked from commit 8f22ea182e)
Rewrite the 'AutoDate' tests using subtests
Also add a test to check the permissions to set a date, and a test
to check update dates on milestones.
The tests related to 'AutoDate' are:
- TestAPIEditIssueAutoDate
- TestAPIAddIssueLabelsAutoDate
- TestAPIEditIssueMilestoneAutoDate
- TestAPICreateIssueAttachmentAutoDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAutoDate
- TestAPIEditCommentWithDate
- TestAPICreateCommentAttachmentAutoDate
(cherry picked from commit 961fd13c55)
(cherry picked from commit d52f4eea44)
(cherry picked from commit 3540ea2a43)
Conflicts:
services/issue/issue.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1415
(cherry picked from commit 56720ade00)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_label.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1462
(cherry picked from commit 47c78927d6)
(cherry picked from commit 2030f3b965)
(cherry picked from commit f02aeb7698)
Conflicts:
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_attachment.go
routers/api/v1/repo/issue_comment_attachment.go
https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1575
(cherry picked from commit d072525b35)
(cherry picked from commit 8424d0ab3d)
(cherry picked from commit 5cc62caec7)
(cherry picked from commit d6300d5dcd)
[FEAT] allow setting the update date on issues and comments (squash) apply the 'update_at' value to the cross-ref comments (#1676)
[this is a follow-up to PR #764]
When a comment of issue A referencing issue B is added with a forced 'updated_at' date, that date has to be applied to the comment created in issue B.
-----
Comment:
While trying my 'RoundUp migration script', I found that this case was forgotten in PR #764 - my apologies...
I'll try to write a functional test, base on models/issues/issue_xref_test.go
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/1676
Co-authored-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
Co-committed-by: fluzz <fluzz@freedroid.org>
(cherry picked from commit ac4f727f63)
(cherry picked from commit 5110476ee9)
- Implements https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/32#issuecomment-918737
- Allows to add Forgejo-specific migrations that don't interfere with Gitea's migration logic. Please do note that we cannot liberally add migrations for Gitea tables, as they might do their own migrations in a future version on that table, and that could undo our migrations. Luckily, we don't have a scenario where that's needed and thus not taken into account.
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/795
(cherry picked from commit 8ee32978c0)
(cherry picked from commit c240b34f59)
(cherry picked from commit 03936c6492)
(cherry picked from commit a20ed852f8)
(cherry picked from commit 1dfa82676f)
(cherry picked from commit c39ae0bf8a)
(cherry picked from commit cfaff08996)
(cherry picked from commit 94a458835a)
(cherry picked from commit 61a3cf77df)
(cherry picked from commit abb350fde8)
(cherry picked from commit 5194829d6b)
(cherry picked from commit 89239a60f2)
(cherry picked from commit 683cfd86ef)
(cherry picked from commit f4546cfed9)
(cherry picked from commit 86614d5826)
(cherry picked from commit e4b9c32187)
(cherry picked from commit 8c253719af)
(cherry picked from commit 857365d6c1)
(cherry picked from commit a488b3952f)
(cherry picked from commit 98313c4910)
(cherry picked from commit 430d95e824)
(cherry picked from commit 08bf9d918f)
(cherry picked from commit f8a170e2d0)
(cherry picked from commit d20e325378)
(cherry picked from commit e11dcc60f2)
use backticks to avoid backslash
(cherry picked from commit 34212791ee)
(cherry picked from commit bde9473c69)
(cherry picked from commit d4deb43084)
(cherry picked from commit 08e91649b0)
(cherry picked from commit 2b988e5415)
[TESTS] auth LinkAccount test coverage (squash)
(cherry picked from commit a2b2e3066b)
(cherry picked from commit 841d1b5073)
(cherry picked from commit 35da630ad8)
(cherry picked from commit caf2dc4fa7)
(cherry picked from commit 6eb81e67ba)
(cherry picked from commit d59757239f)
(cherry picked from commit 38a121b688)
(cherry picked from commit 20613874ee)
(cherry picked from commit 6d2705e108)
(cherry picked from commit f177b72814)
(cherry picked from commit 75e1fc4c83)
(cherry picked from commit ba64fa9867)
(cherry picked from commit 0b8ab0893e)
(cherry picked from commit 1419d11435)
(cherry picked from commit 38766847e0)
(cherry picked from commit 6f23426a6a)
(cherry picked from commit 9e0ff9ca54)
(cherry picked from commit 353f3601c3)
(cherry picked from commit 6e4ae401d8)
Fixes https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1458
Some mails such as issue creation mails are missing the reply-to-comment
address. This PR fixes that and specifies which comment types should get
a reply-possibility.
## Bug in Gitea
I ran into this bug when I accidentally used the wrong redirect URL for
the oauth2 provider when using mssql. But the oauth2 provider still got
added.
Most of the time, we use `Delete(&some{id: some.id})` or
`In(condition).Delete(&some{})`, which specify the conditions. But the
function uses `Delete(source)` when `source.Cfg` is a `TEXT` field and
not empty. This will cause xorm `Delete` function not working in mssql.
61ff91f960/models/auth/source.go (L234-L240)
## Reason
Because the `TEXT` field can not be compared in mssql, xorm doesn't
support it according to [this
PR](https://gitea.com/xorm/xorm/pulls/2062)
[related
code](b23798dc98/internal/statements/statement.go (L552-L558))
in xorm
```go
if statement.dialect.URI().DBType == schemas.MSSQL && (col.SQLType.Name == schemas.Text ||
col.SQLType.IsBlob() || col.SQLType.Name == schemas.TimeStampz) {
if utils.IsValueZero(fieldValue) {
continue
}
return nil, fmt.Errorf("column %s is a TEXT type with data %#v which cannot be as compare condition", col.Name, fieldValue.Interface())
}
}
```
When using the `Delete` function in xorm, the non-empty fields will
auto-set as conditions(perhaps some special fields are not?). If `TEXT`
field is not empty, xorm will return an error. I only found this usage
after searching, but maybe there is something I missing.
---------
Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>
- On user deletion, delete action runners that the user has created.
- Add a database consistency check to remove action runners that have
nonexistent belonging owner.
- Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/1720
(cherry picked from commit 009ca7223d)
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
The steps to reproduce it.
First, create a new oauth2 source.
Then, a user login with this oauth2 source.
Disable the oauth2 source.
Visit users -> settings -> security, 500 will be displayed.
This is because this page only load active Oauth2 sources but not all
Oauth2 sources.
See https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/pull/27718#issuecomment-1773743014
. Add a test to ensure its behavior.
Why this test uses `ProjectBoardID=0`? Because in `SearchOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means what it is. But in `IssueOptions`,
`ProjectBoardID=0` means there is no condition, and
`ProjectBoardID=db.NoConditionID` means the board ID = 0.
It's really confusing. Probably it's better to separate the db search
engine and the other issue search code. It's really two different
systems. As far as I can see, `IssueOptions` is not necessary for most
of the code, which has very simple issue search conditions.
1. remove unused function `MoveIssueAcrossProjectBoards`
2. extract the project board condition into a function
3. use db.NoCondition instead of -1. (BTW, the usage of db.NoCondition
is too confusing. Is there any way to avoid that?)
4. remove the unnecessary comment since the ctx refactor is completed.
5. Change `b.ID != 0` to `b.ID > 0`. It's more intuitive but I think
they're the same since board ID can't be negative.
Closes#27455
> The mechanism responsible for long-term authentication (the 'remember
me' cookie) uses a weak construction technique. It will hash the user's
hashed password and the rands value; it will then call the secure cookie
code, which will encrypt the user's name with the computed hash. If one
were able to dump the database, they could extract those two values to
rebuild that cookie and impersonate a user. That vulnerability exists
from the date the dump was obtained until a user changed their password.
>
> To fix this security issue, the cookie could be created and verified
using a different technique such as the one explained at
https://paragonie.com/blog/2015/04/secure-authentication-php-with-long-term-persistence#secure-remember-me-cookies.
The PR removes the now obsolete setting `COOKIE_USERNAME`.
assert.Fail() will continue to execute the code while assert.FailNow()
not. I thought those uses of assert.Fail() should exit immediately.
PS: perhaps it's a good idea to use
[require](https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/stretchr/testify/require)
somewhere because the assert package's default behavior does not exit
when an error occurs, which makes it difficult to find the root error
reason.
Part of https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/27097:
- `gitea` theme is renamed to `gitea-light`
- `arc-green` theme is renamed to `gitea-dark`
- `auto` theme is renamed to `gitea-auto`
I put both themes in separate CSS files, removing all colors from the
base CSS. Existing users will be migrated to the new theme names. The
dark theme recolor will follow in a separate PR.
## ⚠️ BREAKING ⚠️
1. If there are existing custom themes with the names `gitea-light` or
`gitea-dark`, rename them before this upgrade and update the `theme`
column in the `user` table for each affected user.
2. The theme in `<html>` has moved from `class="theme-name"` to
`data-theme="name"`, existing customizations that depend on should be
updated.
---------
Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Giteabot <teabot@gitea.io>
This PR reduces the complexity of the system setting system.
It only needs one line to introduce a new option, and the option can be
used anywhere out-of-box.
It is still high-performant (and more performant) because the config
values are cached in the config system.
