Protect OIDC tokens generated by Forgejo Actions from threats arising when users or repositories are renamed or deleted, freeing their names up for reuse by another user. In this threat environment, relying on the name of users and repositories in validating JWT claims is unsafe because they can change.
Adds three new claims to Actions' OIDC tokens:
- `actor_id` -- the immutable identifier of the actor who triggered an Action run
- `repository_id` -- the immutable identifier of the repository on which the Action is running
- `repository_owner_id` -- the immutable identifier of the owner of the repository on which the Action is running
Repositories will change their subject (`sub`) OIDC claims to include these immutable identifiers. Existing repositories will not change, in order to maintain compatibility with existing JWT usage. The new format will be applied to new repositories, or can be applied by disabling and enabling the Actions unit. The new format embeds the identifiers:
- **Existing repos:** `repo:my-org/my-repo:ref:refs/heads/main`
- **New repos:** `repo:my-org-123456/my-repo-456789:ref:refs/heads/main`
Fixes#12244.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- New fields will be added to documentation soon.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12355
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Allow JWTs that are generated by Forgejo Actions to be validated within Forgejo in-memory. Without any special support for this internal access situation, these problems would occur:
1. Forgejo would need to make an HTTP request to itself to get the valid public key for the JWT, in order to validate its signature. This is a waste of resources, and introduces a self-DoS risk.
2. Forgejo would need to be available via TLS in order for Actions to make service calls to Forgejo with that JWT, due to the TLS requirement for public key fetching. This would be a blocker for writing end-to-end tests for Forgejo, but also would affect users who do not host Forgejo with TLS.
3. Authorized Integrations would need to be saved with the `issuer` URL of Forgejo. If Forgejo's own `setting.AppURL` changed, all the persisted records in the database would become incorrect.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12364
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Enables and tests the usage of Authorized Integrations to access the package registries. Specific testing includes:
- Container registry -- automated testing and manual testing
- Generic registry, w/ detailed authorization tests -- automated testing
- Conan registry -- automated testing (uses an "authenticate" endpoint that required updates)
- npm registry -- manual testing with a Forgejo Action publishing packages
For the container & conan registeries, where the client uses an authentication endpoint to request a temporary access token, the expiry of the temporary access token is restricted to the expiry of the authorized integration's JWT for the authorized integration in order to prevent an escalation of privileges.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12310
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Enhances authorized integrations (#12261) with a cache of the remote OpenID Connect descriptor file and JSON Web Key Set (JWKS), improving runtime performance and reducing intermittent reliability risks. By default a 10 minute cache is used, configurable through `[authorized_integration].CACHE_TTL`.
To mock the cache for testing, mockery code generation is added, and a previous manually generated mock for `AuthorizationReducer` was replaced with the code generation.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Authorized integrations are not yet exposed to end-users.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12275
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Built on #12266; one commit added.
Adds the ability to reduce the authorization scope of an authorized integration to public-only resources and repo-specific resources. Backend only -- no frontend created yet.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12267
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Built on #12261; one commit added.
Adds an integration test verifying that access to the API can be authenticated by an authorized integration.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12266
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Authorized Integrations is a new feature to allow users to define external systems which can generate JSON Web Tokens (JWTs) that Forgejo will trust in order to perform API access on behalf of that user. This is an authentication mechanism that requires zero preconfiguration of shared secrets, and instead establishes trust through short-lived secrets (JWTs) that are signed by the issuer, signatures are validated by comparison with published public keys, and a public-keys retrieved through well-known HTTP endpoints secured with TLS verification.
The primary goal of Authorized Integrations is to support a mechanism for Forgejo Actions to receive elevated, but controlled, additional access to Forgejo. More details as to what the end result will look like are available in the [design proposal](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004) on #3571.
This PR adds the core database storage and authentication verification for Authorized Integrations, with these capabilities:
- An Authorized Integration is resolved by a unique key of an "issuer" and an "audience". The value of "issuer" is defined by the remote integration, and the value of "audience" will incorporate a unique identifier generated by Forgejo.
- Example issuer: `https://token.actions.githubusercontent.com/` is the issuer for GitHub JWTs
- Example audience: `https://forgejo.example.org/-/mfenniak/authorized-integration/6cc55ba0` is the expected format for a random audience field that Forgejo will generate.
- JWTs can contain any number of claims, which are represented as a JSON object; Forgejo can validate these with a flexible policy.
- eg. a claim may be `{"sub": "repo:coolguy/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` indicating that an OIDC token was received from an Actions execution in a specific repo on a specific event.
- Authorized Integrations support a `ClaimRules` system which allows claim equal, glob, and nested object inspection.
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"eq","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:pull_request"}` -- would validate that `sub` exactly equals the specific value
- `{"claim":"sub","comparison":"glob","value":"repo:mfenniak/forgejo-runner-testrepo:*"}` -- would validate that `sub` matches the given string prefix but allow any event
- When a JWT is received on an incoming API call, Forgejo retrieves the Authorized Integration from the DB (if present), validates the token signature against a remote JWKS, validates the claims, and grants API access as the user with a permission scope defined on the Authorized Integration.
In addition to the unit testing provided here, this PR has been manually integration tested against three JWT issuing systems: Forgejo Actions, GitHub Actions, and AWS STS GetWebIdentityToken.
Careful consideration has been made of these security concerns:
- SSRF attacks against Forgejo are prevented by:
- having a blocklist on remote HTTP validation requests which prevent access to internal network resources,
- ensuring that authorized integrations are created by users with matching issuers, before attempting to validate tokens
- Resource utilization attacks against Forgejo are reduced by limiting the possible size of external metadata requests; when fetching `/.well-known/openid-configuration` and `jkws_uri`'s from remote, untrusted servers, a maximum response size of 16 kB is enforced
- Only well-known secure assymmetric JWT signing algorithms are supported -- in particular, the sketchy `none` JWT algorithm isn't supported.
- JWT validation is covered by extensive unit tests, covering validation of all JWT timestamps, validation of the issuers, validation of the issuer's documented supported signing algorithms.
This PR serves as a core, and many enhancements are required for this to be a usable system for users.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- Documentation updates for new config entries will be authored.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
- Marking not visible as there's no mechanism to interact with this backend yet.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12261
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
Forgejo's `basic` and `oauth2` authentication methods perform five distinct types of authentication:
- Username and password authentication
- Personal access tokens
- OAuth2 access tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ forgejo.token }}` -- task-based static tokens
- Forgejo Action's `${{ env.ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN }}` JWT, which is the authentication method used for `upload-artifact` (mirroring GitHub's implementation)
`basic` and `oauth2` both supported almost all of these methods, resulting in quite a bit of code duplication between them. This PR splits personal access tokens into `access_token.go`, Action's task-based tokens into `action_task_token.go`, and Action's JWT tokens into `action_runtime_token.go`.
**Note:** There is one peculiar side-effect that is worth discussing. Previously, `Authorization: Basic ...` was handled by one complex code path in basic.go, and `Authorization: Bearer ...` was handled by another in oauth2.go, and if authorization failed and a 401 was returned, a single error message would be returned to the user. Now, as multiple authorization methods may look at `Authorization: Basic ...` and provide their own reason why authorization didn't work, a 401 response has multiple reasons for a lack of authorization listed:
```
401 Unauthorized
...
failure to authenticate with oauth2 access token: not a JWT
Basic authorization is not allowed while having security keys enrolled
access token does not exist [sha: notpassword]
task with token "notpassword": resource does not exist
```
A couple tests have been adapted to check that the result contains their expected response, rather than is equal-to or prefixed-with their expected result. This is caused by the "auth group" joining together any "invalid credentials" errors, and, to a certain extent it is useful to understand why the authorization request failed. But it's a bit obscure as well.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on integration testing for regression checks.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12236
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
#12202 began a refactor of Forgejo's authentication implementations by providing structured data on an authentication success. However, error cases were maintained as-is in that refactor, leaving a complex situation: what does returning an error from an authentication method mean?; does it mean that the authentication failed, or that a server error occurred? Can another authentication still be tried?
This PR changes authentication methods so that they can return one of four things:
- `AuthenticationSuccess` with an authentication result.
- `AuthenticationNotAttempted` which indicates that no credentials relevant for this authentication method were presented. If every method returned `AuthenticationNotAttempted`, then you would have an unauthenticated access.
- `AuthenticationAttemptedIncorrectCredential` which indicates that credentials were present and failed validation -- a situation indicating a `401 Unauthorized`.
- `AuthenticationError` which indicates that an internal server error occurred and failed authentication -- indicating a `500 Internal Server Error`.
This paves the way for one more refactor coming next: `basic.go` and `oauth2.go` perform 3-4 different authentications each (access tokens, oauth JWTs, actions tokens, actions JWTs, and username/password). With the capability to return these more precise responses, these authentication methods can be split up into separate logic that isn't intertwined together.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- Relying on existing test suite, with changes for any compile errors -- the next refactor will simplify the auth methods so that they can be unit tested easily.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12231
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Currently authentication methods return information in two forms: they return who was authenticated as a `*user_model.User`, and then they insert key-values into `ctx.Data` which has critical impact on how the authenticated request is treated. This PR changes the authentication methods to return structured data in the form of an `AuthenticationResult`, with all the key-value information in `ctx.Data` being moved into methods on the `AuthenticationResult` interface.
Authentication workflows in Forgejo are a real mess. This is the first step in trying to clean it up and make the code predictable and reasonable, and is both follow-up work that was identified from the repo-specific access tokens (where the `"ApiTokenReducer"` key-value was added), and is pre-requisite work to future JWT enhancements that are [being discussed](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/3571#issuecomment-13268004).
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. All work and communication must conform to Forgejo's [AI Agreement](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/AIAgreement.md). There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- All changes, at least in theory, are refactors of existing logic and are not expected to have functional deviations -- existing regression tests are the only planned testing.
- I ran...
- [x] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [x] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/12202
Reviewed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <aahlenst@noreply.codeberg.org>
## Context
the three commits in this series are the first step towards the goal of removing the special casing around `JWT_SECRET`, which is used for various modules via `GetGeneralTokenSigningSecret()`. Ultimately, I want to work towards enabling seamless migration away from general use of the common secret. To enable this, we need proper secret/key rotation support, that is, we need to allow for configuration of additional secrets/keys which are accepted for token validation, but not used to issue tokens.
I have this _Verifier_ support basically implemented, but this PR is not it.
This PR contains cleanup refactoring which I worked on before writing the _Verifier_ support, because I noticed that the existing secret/key handling across modules was inconsistent and required duplicated code.
I am submitting this part now to allow for incremental review of not too large a diff, and because these commits remained unchanged during two weeks since I moved on the the next task.
## The problem being addressed
Configuration of JWT signing secrets/keys was inconsistent:
Under `[oauth2]` the full configuration set was supported:
- `JWT_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` configured the algorithm
- `JWT_SECRET` configured a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SECRET_URI` configured a `file:` uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `JWT_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` configured a file for asymmetric algorithms
For `[server]`, the LFS module only supported `LFS_JWT_SECRET`, and the signing method was hardcoded to `HS256`
For `[actions]`, only asymmetric signing methods were supported via `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_ALGORITHM` and `ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE`.
## ini unification
The proposed code centralizes ini parsing to always support the following ini keys:
- `[pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM` determines the algorithm
- `[pfx]SECRET` is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SECRET_URI` is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- `[pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE` is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
`[pfx]` is specific to the module and chosen to support the existing ini keys
Centralizing this code and unifying the ini keys will come handy for at least the following reasons:
- consistent behavior across modules is easier to understand
- less duplicated code
- easier to expand later, which is my main motivation
## implementation notes
as might be apparent by the _take3_ branch name, this is the third iteration of this patch series. The main reason why I abandoned the other two is that I first tried to move all the key initialization into the code called from settings.go when the ini file is parsed. But that lead to a lot of friction with test cases, because private key files which are configured, but do not exist will get created and hence require a writable `AppDataPath` and additional clean up.
To avoid a lot of noise and complications in test cases, I kept the existing two stage process, where
- the settings component creates missing symmetric signing keys and writes them to the .ini
- the settings component creates a simple configuration struct
- which is then used from the module init to create the actual key, which also includes creating a private key file if asymmetric crypto is configured and the key file does not exist.
I would have wished this patch was a net negative in terms of LOCs, but I hope it contributes to clarity and many added lines are in test cases.
## Commits
Because sometimes PRs are merged as squashes with the PR text remaining, I am repeating here the individual messages of the individual commits for future reference:
### Refactor signing key initalization and oauth2 use of it
This commit is the first in a series towards the goal of addressing the
FIXME comment in modules/setting/oauth2.go to remove
GeneralTokenSigningSecret
To do it properly, the task also requires addition of signing secret/key
rotation: We ultimately want to be able to change a signing key, but
continue to accept the previous one. This is particularly relevant to
offer a path from GeneralTokenSigningSecret aka JWT_SECRET to new,
specific component key configuration, where it should be possible to add
the former JWT_SECRET as a key accepted for verification to enable a
seamless transition.
This perspective, in turn, calls for refactoring of the existing secret
initialization code to centralize the common functions of parsing
signing key related configuration directives: The oauth2 module
currently is the only component accepting symmetric and asymmetric keys,
with the limitation of the symmetric key being also the
GeneralTokenSigningSecret. Other components either enforce HS256 or
public key algorithms.
We should really give the choice of algorithm selection and avoid code
duplication in other places, so this commit
- generalizes setting parsing into a configuration struct: A prefix can
be provided, with which the common configuration directives are
processed:
- [pfx]SIGNING_ALGORITHM determines the algorithm
- [pfx]SECRET is a literal secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SECRET_URI is the uri of a secret for symmetric algorithms
- [pfx]SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE is a file with a private key for asymmetric algorithms
- which is then accepted by jwtx.InitSigningKey() to create an actual
signing key
The reasons for the two stage process are explained in a long-ish
comment in modules/setting/security.go. In short, other options would
either violate sensible module boundaries or cause too much friction.
These other options have actually been tried, this is take 3 of the
proposed changes.
### Refactor services/lfs: Change token code to use SigningKey
This now also enables use of token algorithms other than HS256.
In this case, signing key initialization also happens during settings
initialization, because LFS is also used in CLI commands.
### Refactor api/actions to use new signingkey API
This now also enables use of symmetric token algorithms.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11194
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Forgejo's OCI container registry did not enable basic authentication for the top-level endpoint `/v2`. Furthermore, it did not include the `WWW-Authenticate` header when returning the status code 401 as mandated by [RFC 7235](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7235#section-3.1), "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Authentication", section 3.1. Those deficiencies made it impossible for Apple's [container](https://github.com/apple/container) to log into Forgejo OCI container registry. This has been rectified.
The problem did not occur with most other tools because they do not include credentials when sending the initial request to `/v2`. Forgejo's reply then included `WWW-Authenticate` as expected.
Enabling basic authentication for `/v2` has the side effect that Apple's container uses username and password for all successive requests and not the bearer token. If that is a problem, it's up to Apple to change container's behaviour.
If invalid credentials are passed to `container registry login`, then container enters an infinite loop. The same happens with quay.io, but not ghcr.io (returns 403) or docker.io (returns 401 but _without_ `WWW-Authenticate`). As this is invalid behaviour on container's side, it's up to Apple to change container. Docker and Podman handle it correctly.
Login and pushing have been tested manually with Docker 29.1.3, Podman 5.7.1, and Apple's container 0.9.0.
Resolves https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/issues/11297.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests for Go changes
(can be removed for JavaScript changes)
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I ran...
- [ ] `make pr-go` before pushing
### Tests for JavaScript changes
(can be removed for Go changes)
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] This change will be noticed by a Forgejo user or admin (feature, bug fix, performance, etc.). I suggest to include a release note for this change.
- [ ] This change is not visible to a Forgejo user or admin (refactor, dependency upgrade, etc.). I think there is no need to add a release note for this change.
*The decision if the pull request will be shown in the release notes is up to the mergers / release team.*
The content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` file will serve as the basis for the release notes. If the file does not exist, the title of the pull request will be used instead.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11393
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
Co-committed-by: Andreas Ahlenstorf <andreas@ahlenstorf.ch>
There are two ways to use a OAuth2 token:
Via the Authorization header as a Bearer token.
Via the Authorization header as a Basic login.
For the former the scope was correctly passed through, for the latter it
was not and would mean no scope was checked if you used the token via
this way.
This slightly simplifies calling code by centralizing the common 3-liner to create a JWT from claims, signed by a key.
But more importantly, it reduces the risk of `key.PreProcessToken()` being forgotten, which will become relevant in upcoming PRs:
`key.PreProcessToken()` adds the key id to the JWT header, which is important to efficiently validate tokens when multiple validation keys are supported (that is not the case yet)
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/11067
Co-authored-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Co-committed-by: Nils Goroll <nils.goroll@uplex.de>
Add support for OIDC workload identity federation.
Add ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_ALGORITHM, ID_TOKEN_SIGNING_PRIVATE_KEY_FILE, and
ID_TOKEN_EXPIRATION_TIME settings to settings.actions to allow for admin
configuration of this functionality.
Add OIDC endpoints (/.well-known/openid-configuration and /.well-known/keys)
underneath the "/api/actions" route.
Add a token generation endpoint (/_apis/pipelines/workflows/{run_id}/idtoken)
underneath the "/api/actions" route.
Depends on: https://code.forgejo.org/forgejo/runner/pulls/1232
Docs PR: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs/pulls/1667
Signed-off-by: Mario Minardi <mminardi@shaw.ca>
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [x] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [ ] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/10481
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mario Minardi <mminardi@shaw.ca>
Co-committed-by: Mario Minardi <mminardi@shaw.ca>
Replace the anti-CSRF token with a [cross origin protection by Go](https://go.dev/doc/go1.25#nethttppkgnethttp) that uses a stateless way of verifying if a request was cross origin or not. This allows is to remove al lot of code and replace it with a few lines of code and we no longer have to hand roll this protection. The new protection uses indicators by the browser itself that indicate if the request is cross-origin, thus we no longer have to take care of ensuring the generated CSRF token is passed back to the server any request by the the browser will have send this indicator.
Resolvesforgejo/forgejo#3538
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9830
Reviewed-by: oliverpool <oliverpool@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mfenniak@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Noted in #9557 -- as more foreign keys are added, a couple test locations (`reverseproxy_test.go` and `cmd_admin_test.go`) that truncate fixture data have a growing list of impacted tables. This PR introduces a new `TruncateBeansCascade` which can be used for tests, as well as enhancing some helper functions that I expect will be used later to support automatic operation ordering.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests. (**Implicitly tested** by virtue of usage in a test.)
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [x] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9684
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Adds two foreign keys:
- `access.user_id` -> `user`
- `access.repo_id` -> `repository`
Testing:
- Existing automated test suite
- Minor adjustments required to `reverseproxy_test.go`
- Test failures caused a reorganization of delete operations in `DeleteRepositoryDirectly`
- Manually tested
- On "user" and "repo" Collaborator page, added, removed, and changed the access-level of collaborators
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [ ] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [ ] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [x] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [ ] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
<!--start release-notes-assistant-->
## Release notes
<!--URL:https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo-->
- Features
- [PR](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9557): <!--number 9557 --><!--line 0 --><!--description YWRkIGZvcmVpZ24ga2V5cyB0byB0aGUgYGFjY2Vzc2AgdGFibGU=-->add foreign keys to the `access` table<!--description-->
<!--end release-notes-assistant-->
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9557
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
This patch contains two fixes/enhancements to two functions that were updating all columns of the `access_token` and `repository` table when they were only updating a select few columns. Within Codeberg we saw these two queries quite often when something problematic with the database was going on, likely because of this all columns update pattern. `UpdateAccessToken` is removed and a new function `UpdateLastUsed` was added, for `updateRepoRunsNumbers` we can simply add which columns we want to have updated in that query.
It's likely there are more of such queries, but these were the ones being executed often.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9572
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Reviewed-by: Otto <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Adds four foreign keys:
- stopwatch -- issue_id -> issue, user_id -> user
- tracked_time -- issue_id -> issue, user_id -> user
The majority of work encompassed in this PR is updating testing and support infrastructure to support foreign keys:
- `models/db/foreign_keys.go` adds new capabilities to sort registered tables into the right insertion order to avoid violating foreign keys
- `RecreateTables`, used by migration testing and the `doctor recreate-table` CLI, has been updated to support tables with foreign keys; new restrictions require that FK-related tables be rebuilt at the same time
- test fixture data is inserted in foreign-key order, and deleted in the reverse
An upgrade to xorm v1.3.9-forgejo.2 is incorporated in this PR, as two unexpected behaviors in the foreign key schema management were discovered during development of the updated `RecreateTables` routine.
Work in this PR is laid out to be reviewed easier commit-by-commit.
## Checklist
The [contributor guide](https://forgejo.org/docs/next/contributor/) contains information that will be helpful to first time contributors. There also are a few [conditions for merging Pull Requests in Forgejo repositories](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/governance/src/branch/main/PullRequestsAgreement.md). You are also welcome to join the [Forgejo development chatroom](https://matrix.to/#/#forgejo-development:matrix.org).
### Tests
- I added test coverage for Go changes...
- [x] in their respective `*_test.go` for unit tests.
- [x] in the `tests/integration` directory if it involves interactions with a live Forgejo server.
- I added test coverage for JavaScript changes...
- [ ] in `web_src/js/*.test.js` if it can be unit tested.
- [ ] in `tests/e2e/*.test.e2e.js` if it requires interactions with a live Forgejo server (see also the [developer guide for JavaScript testing](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/src/branch/forgejo/tests/e2e/README.md#end-to-end-tests)).
### Documentation
- [ ] I created a pull request [to the documentation](https://codeberg.org/forgejo/docs) to explain to Forgejo users how to use this change.
- [x] I did not document these changes and I do not expect someone else to do it.
### Release notes
- [ ] I do not want this change to show in the release notes.
- [ ] I want the title to show in the release notes with a link to this pull request.
- [x] I want the content of the `release-notes/<pull request number>.md` to be be used for the release notes instead of the title.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/9373
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
Co-committed-by: Mathieu Fenniak <mathieu@fenniak.net>
- The creation of new API tokens for users via the API is guarded behind
a extra check. This extra makes sure the user is authorized via the
reverse proxy method (if enabled) or via basic authorization.
- For, what seems to me, historical reasons the basic authorization also
handles logging in via the API token.
- This results in a API token (with `write:user` scope) or OAuth2 token
being able to create a new API token with escalated privileges.
- Add a new condition to this check to ensure the user logged in via
password.
- Change error to better indicate what went wrong.
- Password hashing can take a measurable amount of time, make this more visible in the trace by capturing the computations done in the password hash in their own region.
- Ref: forgejo/forgejo#6470
## Screenshot
The upper part are where the tasks are shown (and nothing else). The bottom part is where the interesting execution tracing happens and the part where the user password hashing happens is now properly indicated/highlighted and does not need to be inferred by looking at the stack traces.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7981
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
- They have been marked as deprecated since 2023 and adequate warnings have been given about this method being deprecated, remove it for Forgejo v12.
- For clarity: the reason they are deprecated is that these methods allow authentication material to be given via a URL query. This results in the authentication material being logged, which is undesired behavior.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7924
Reviewed-by: Beowulf <beowulf@beocode.eu>
Reviewed-by: Michael Kriese <michael.kriese@gmx.de>
Co-authored-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
Co-committed-by: Gusted <postmaster@gusted.xyz>
## Dropping SSPI auth support
SSPI authentication relied on Microsoft Windows support, removal started in https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/5353, because it was broken anyway. We have no knowledge of any users using SSPI authentication. However, if you somehow managed to run Forgejo on Windows, or want to upgrade from a Gitea version which does, please ensure that you do not use SSPI as an authentication mechanism for user accounts. Feel free to reach out if you need assistance.
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/7148
Reviewed-by: Gusted <gusted@noreply.codeberg.org>
Reviewed-by: 0ko <0ko@noreply.codeberg.org>
Co-authored-by: Otto Richter <otto@codeberg.org>
Co-committed-by: Otto Richter <otto@codeberg.org>
https://github.com/go-fed/httpsig seems to be unmaintained.
Switch to github.com/42wim/httpsig which has removed deprecated crypto
and default sha256 signing for ssh rsa.
No impact for those that use ed25519 ssh certificates.
This is a breaking change for:
- gitea.com/gitea/tea (go-sdk) - I'll be sending a PR there too
- activitypub using deprecated crypto (is this actually used?)
(cherry picked from commit 01dec7577a051d9bb30e91f6cf6653dc51a37d06)
---
Conflict resolution: trivial
Co-authored-by: Wim <wim@42.be>
Reviewed-on: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/forgejo/pulls/5303
Reviewed-by: Earl Warren <earl-warren@noreply.codeberg.org>
This commit has a fundamental flaw, in order to syncronize if external
users are still active the commit checks if the refresh token is
accepted by the OAuth provider, if that is not the case it sees that as
the user is disabled and sets the is active field to `false` to signal
that. Because it might be possible (this commit makes this a highly
likelyhood) that the OAuth provider still recognizes this user the
commit introduces code to allow users to re-active themselves via the
oauth flow if they were disabled because of this. However this code
makes no distinction in why the user was disabled and always re-actives
the user.
Thus the reactivation via the OAuth flow allows users to bypass the
manually activation setting (`[service].REGISTER_MANUAL_CONFIRM`) or if
the admin for other reasons disabled the user.
This reverts commit 21fdd28f08.
We have some actions that leverage the Gitea API that began receiving
401 errors, with a message that the user was not found. These actions
use the `ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN` env var in the actions job to
authenticate with the Gitea API. The format of this env var in actions
jobs changed with go-gitea/gitea/pull/28885 to be a JWT (with a
corresponding update to `act_runner`) Since it was a JWT, the OAuth
parsing logic attempted to parse it as an OAuth token, and would return
user not found, instead of falling back to look up the running task and
assigning it to the actions user.
Make ACTIONS_RUNTIME_TOKEN in action runners could be used,
attempting to parse Oauth JWTs. The code to parse potential old
`ACTION_RUNTIME_TOKEN` was kept in case someone is running an older
version of act_runner that doesn't support the Actions JWT.
(cherry picked from commit 407b6e6dfc7ee9ebb8a16c7f1a786e4c24d0516e)
Conflicts:
services/auth/oauth2.go
trivial context conflicts because OAuth2 scopes are in Forgejo and
not yet in Gitea
