4 Commits (478e7042f5c4b4da9f72b11ee55a171e326a1603)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Jack Hay	18de83b2a3	Redesign Scoped Access Tokens (#24767) ... ## Changes - Adds the following high level access scopes, each with `read` and `write` levels: - `activitypub` - `admin` (hidden if user is not a site admin) - `misc` - `notification` - `organization` - `package` - `issue` - `repository` - `user` - Adds new middleware function `tokenRequiresScopes()` in addition to `reqToken()` - `tokenRequiresScopes()` is used for each high-level api section - _if_ a scoped token is present, checks that the required scope is included based on the section and HTTP method - `reqToken()` is used for individual routes - checks that required authentication is present (but does not check scope levels as this will already have been handled by `tokenRequiresScopes()` - Adds migration to convert old scoped access tokens to the new set of scopes - Updates the user interface for scope selection ### User interface example <img width="903" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 55 PM" src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/654766ec-2143-4f59-9037-3b51600e32f3"> <img width="917" alt="Screen Shot 2023-05-31 at 1 56 43 PM" src="https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/assets/23248839/1ad64081-012c-4a73-b393-66b30352654c"> ## tokenRequiresScopes Design Decision - `tokenRequiresScopes()` was added to more reliably cover api routes. For an incoming request, this function uses the given scope category (say `AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization`) and the HTTP method (say `DELETE`) and verifies that any scoped tokens in use include `delete:organization`. - `reqToken()` is used to enforce auth for individual routes that require it. If a scoped token is not present for a request, `tokenRequiresScopes()` will not return an error ## TODO - [x] Alphabetize scope categories - [x] Change 'public repos only' to a radio button (private vs public). Also expand this to organizations - [X] Disable token creation if no scopes selected. Alternatively, show warning - [x] `reqToken()` is missing from many `POST/DELETE` routes in the api. `tokenRequiresScopes()` only checks that a given token has the correct scope, `reqToken()` must be used to check that a token (or some other auth) is present. - _This should be addressed in this PR_ - [x] The migration should be reviewed very carefully in order to minimize access changes to existing user tokens. - _This should be addressed in this PR_ - [x] Link to api to swagger documentation, clarify what read/write/delete levels correspond to - [x] Review cases where more than one scope is needed as this directly deviates from the api definition. - _This should be addressed in this PR_ - For example: ```go m.Group("/users/{username}/orgs", func() { m.Get("", reqToken(), org.ListUserOrgs) m.Get("/{org}/permissions", reqToken(), org.GetUserOrgsPermissions) }, tokenRequiresScopes(auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryUser, auth_model.AccessTokenScopeCategoryOrganization), context_service.UserAssignmentAPI()) ``` ## Future improvements - [ ] Add required scopes to swagger documentation - [ ] Redesign `reqToken()` to be opt-out rather than opt-in - [ ] Subdivide scopes like `repository` - [ ] Once a token is created, if it has no scopes, we should display text instead of an empty bullet point - [ ] If the 'public repos only' option is selected, should read categories be selected by default Closes #24501 Closes #24799 Co-authored-by: Jonathan Tran <jon@allspice.io> Co-authored-by: Kyle D <kdumontnu@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: silverwind <me@silverwind.io>	1 year ago
Chongyi Zheng	de484e86bc	Support scoped access tokens (#20908) ... This PR adds the support for scopes of access tokens, mimicking the design of GitHub OAuth scopes. The changes of the core logic are in `models/auth` that `AccessToken` struct will have a `Scope` field. The normalized (no duplication of scope), comma-separated scope string will be stored in `access_token` table in the database. In `services/auth`, the scope will be stored in context, which will be used by `reqToken` middleware in API calls. Only OAuth2 tokens will have granular token scopes, while others like BasicAuth will default to scope `all`. A large amount of work happens in `routers/api/v1/api.go` and the corresponding `tests/integration` tests, that is adding necessary scopes to each of the API calls as they fit. - [x] Add `Scope` field to `AccessToken` - [x] Add access control to all API endpoints - [x] Update frontend & backend for when creating tokens - [x] Add a database migration for `scope` column (enable 'all' access to past tokens) I'm aiming to complete it before Gitea 1.19 release. Fixes #4300	2 years ago
flynnnnnnnnnn	e81ccc406b	Implement FSFE REUSE for golang files (#21840) ... Change all license headers to comply with REUSE specification. Fix #16132 Co-authored-by: flynnnnnnnnnn <flynnnnnnnnnn@github> Co-authored-by: John Olheiser <john.olheiser@gmail.com>	2 years ago
oliverpool	b6e81357bd	Add Webhook authorization header (#20926) ... _This is a different approach to #20267, I took the liberty of adapting some parts, see below_ ## Context In some cases, a weebhook endpoint requires some kind of authentication. The usual way is by sending a static `Authorization` header, with a given token. For instance: - Matrix expects a `Bearer <token>` (already implemented, by storing the header cleartext in the metadata - which is buggy on retry #19872) - TeamCity #18667 - Gitea instances #20267 - SourceHut https://man.sr.ht/graphql.md#authentication-strategies (this is my actual personal need :) ## Proposed solution Add a dedicated encrypt column to the webhook table (instead of storing it as meta as proposed in #20267), so that it gets available for all present and future hook types (especially the custom ones #19307). This would also solve the buggy matrix retry #19872. As a first step, I would recommend focusing on the backend logic and improve the frontend at a later stage. For now the UI is a simple `Authorization` field (which could be later customized with `Bearer` and `Basic` switches):  The header name is hard-coded, since I couldn't fine any usecase justifying otherwise. ## Questions - What do you think of this approach? @justusbunsi @Gusted @silverwind - ~~How are the migrations generated? Do I have to manually create a new file, or is there a command for that?~~ - ~~I started adding it to the API: should I complete it or should I drop it? (I don't know how much the API is actually used)~~ ## Done as well: - add a migration for the existing matrix webhooks and remove the `Authorization` logic there _Closes #19872_ Co-authored-by: Lunny Xiao <xiaolunwen@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Gusted <williamzijl7@hotmail.com> Co-authored-by: delvh <dev.lh@web.de>	2 years ago