2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
// Copyright 2021 The Gitea Authors. All rights reserved.
|
2022-11-27 13:20:29 -05:00
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
package method
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
|
|
|
"bytes"
|
|
|
|
|
"encoding/base64"
|
|
|
|
|
"errors"
|
|
|
|
|
"fmt"
|
|
|
|
|
"net/http"
|
|
|
|
|
"strings"
|
|
|
|
|
|
2025-03-27 15:40:14 -04:00
|
|
|
asymkey_model "forgejo.org/models/asymkey"
|
|
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/models/db"
|
|
|
|
|
user_model "forgejo.org/models/user"
|
|
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/log"
|
|
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/modules/setting"
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
"forgejo.org/services/auth"
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2025-01-16 22:17:10 -05:00
|
|
|
"github.com/42wim/httpsig"
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
"golang.org/x/crypto/ssh"
|
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Ensure the struct implements the interface.
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
_ auth.Method = &HTTPSign{}
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// HTTPSign implements the Auth interface and authenticates requests (API requests
|
|
|
|
|
// only) by looking for http signature data in the "Signature" header.
|
|
|
|
|
// more information can be found on https://github.com/go-fed/httpsig
|
|
|
|
|
type HTTPSign struct{}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Verify extracts and validates HTTPsign from the Signature header of the request and returns
|
|
|
|
|
// the corresponding user object on successful validation.
|
|
|
|
|
// Returns nil if header is empty or validation fails.
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
func (h *HTTPSign) Verify(req *http.Request, w http.ResponseWriter, _ auth.SessionStore) (auth.AuthenticationResult, error) {
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
sigHead := req.Header.Get("Signature")
|
|
|
|
|
if len(sigHead) == 0 {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var (
|
|
|
|
|
publicKey *asymkey_model.PublicKey
|
|
|
|
|
err error
|
|
|
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if len(req.Header.Get("X-Ssh-Certificate")) != 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
// Handle Signature signed by SSH certificates
|
|
|
|
|
if len(setting.SSH.TrustedUserCAKeys) == 0 {
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
publicKey, err = VerifyCert(req)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Debug("VerifyCert on request from %s: failed: %v", req.RemoteAddr, err)
|
|
|
|
|
log.Warn("Failed authentication attempt from %s", req.RemoteAddr)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
// Handle Signature signed by Public Key
|
|
|
|
|
publicKey, err = VerifyPubKey(req)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Debug("VerifyPubKey on request from %s: failed: %v", req.RemoteAddr, err)
|
|
|
|
|
log.Warn("Failed authentication attempt from %s", req.RemoteAddr)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
return &auth.UnauthenticatedResult{}, nil
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-12-02 21:48:26 -05:00
|
|
|
u, err := user_model.GetUserByID(req.Context(), publicKey.OwnerID)
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("GetUserByID: %v", err)
|
refactor auth interface to return error when verify failure (#22119)
This PR changed the Auth interface signature from
`Verify(http *http.Request, w http.ResponseWriter, store DataStore, sess
SessionStore) *user_model.User`
to
`Verify(http *http.Request, w http.ResponseWriter, store DataStore, sess
SessionStore) (*user_model.User, error)`.
There is a new return argument `error` which means the verification
condition matched but verify process failed, we should stop the auth
process.
Before this PR, when return a `nil` user, we don't know the reason why
it returned `nil`. If the match condition is not satisfied or it
verified failure? For these two different results, we should have
different handler. If the match condition is not satisfied, we should
try next auth method and if there is no more auth method, it's an
anonymous user. If the condition matched but verify failed, the auth
process should be stop and return immediately.
This will fix #20563
Co-authored-by: KN4CK3R <admin@oldschoolhack.me>
Co-authored-by: Jason Song <i@wolfogre.com>
2022-12-28 00:53:28 -05:00
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
log.Trace("HTTP Sign: Logged in user %-v", u)
|
refactor: change authentication to return structured data (#12202)
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>
2026-04-22 15:00:26 -04:00
|
|
|
return &httpSignAuthenticationResult{user: u}, nil
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
func VerifyPubKey(r *http.Request) (*asymkey_model.PublicKey, error) {
|
|
|
|
|
verifier, err := httpsig.NewVerifier(r)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, fmt.Errorf("httpsig.NewVerifier failed: %s", err)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
keyID := verifier.KeyId()
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-11-23 22:49:41 -05:00
|
|
|
publicKeys, err := db.Find[asymkey_model.PublicKey](r.Context(), asymkey_model.FindPublicKeyOptions{
|
|
|
|
|
Fingerprint: keyID,
|
|
|
|
|
})
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if len(publicKeys) == 0 {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, fmt.Errorf("no public key found for keyid %s", keyID)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sshPublicKey, _, _, _, err := ssh.ParseAuthorizedKey([]byte(publicKeys[0].Content))
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if err := doVerify(verifier, []ssh.PublicKey{sshPublicKey}); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return publicKeys[0], nil
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// VerifyCert verifies the validity of the ssh certificate and returns the publickey of the signer
|
|
|
|
|
// We verify that the certificate is signed with the correct CA
|
|
|
|
|
// We verify that the http request is signed with the private key (of the public key mentioned in the certificate)
|
|
|
|
|
func VerifyCert(r *http.Request) (*asymkey_model.PublicKey, error) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Get our certificate from the header
|
|
|
|
|
bcert, err := base64.RawStdEncoding.DecodeString(r.Header.Get("x-ssh-certificate"))
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pk, err := ssh.ParsePublicKey(bcert)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Check if it's really a ssh certificate
|
|
|
|
|
cert, ok := pk.(*ssh.Certificate)
|
|
|
|
|
if !ok {
|
2025-05-29 11:34:29 -04:00
|
|
|
return nil, errors.New("no certificate found")
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c := &ssh.CertChecker{
|
|
|
|
|
IsUserAuthority: func(auth ssh.PublicKey) bool {
|
|
|
|
|
marshaled := auth.Marshal()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for _, k := range setting.SSH.TrustedUserCAKeysParsed {
|
|
|
|
|
if bytes.Equal(marshaled, k.Marshal()) {
|
|
|
|
|
return true
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return false
|
|
|
|
|
},
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// check the CA of the cert
|
|
|
|
|
if !c.IsUserAuthority(cert.SignatureKey) {
|
2025-05-29 11:34:29 -04:00
|
|
|
return nil, errors.New("CA check failed")
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Create a verifier
|
|
|
|
|
verifier, err := httpsig.NewVerifier(r)
|
|
|
|
|
if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, fmt.Errorf("httpsig.NewVerifier failed: %s", err)
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// now verify that this request was signed with the private key that matches the certificate public key
|
|
|
|
|
if err := doVerify(verifier, []ssh.PublicKey{cert.Key}); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Now for each of the certificate valid principals
|
|
|
|
|
for _, principal := range cert.ValidPrincipals {
|
|
|
|
|
// Look in the db for the public key
|
|
|
|
|
publicKey, err := asymkey_model.SearchPublicKeyByContentExact(r.Context(), principal)
|
|
|
|
|
if asymkey_model.IsErrKeyNotExist(err) {
|
|
|
|
|
// No public key matches this principal - try the next principal
|
|
|
|
|
continue
|
|
|
|
|
} else if err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
// this error will be a db error therefore we can't solve this and we should abort
|
|
|
|
|
log.Error("SearchPublicKeyByContentExact: %v", err)
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// Validate the cert for this principal
|
|
|
|
|
if err := c.CheckCert(principal, cert); err != nil {
|
|
|
|
|
// however, because principal is a member of ValidPrincipals - if this fails then the certificate itself is invalid
|
|
|
|
|
return nil, err
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// OK we have a public key for a principal matching a valid certificate whose key has signed this request.
|
|
|
|
|
return publicKey, nil
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// No public key matching a principal in the certificate is registered in gitea
|
2025-05-29 11:34:29 -04:00
|
|
|
return nil, errors.New("no valid principal found")
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// doVerify iterates across the provided public keys attempting the verify the current request against each key in turn
|
|
|
|
|
func doVerify(verifier httpsig.Verifier, sshPublicKeys []ssh.PublicKey) error {
|
|
|
|
|
for _, publicKey := range sshPublicKeys {
|
|
|
|
|
cryptoPubkey := publicKey.(ssh.CryptoPublicKey).CryptoPublicKey()
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
var algos []httpsig.Algorithm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch {
|
|
|
|
|
case strings.HasPrefix(publicKey.Type(), "ssh-ed25519"):
|
|
|
|
|
algos = []httpsig.Algorithm{httpsig.ED25519}
|
|
|
|
|
case strings.HasPrefix(publicKey.Type(), "ssh-rsa"):
|
2025-01-16 22:17:10 -05:00
|
|
|
algos = []httpsig.Algorithm{httpsig.RSA_SHA256, httpsig.RSA_SHA512}
|
2022-06-05 03:16:14 -04:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
for _, algo := range algos {
|
|
|
|
|
if err := verifier.Verify(cryptoPubkey, algo); err == nil {
|
|
|
|
|
return nil
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return errors.New("verification failed")
|
|
|
|
|
}
|