In order to stop privilege escalation via
`/api/admin/projects/:project/users/:userId/roles` and
`/api/admin/projects/:project/groups/:groupId/roles` this PR adds the
same check we added to setAccess methods to the methods updating access
for these two methods.
Also adds tests that verify that we throw an exception if you try to
assign roles you do not have.
Thank you @nunogois for spotting this during testing.
## About the changes
When edge is configured to automatically generate tokens, it requires
the token to be present in all unleash instances.
It's behind a flag which enables us to turn it on on a case by case
scenario.
The risk of this implementation is that we'd be adding load to the
database in the middleware that evaluates tokens (which are present in
mostly all our API calls. We only query when the token is missing but
because the /client and /frontend endpoints which will be the affected
ones are high throughput, we want to be extra careful to avoid DDoSing
ourselves
## Alternatives:
One alternative would be that we merge the two endpoints into one.
Currently, Edge does the following:
If the token is not valid, it tries to create a token using a service
account token and /api/admin/create-token endpoint. Then it uses the
token generated (which is returned from the prior endpoint) to query
/api/frontend. What if we could call /api/frontend with the same service
account we use to create the token? It may sound risky but if the same
application holding the service account token with permission to create
a token, can call /api/frontend via the generated token, shouldn't it be
able to call the endpoint directly?
The purpose of the token is authentication and authorization. With the
two tokens we are authenticating the same app with 2 different
authorization scopes, but because it's the same app we are
authenticating, can't we just use one token and assume that the app has
both scopes?
If the service account already has permissions to create a token and
then use that token for further actions, allowing it to directly call
/api/frontend does not necessarily introduce new security risks. The
only risk is allowing the app to generate new tokens. Which leads to the
third alternative: should we just remove this option from edge?
This PR adds a property issues to application schema, and also adds all
the missing features that have been reported by SDK, but do not exist in
Unleash.
In order to prevent users from being able to assign roles/permissions
they don't have, this PR adds a check that the user performing the
action either is Admin, Project owner or has the same role they are
trying to grant/add.
This addAccess method is only used from Enterprise, so there will be a
separate PR there, updating how we return the roles list for a user, so
that our frontend can only present the roles a user is actually allowed
to grant.
This adds the validation to the backend to ensure that even if the
frontend thinks we're allowed to add any role to any user here, the
backend can be smart enough to stop it.
We should still update frontend as well, so that it doesn't look like we
can add roles we won't be allowed to.
Fixes ##5799 and #5785
When you do not provide a token we should resolve to the "default"
environment to maintain backward compatibility. If you actually provide
a token we should prefer that and even block the request if it is not
valid.
An interesting fact is that "default" environment is not available on a
fresh installation of Unleash. This means that you need to provide a
token to actually get access to toggle configurations.
---------
Co-authored-by: Thomas Heartman <thomas@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
getAllActive from api-tokens store is the second most frequent query
To prevent starving our db connections, we can cache this data that
rarely changes and clear the cache when we see changes. Because we will
only clear changes in the node receiving the change we're only caching
the data for 1 minute.
This should give us some room to test if this solution will work
---------
Co-authored-by: Nuno Góis <github@nunogois.com>
Adds a new Inactive Users list component to admin/users for easier cleanup of users that are counted as inactive: No sign of activity (logins or api token usage) in the last 180 days.
---------
Co-authored-by: David Leek <david@getunleash.io>
## About the changes
the created_by_user_id data migration from resolving events.created_by
(for both events and features) now emits events on how many rows were
updated.
Adds listeners for these events that records these metrics with
prometheus
## About the changes
Adds a scheduled task that every 5 seconds updates 500 entries in the
features table setting `created_by_user_id`.
It does this by looking at the related event, checks created_by and
joins users table for match on username or email, and joins api_tokens
table on username matches. Then picks either a users id if set, or uses
-42 (admin token user)
## About the changes
Whenever we get a call from an admin token we want to associate it with
the [admin token
user](4d42093a07/src/lib/types/core.ts (L34-L41)).
This should give us the needed audit for this type of calls that
currently were lacking a user id (we only stored a string with the token
name in the event log).
We consciously decided not to use `id` as the property to prevent any
unforeseen side effects. The reason is that only `IUser` type has an id
and adding an id to `IApiUser` might lead to confusion.
Lots of work here, mostly because I didn't want to turn off the
`noImplicitAnyLet` lint. This PR tries its best to type all the untyped
lets biome complained about (Don't ask me how many hours that took or
how many lints that was >200...), which in the future will force test
authors to actually type their global variables setup in `beforeAll`.
---------
Co-authored-by: Gastón Fournier <gaston@getunleash.io>
Was having some trouble running these migration tests locally due to
`dbm` not correctly picking up the passed in config. This fixes it by
setting the custom config property after it has been initialized, always
overriding any wrong values.
PS: I think I found the issue. `dbm` was prioritizing my `DATABASE_URL`
for some reason, as I started having issues when it was set, and stopped
having issues when I unset it.
I still think this is a good change, as it prevents similar
hard-to-debug issues in the future.
To help clarify this, running this locally:
- `export
DATABASE_URL=postgres://unleash_user:passord@localhost:5432/unleash`
- `yarn test dedupe-permissions`
Fails on `main`, but passes on this branch. For some reason the `dbm`
instance prioritizes whatever is set in `DATABASE_URL` instead of the
options that are passed in `getInstance`.
## About the changes
Migrations for:
- Adds column is_system to users
- Inserts unleash_system_user id -1337 to users
includes `is_system: false` in the activeUsers and activeAccounts where filter
Tested by running:
`
select * into users_pre_check from users where id > -1;
delete from users where id > -1;
`
before starting unleash, then inspecting users table after unleash has
started and verifying that an 'admin' user has been created.
---------
Co-authored-by: Christopher Kolstad <chriswk@getunleash.ai>
## About the changes
Adds the new nullable column created_by_user_id to the data used by
feature-tag-store and feature-tag-service. Also updates openapi schemas.
### What
Adds `createdByUserId` to all events exposed by unleash. In addition
this PR updates all tests and usages of the methods in this codebase to
include the required number.
This PR fixes the issue discussed in SR-234, where you would get a 200
OK response even if your POST request to
`/api/admin/projects/<project-name>/access` contains invalid data (and
nothing is persisted).
Adding new project overview endpoint and deprecating the old one.
The new one has extra info about feature types, but does not have
features anymore, because features are coming from search endpoint.
