166a04f578d31b70ddd70a9a9f40245d67e84cd6
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 jcoffey-dev
|
d98c425a9a |
Stop pretending the two-factor field can work
Signing in with a two-factor code failed with a bare 401 and "Invalid credentials", which sent the user off to check a password that was perfectly good (#75). It cannot work, and the app already knew. Stalwart accepts a TOTP code only through an OAuth flow -- its own web interface is an OAuth client, which is why signing in *there* succeeds -- and it offers only the authorization-code and device flows. There is no password grant, so a client holding a username and password has nowhere to exchange them plus a code for a token. The concatenated `password$code` form this README claimed was accepted is not a route the server has, and appears never to have been. What was verified live on 0.16.19 was enabling and disabling 2FA, never signing in with a code. The contradiction was already in the codebase: turning 2FA *on* mints an app password and reseals the session onto it, precisely because a plain password stops working from that moment. The sign-in page was the one place still assuming otherwise. Three changes, no new capability: - A 401 on a sign-in that carried a code now says what is happening and where to go instead, and says the password is probably fine. A sign-in without a code is untouched, so an ordinary typo still reads as an ordinary typo. - The field stays, and is honest about itself. Removing it would leave someone with 2FA finding nothing at all, which is worse than finding a field that explains the situation and points at app passwords. - The README's claim is corrected rather than quietly dropped, and real 2FA support is written into the roadmap as what it is: an OAuth implementation, handing sign-in to Stalwart and holding a refresh token instead of a sealed password. |
||
|
jcoffey-dev
|
94bf42cfda |
Drop Stalwart 0.15 support
ihasmail spoke to two generations of Stalwart that are less alike than their version numbers suggest: 0.16 replaced the REST management API with JMAP registry objects, changed the shape of FileNode, split its rights up, and moved configuration into the store. Carrying both meant 34 branch points across nine files, a 92-line compatibility shim whose only job was telling them apart, a parallel REST implementation of every credential operation, and a mock that had to model both. The branches were not the real cost. The cost was that a wrong answer about which generation had answered always had somewhere to fall back to, so it failed quietly rather than loudly: one capability looked for in the wrong place downgraded every real 0.16 server onto the 0.15 path, which posted the current password to an endpoint 0.16 had removed, reported the wrong generation on About, and ran Files on the older code. It reached production and was recorded as verified when it was not. The mock mirrored the same wrong placement, which is why the tests agreed. Removed: the filenode compatibility shim, the dual "registry" | "legacy" backend in account.ts, the pre-0.16 generation in AccountInfo and everything that read it, the mock's LEGACY mode and dev:mock:legacy, and the three test files that existed only to pin 0.15 behaviour. Sign-in now refuses an older server by name, once, rather than letting Files, the account locale and credentials each fail in their own way with nothing connecting them. It says the credentials were fine -- someone hitting this has typed a correct password, and telling them otherwise sends them round in circles -- and names the tag to build from. Four tests cover it, including that no session cookie is minted and that bad credentials on such a server are still a plain 401. Two fallbacks went that were not strictly about 0.15, and both for the same reason the removal is happening. Files no longer answers a refused filter or sort by fetching every node in the account, which would hide a real fault behind a performance cliff nobody would notice. And the app folder lookups now filter on parentId/isTopLevel alone and match names client-side, since `name` is not a filter Stalwart is known to implement and one it does not know fails the whole query rather than being ignored. The last release that runs on 0.15 is tagged stalwart-0.15-support. Verified against the mock end to end: sign-in, the Files tree on the 0.16 path with the app folder hidden, and self-service credentials over the registry. 226 web + 75 server tests pass; typecheck and build clean. |
||
|
jcoffey-dev
|
14125a0799 |
Look for Stalwart's capability where Stalwart advertises it
Self-service credentials, the About page and Files all keyed off `urn:stalwart:jmap`, and all three looked for it in the session-level `capabilities`. Stalwart has never put it there. `Session::new` builds that list from a fixed set the capability is not part of, in any 0.16.x from 0.16.0 to 0.16.19; it is handed out per-account instead, so it arrives in `primaryAccounts` and in each account's `accountCapabilities`. So every real 0.16 server read as pre-0.16. Password changes, 2FA and app passwords fell back to `POST /api/account/auth`, which 0.16 removed, and reported that the server offers no self-service credential management. About named the wrong generation. Files ran the pre-0.16 path, omitting `nodeType` and listing the tree through get. Look in all three places, on both sides. Two nearby soft spots go with it: a transport error while probing the registry no longer downgrades a server to the legacy path -- which would have posted the current password to an endpoint that is not there -- and a locale request that is merely refused no longer discards a generation the capability had already settled. The mock advertised the capability in the session, which is why no test ever caught this; it now advertises it where the real server does, and validates `using` by the urn rather than by the session, as Stalwart does. Put the old lookup back and nine tests fail. Stalwart still publishes no version number to clients -- VERSION_PUBLIC is a fixed "1.0.0" -- so About continues to report the generation and edition, which are now the right ones. |
||
|
jcoffey-dev
|
0f1fbcff93 |
Manage your own password, app passwords and 2FA
Settings › Security grows three working sections instead of a note telling people to use Stalwart's own portal. Stalwart moved this API between releases, so ihasmail speaks both: 0.16+ has the x:AccountPassword singleton and x:AppPassword registry objects over JMAP, while 0.15.x has the /api/account/auth REST endpoint. Which one answers the probe is the only reliable way to tell them apart, and the result is cached per session. The built-in `user` role already grants sysAccountPassword* and sysAppPassword*, so no administrator setup is needed. Two problems are worth calling out, because both would bite a user hard: Stalwart validates the credentials already on the account when 2FA is turned on and never checks the new secret, so an authenticator that was mistyped or out of step would lock someone out of their mailbox at the next sign-in. We verify a code against the new secret ourselves first (RFC 6238, tested against the spec's vectors) and only then ask the server to store anything. Every proxied call re-authenticates with the credential sealed into the session, and from the moment 2FA is on Stalwart wants a fresh TOTP code with it — which we cannot produce between requests. Turning 2FA on would therefore sign the user out of the browser they just turned it on in. App passwords authenticate without a second factor, so the session is moved onto one minted for this browser, and the session cookie is re-sealed with it. The order matters: it is minted while the old credential still works, and revoked again if enabling then fails. Password changes re-seal this session too and drop the others, whose sealed copies of the old password would fail on their next call. The mock now enforces what a real server does — current password, password policy, a TOTP code on every request once 2FA is on, app passwords exempt — so the whole flow is exercised in tests rather than only by hand. |