IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
to fully test the 'end-to-end' sync api call, we have to mock quite
some methods for cluster/rpcenvironment/ldap
Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
and check both existing groups and the groups parameter in the update
case. the following user.cfg settings can be used for testing:
user:test@pve:1:0:t:::❌
user:other@pve:1:0:t:::❌
group:test:test@pve::
group:test3:::
role:RealmUserAllocator:Realm.AllocateUser:
role:UserModifier:User.Modify:
acl:0:/access/groups/test:test@pve:UserModifier:
acl:0:/access/groups/test3:@test:UserModifier:
acl:0:/access/realm/pve:test@pve:RealmUserAllocator:
unchanged: the user 'test@pve' can allocate new '@pve' users, but
only if the created user will belong to at least one of 'test'
(direct ACL for that user) or 'test3' (indirect ACL via 'test' group)
groups.
changed: if the user 'test@pve' updates an existing user, they need
to (A) have 'User.Modify' on at least one existing group of that
user, and (B) 'User.Modify' on all of the groups passed in via the
'groups' parameter. A is the general rule for 'allowed to modify
user' across the board, but was missing for this specific variant of
the check. B was the case before, but just checking this without also
checking A allows a user to pull off-limits users into groups that
they can modify, which then in turn allows them to modify those users
via A which is now passing.
for example, without this patch 'test@pve' would be able to add
'other@pve' to either 'test' or 'test3', and then in turn call any of
the API endpoints that require 'User.Modify' on a user's group
(change TFA, change password or delete user if realm is pve, ..).
all the other userid-group checks without group_param set remain
unchanged as well, since $check_existing_user is true in that case.
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
this shouldn't happen anymore, but a safeguard in case the parser ever
has a bug does not hurt.
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
these are just cosmetic fixes/safeguards against future bugs -
compute_api_permissions is used to set the 'cap' object to hide parts of
the GUI that are not usable without the corresponding privs in the
backend anyway, and get_effective_permissions is only used to return the
permission tree without a specific path query.
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
this could return undef for the propagation flag instead of 1/0, leading
to confusing displays of permission trees. all the actual checks using
the returned hash check for definedness anyway, so the actual
privileges checked and the displayed ones were not identical.
fixes: 7e8bcaa754
"roles()/permissions(): also return propagate flag"
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
The userid-* permission check variants work on
$param->{userid} directly which does not exist for this
call. Also, they work on the realm of the user being
checked, rather than the realm provided as parameter.
The result was that as non-root user this always failed
with the message "userid '' too short"
Fix this by making the check explicitly work like in the
description.
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
instead of restricting listing tfa entries of others to
root@pam, perform the same checks the user-list does and
which also reflect the permissions of the api calls actually
operating on those users, so, `User.Modify` on the user (but
also `Sys.Audit`, since it's only a read-operation, just
like the user index API call)
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
this was wrong as it asked for the password of the
to-be-edited user instead, which makes no sense
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
but don't bail out of the entire auth process, otherwise
not even totp or recovery keys will work anymore in this
case
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
in order to allow subdomains to work, the wa config should
only specify 'id' and 'rp', the 'origin' gets filled in by
the node
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
this happens when the first new tfa entry is added and the
'keys' entry is replaced by "x"
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In PBS we don't support this, so the current TFA API in rust
does not support this either (although the config does know
about its *existence*).
For now, yubico authentication will be done in perl. Adding
it to rust the rust TFA crate would not make much sense
anyway as we'd likely not want to use the same http client
crate in pve and pbs anyway (since pve is all blocking code
and pbs is async...)
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
implements the same api paths as in pbs by forwarding the
api methods to the rust implementation after performing the
product-specific checks
Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Bumiller <w.bumiller@proxmox.com>
