ihasmail called itself "2.0" on the About page and "2.0.0" from
/api/health, both hardcoded, in four places that had drifted from each
other and from anything meaningful. A build now says what it is:
ihasmail v2.16.57
| | |
| | the pull request the commit came from
| the Stalwart generation this build targets -- 0.16
ihasmail's own major
The first two are the version in the root package.json, so there is a
single place to bump them, and 16 becomes 17 when ihasmail moves to
Stalwart 0.17. Dropping 0.15 is what makes that middle number honest:
while two generations were supported it could not have been either.
The pull request number comes from git at build time and is never
written back into the tree. It cannot be: it does not exist until the
pull request has merged, so a committed version would always describe a
merge that had not happened yet, and every open branch would collide on
the same line. A commit that did not come through a pull request carries
the last number plus its own short SHA -- 2.16.57+g1fa6578 -- which says
it is past that pull request rather than quietly claiming to be it.
.dockerignore excludes .git on purpose, so an image build cannot work
any of this out. It takes --build-arg IHASMAIL_VERSION instead, which
the build stage bakes into the bundle and the runtime stage keeps as an
environment variable for the server. Left out, it falls back to the base
version from package.json rather than failing -- so a version with no PR
number on it means whoever built the image did not pass one.
scripts/ is copied into the runtime image because the server resolves
its version through it. There is no git in there to ask, which is the
fallback's whole purpose.
Verified: 2.16.57 in the bundle and from /api/health on a dev checkout;
the same after a real docker build --build-arg, from inside the
container; and 2.16.0 rather than a crash when the arg is left off.
Note for deploying: ihasmail-deploy.sh on the host builds without the
argument and will produce 2.16.0 until it passes
--build-arg IHASMAIL_VERSION="$(node scripts/version.mjs)".
Three things a licence audit turned up. None of them is a conflict --
every one of the 182 installed packages is permissive, and the relicence
was within the copyright holder's gift -- but all three are ways the
AGPL fails to stick.
The offer was hard-coded to this repository. Section 13 asks whoever
runs a modified version to offer *that* version's source, so every
deployment with a patch in it was pointing at the wrong tree, and would
have gone on doing so unless its operator noticed and edited the About
page. SOURCE_URL now sets it, alongside APP_NAME, and both the sign-in
page and About read it.
The offer was also only visible after signing in. Whoever is looking at
the sign-in form is interacting with the program over a network too, so
the footer carries it now.
And the two workspace packages declared no licence at all. Private, so
npm never minded, but anything reading the tree saw a blank where the
rest of the project says AGPL-3.0-or-later.
Checked both ways round: with SOURCE_URL set to a fork, the sign-in page
and About both point at the fork; with it unset, both fall back to this
repository.
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.
jcoffey-dev