In the external API, applications authenticate with a
client_id/secret and can provision users with only an email. In that
flow, users are not identified to PostHog, so the user DB id alone
is not enough to identify them in analytics afterwards.
The issue does not exist in the public API, where users are
authenticated and therefore already identified.
Inspired by @flochehab's approach in summary.
Track events whenever a new meeting link is generated, both through
the public API and through the external API.
The goal is twofold:
* Identify where the most links are generated from, so we can assess
which integration or entry point works best.
* Measure how many links are generated per user, so we can consider
a user truly active when they generate a link, rather than only
when they participate in a meeting.
Move user provisioning logic out of the external token viewset into a
dedicated service to keep the viewset lightweight and easier to
maintain.
While extracting the logic, refactor user object handling to improve
robustness and make the provisioning workflow easier to reason about.
Defend against race conditions when concurrent requests attempt to
provision the same user. Rely on the existing database constraints to
guarantee uniqueness and gracefully handle integrity errors raised by
concurrent creations.
Integrate the add-ons authentication backend into the externalviewset.
This allows third-party integrations (e.g. calendar add-ins) to
obtain a JWT for a user and use it to call the API (e.g. create a
room) via a Bearer authorization header.
Introduce a configuration flag to enable or disable the
application token exchange (service account) mechanism.
This allows activating alternative authentication backends
without requiring full application token configuration.
Required to support the upcoming add-ons authentication backend.
Authenticate the application secret before checking whether the
application is inactive.
This avoids revealing the inactive status of an application when
an incorrect secret is provided, preventing an authentication
state oracle and client_id enumeration.
Most models in the project use `is_active` rather than `active`.
The Application model was not aligned with this convention.
Rename the field and add a migration to standardize the naming.
Update related tests accordingly.
This change should not introduce breaking changes for external
applications.
Encapsulate token generation logic for authenticating to the
external API in a well-scoped service.
This service can later be reused in other parts of the codebase,
especially for providing tokens required by calendar integrations.
Commit was cherry picked from #897
Apply strict permission validation on the external API room endpoint to
enforce the principle of least privilege. Unlike the default API (which allows
unauthenticated room retrieval and filters access in the serializer), the
external API now only exposes rooms to users with explicit permissions.
This change fixes a security issue. Slug-based room retrieval, as supported
by the default API, is not introduced here but could be added later if needed.
Retrieving rooms by UUID is retained, as guessing a UUID is significantly harder
than a slug.
A dedicated permission class was created to avoid coupling permissions between
the default and external APIs. The external API enforces stricter access rules.
Access policies may be revisited based on user and integrator feedback. The
external API currently has no production usage.
This endpoint only exposes a custom action for token generation and does not
rely on serializers or querysets. Using ViewSet is more appropriate here, as
it provides routing without enforcing standard CRUD patterns or requiring a
serializer_class.
This removes unnecessary constraints and avoids warnings related to missing
serializer configuration, while better reflecting the actual responsibility of
this view.
I noticed this bug from Sentry issue 241308
Fix a minor issue in the external API where users were matched using
case-sensitive email comparison, while authentication treats emails as
case-insensitive. This caused inconsistencies that are now resolved.
Spotted by T. Lemeur from Centrale.
Add OIDC_USER_SUB_FIELD_IMMUTABLE setting to our config and enforce
it in the user viewset. Previously relied on implicit Django
LaSuite defaults.
Makes the sub mutability constraint explicit and ensures it's enforced
at the application level, critical for provisional users where sub is
assigned on first login.
Allow external platforms using the public API to create provisional users
with email-only identification when the user doesn't yet exist in our
system. This removes a key friction point blocking third-party integrations
from fully provisioning access on behalf of new users.
Provisional users are created with email as the primary identifier. Full
identity reconciliation (sub assignment) occurs on first login, ensuring
reliable user identification is eventually established.
While email-only user creation is not ideal from an identity perspective,
it provides a pragmatic path to unlock integrations and accelerate adoption
through external platforms that are increasingly driving our videoconference
tool's growth.
Upgrade django-lasuite to v0.0.19 to benefit from the latest resource server
authentication backend. Thanks @qbey for your work. For my needs, @qbey
refactored the class in #46 on django-lasuite.
Integrate ResourceServerAuthentication in the relevant viewset. The integration
is straightforward since most heavy lifting was done in the external-api viewset
when introducing the service account.
Slightly modify the existing service account authentication backend to defer to
ResourceServerAuthentication if a token is not recognized.
Override user provisioning behavior in ResourceServerBackend: now, a user is
automatically created if missing, based on the 'sub' claim (email is not yet
present in the introspection response). Note: shared/common implementation
currently only retrieves users, failing if the user does not exist.
From a security perspective, the list endpoint should be limited to return only
rooms created by the external application. Currently, there is a risk of
exposing public rooms through this endpoint.
I will address this in upcoming commits by updating the room model to track
the source of generation. This will also provide useful information
for analytics.
The API viewset was largely copied and adapted. The serializer was heavily
restricted to return a response more appropriate for external applications,
providing ready-to-use information for their users
(for example, a clickable link).
I plan to extend the room information further, potentially aligning it with the
Google Meet API format. This first draft serves as a solid foundation.
Although scopes for delete and update exist, these methods have not yet been
implemented in the viewset. They will be added in future commits.
This endpoint does not strictly follow the OAuth2 Machine-to-Machine
specification, as we introduce the concept of user delegation (instead of
using the term impersonation).
Typically, OAuth2 M2M is used only to authenticate a machine in server-to-server
exchanges. In our case, we require external applications to act on behalf of a
user in order to assign room ownership and access.
Since these external applications are not integrated with our authorization
server, a workaround was necessary. We treat the delegated user’s email as a
form of scope and issue a JWT to the application if it is authorized to request
it.
Using the term scope for an email may be confusing, but it remains consistent
with OAuth2 vocabulary and allows for future extension, such as supporting a
proper M2M process without any user delegation.
It is important not to confuse the scope in the request body with the scope in
the generated JWT. The request scope refers to the delegated email, while the
JWT scope defines what actions the external application can perform on our
viewset, matching Django’s viewset method naming.
The viewset currently contains a significant amount of logic. I did not find
a clean way to split it without reducing maintainability, but this can be
reconsidered in the future.
Error messages are intentionally vague to avoid exposing sensitive
information to attackers.
lebaudantoine