From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 818E08AB09
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:31:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 63CA41F02A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:31:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:31:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C94CD44B04
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:31:17 +0200 (CEST)
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:31:14 +0200
Message-Id: <20221021083117.1239396-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.067 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [accesscontrol.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH access-control v2 0/3] improve tfa config locking
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 08:31:49 -0000
while we may not want users to login into a non-quorate cluster,
preventing it as a side-effect of locking the tfa config is wrong.
currently there is only one situation where we actually need to lock
the tfa config, namely when using recovery keys, since they have to be
removed from it. so this series changes the tfa code in pve so that
we only lock when the tfa response is a recovery key
changes from v1:
* fix wrong regex
* pass undef explicitely instead of omitting the parameter
* this time tested in both directions:
user without tfa can login in quorate & non-quorate cluster
user with non-recovery tfa can login in quorate & non-quorate cluster
user with recovery tfa can only login in quorate cluser
Dominik Csapak (3):
authenticate_2nd_new: only lock tfa config for recovery keys
authenticate_2nd_new: rename $otp to $tfa_response
authenticate_user: pass undef instead of empty $tfa_challenge to
authenticate_2nd_new
src/PVE/AccessControl.pm | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 60 deletions(-)
--
2.30.2