A role now has a start page: the dashboard, files, upload, groups,
clients or the activity log (the last two for staff only). Anyone can
override their role's choice in their profile. The administrator role
takes a start page too, while everything else about it stays locked.
A choice is only used if the account can open that page now. Otherwise
the next one down is tried, ending at the dashboard, so a permission
removed later never lands somebody on a 403. A role cannot be saved
with a start page its own permissions block. A link followed before
signing in still wins, and a waiting getting-started or what's-new page
still goes first.
Applies to password, two-factor and provider sign-ins, and to the site
root for someone already signed in. StartPageTest opens every page for
real, with and without its permission, so the enum cannot drift from
the routes.
Requested by @Zodiac1978 in #1777.
The screen leaked account existence a second way, through the write, and
this one is older than last night's: it is the scaffolding. Laravel
answers a failed reset with passwords.user for an address it cannot find
and passwords.token for a real one whose token is dead, and the controller
surfaced __($status) straight through. Two sentences, one difference, and
the difference is whether the account is here.
passwords.throttled is the third and the sharpest. The broker throttles
per user, so an address nobody holds can never be throttled — being told
to wait is being told the account exists.
All of them collapse to one sentence now. Nothing is lost: the action is
the same in every case, and /forgot-password one step earlier already
refuses to say whether an address has an account. Keeping three messages
was only ever more precise about a thing we had decided not to say.
Found because the portal session went looking for the GET oracle I had
just fixed, found theirs, and also found a POST variant I had not thought
to check. I had it too.
The test asserts the two refusals are identical rather than naming the
sentence, so it survives the wording changing.
I built the oracle in the commit whose docblock describes preventing it.
The comment said a page answering "expired" for a real address and
something else for an unknown one would tell anybody who typed a guess
whether an account is here — and then the method returned false for an
unknown address and true for a known one. Two branches, two answers, and
the difference was the account.
/forgot-password deliberately says "a link will be sent if the account
exists". This undid that on the next screen along.
Both branches answer the same now: anything that will not validate reads
as expired, whether the address is known, unknown or absent. The message
stays right in every case somebody real will meet — a mistyped address
gets "ask for a new link", which is what they should do anyway — and the
page reveals nothing.
The test is written as "these two are the same answer" rather than "both
are false", so it keeps holding if somebody later changes which answer it
is. The two tests that encoded the oracle asserted `expired` was false for
an unknown address; they were pinning the bug.
Found by asking my own question of my own code. The portal session had
checked whether their collation folded addresses, which sent me back to
the reset screen to see what it does with an address it cannot place.
The page rendered the form without looking at the token, so somebody
opening a link an hour late typed a password, typed it again to confirm,
and was then told "this password reset token is invalid" — a word nobody
outside the code knows, at the end rather than the start. Links last an
hour and people open them late. That is ordinary, not an error to be
scolded for.
store() still validates and is still the rule; there is a test that a
spent token is refused there whatever the page drew. This is only the
screen being honest a minute earlier.
An address that is missing, or belongs to nobody, is drawn as the form was
before. Partly because an unanswerable question is not an expired link,
but mostly because a page that said "expired" for a real address and
something else for an unknown one would answer whether an account exists
here to anybody typing guesses — the exact property /forgot-password
protects by saying "a link will be sent if the account exists". Two tests
pin that.
Worth having now rather than later: the advisories publishing with this
release will send more people than usual through this screen, in a hurry
and some of them frightened.
Found by the portal session's user, who opened a real link an hour and
forty minutes after it was sent.
ConfirmablePasswordController checked the local hash and nothing else:
Auth::guard('web')->validate(['email' => ..., 'password' => ...])
An account provisioned from a directory has no local password. It holds a
Str::password(64) generated at provisioning time that nobody has ever
seen, and the application knows this -- LdapAuthenticator::isDirectoryAccount()
is the question, and the sign-in form asks it before deciding what to
check. This screen did not, so it refused those accounts the only password
they have.
That is not a cosmetic refusal. `password.confirm` stands in front of
enrolling in two-factor, so a directory-provisioned client could not enrol
at all. Set TwoFactorEnforcement to `clients` or `all` and EnforceTwoFactor
redirects every request they make to two-factor.show -- a screen whose
"enable" button leads to a door they cannot open. PR #1708 fixed the
routing half of that ("Let an enforced user reach the far side of the
confirm-password screen"); this is the credential half.
The rule now lives in one place. PasswordVerification is the sibling of
SignIn on the other side of the line SignIn draws -- SignIn is everything
after a credential checks out, this is the one question asked before it --
and it exists for the reason SignIn gives for existing: "the way they get
broken is by being written twice". LoginRequest keeps its ordering, its
provisioning and its rate limiting, and delegates the check itself.
Behaviour preserved exactly on the sign-in path: local hash first so an
account that answers locally generates no directory traffic, directory
only for accounts whose credentials live there, the stale-hash re-hash on
the local branch only, and the ldap_dn stamp on the directory branch. All
23 existing LDAP sign-in tests pass unchanged.
One thing this closes on the way past. Because the old check went straight
to the local hash, a directory account's placeholder *would* have confirmed
if anybody ever learned it -- a door the sign-in form does not have, since
it skips the local branch for those accounts. It now behaves the same on
both screens; there is a test.
**What this does not fix, and should be read as a limitation.** Accounts
provisioned by a social provider are in the same position -- a random local
password nobody holds -- and they are not directory accounts, so this
changes nothing for them. Their route to a local password is the password
reset, which #1748 made work end to end by moving auth_source to Local when
the reset completes. A social account that has never done that still cannot
confirm a password, and so still cannot enrol in two-factor.
Tests: three fail against the unfixed pair, including the placeholder case
above. Two more pin what must not change -- a wrong directory password is
still refused, and a local account with LDAP switched on still confirms
against its own hash.
Two accounts reach the same reset with opposite needs, and it treated
both as "write a hash and hope".
A provider-created account is told, on the Connected accounts screen, to
"set a password first, then disconnect Google" -- and doing it changed
nothing, because nothing ever set auth_source back to Local.
AccountConversion is the only writer, and that is an administrator. So the
screen went on asking for something that had already been done, and the
person could not release their last provider without help.
AuthSource states the rule that closes this: `social` means the account
came into existence without anybody choosing a password, and, in as many
words, "a social account may later set a real password". A reset by
emailed token is where somebody does. The screen's has_local_password prop
is literally auth_source === Local, so the write is what completes the
sentence it prints.
A directory account is the opposite case and gets the opposite answer.
isDirectoryAccount() means the local hash is not consulted at all, so the
reset reported success and left the person with a password that cannot
sign them in -- including when the directory it points at is gone, which
is exactly when somebody reaches for a reset. It is refused now, with the
reason, and nothing about the account moves: taking one off its directory
is an administrator's decision through AccountConversion, not a side
effect of a reset.
The refusal sits where the token has already been validated, not where the
link is asked for. That endpoint answers "A reset link will be sent if the
account exists" to everybody on purpose, and refusing there would tell a
stranger both that an address is an account and how it signs in. Throwing
before the write also leaves the token unspent, since PasswordBroker
deletes it after the callback returns.
ProfileController::destroy() validates current_password and soft-deletes.
It never asks StaffAccounts::guardLastAdministrator(), and every other
door does: Staff update(), guardDeletable(), and both directions of the
role conversion. This is the one door where the account being removed is
certainly signed in.
An installation with a single administrator therefore had a button that
emptied it. Measured on main:
DELETE /settings/profile 302, the account is gone
live staff rows 0 (the row is trashed, not removed)
anonymous GET / 302 -> /setup
anonymous POST /setup a new active System Administrator
EnsureSetupIsComplete asks ->exists(), which excludes trashed rows, and
routes/web.php registers GET and POST setup with no auth and no guest
middleware -- correctly, since a fresh installation has nobody to
authenticate. SetupController::store() re-checks the same condition, so
both halves agreed with each other and both were wrong once the last
staff row was trashed.
Two locks, because one of them is asked at five doors and the other at
one.
First: destroy() now asks guardLastAdministrator(), the same call with
the same message as everywhere else. An administrator with a colleague
still goes, a non-administrator staff member still goes, and a client
still closes their own account.
Second: "has this installation been set up" is not the same question as
"does it have a working administrator right now", and only the first one
belongs in EnsureSetupIsComplete. A trashed staff row is still evidence
that setup happened, so it now counts -- in the middleware and in
SetupController::setupIsComplete(), which have to agree or the result is
either a redirect loop or an open form.
That second lock holds even if a future door forgets the first one.
Measured with the guard bypassed entirely and the row trashed directly:
GET / answers with the login screen and POST /setup creates nothing.
Worth stating plainly: an installation that has already lost its last
administrator will now find setup shut rather than open. That is the
point -- the recovery path for it is `php artisan projectsend:admin`,
which is also how every unattended container installs itself, not a form
that anybody on the internet can reach.
Six tests, two measured red against the unfixed code (2 failed / 4
passed) -- one per lock. The other four are the boundaries: a colleague
present, a staff member who is not an administrator, a client, and a
genuinely fresh installation that must still reach setup.
Two existing tests needed saying more clearly rather than changing:
ProfileUpdateTest's deletion cases now create a second administrator, so
that what they assert is self-deletion and not this new refusal; and
GettingStartedTest's "fresh installation" cases forceDelete rather than
delete, because a soft-deleted staff row is no longer a fresh
installation -- which is the whole of the second lock.
Full suite passes (2054 passed / 2 skipped), PHPStan level 8 clean.
An account deleted by an administrator was soft-deleted with erase_after
null, so projectsend:purge-erasures — which filters on
whereNotNull('erase_after') — never reached it, and the unique index on
users.email kept the address reserved forever. Anyone re-creating the
account got "The email has already been taken", naming a conflict nothing
on any screen could show or clear (#1648).
Both halves of the issue's option 3:
Every deletion path now schedules the erasure. The stamp lives in
ErasureSchedule — self-deletion switched to it, and StaffAccounts::delete
(shared by the web screen and the API) and both client controllers call
it right before delete(). Same grace period, same purge, whoever deleted
the account. Deliberately no backfill for rows deleted before this
change: stamping them during an update would start a countdown to data
erasure that nobody chose at deletion time; the message below covers
them instead.
The staff creation paths swap unique:users,email for AvailableEmailRule,
which refuses exactly the same things but can explain the one refusal
the stock message can't: an address held by a deleted account now names
the date it becomes available, and one deleted before scheduling existed
points at projectsend:erase-account. A living account keeps the stock
message, and public registration keeps the stock rule — telling an
anonymous visitor the address belongs to a deleted account would confirm
it had an account here.
Client file sharing, rebuilt from the ground up: a private area per
client, resumable uploads, folders, groups and categories, sharing with
expiry dates and download limits, comments, file versions, an activity
log, a REST API, and sixteen languages.
This repository begins here. ProjectSend 2 was developed privately, and
that development history is not published — the previous generation
remains available, with its own history, at projectsend/legacy.
Free software under the GNU General Public License v2, or (at your
option) any later version.
ignacionelson