feat: add capability of handling appid extension #319

santiagorodriguez96 · 2020-06-18T15:54:27Z

What

Add capability of internally handling the appid extension.

Now the user only has to add the legacy FIDO AppID in the configuration – legacy_u2f_appid – and the extension will be automatically requested and the method PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion#verify will be smart enough to determine if it should use the AppID or the RP ID to verify the WebAuthn credential, depending on the output of the appid client extension.

This commits adds the capability of specifying which App ID was used previously for registering U2F credentials.

santiagorodriguez96 · 2020-06-18T18:22:42Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion.rb

+ appid_domain = WebAuthn.configuration.appid || WebAuthn.configuration.rp_id ||
+ WebAuthn.configuration.origin || raise("Unspecified expected origin")


I think we should find a way of unifying the identification of where the rp_id comes from in one method available for all, cause we are doing something similar in here.

grzuy

Have you considered adding the extension automatically to the output of WebAuthn::Credential.options_for_get when the user set the config?

lib/webauthn/configuration.rb

grzuy · 2020-06-27T00:39:46Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential.rb

@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ def initialize(type:, id:, raw_id:, client_extension_outputs: {}, response:)
 @type = type
 @id = id
 @raw_id = raw_id
- @client_extension_outputs = client_extension_outputs
+ @client_extension_outputs = client_extension_outputs || {}


Why we need this here, this is the default in the argument definition.
Is it for some specific case in which the keyword argument is passed explicitly with nil?
If so, why we still want to override with {}? Shouldn't the caller be the one who needs to specify {} then?

Is it for some specific case in which the keyword argument is passed explicitly with nil?

No, it's just an attempt to normalize the output, related to the talk that we discuss here.
Besides, this helped me to avoid doing something like client_extension_outputs&.[](:appid) in this line.

But after we agreed on not normalize the output yet, I will go ahead an change it 🙂

spec/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion_spec.rb

grzuy · 2020-06-27T00:46:52Z

spec/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion_spec.rb

+ end
+ end
+
+ context "when verifying a migrated U2F credential" do


Nice!

I think it would be great to also have its testing when the verification correctly fails if response is not valid.
These test cases are as important as the ones that test it works when all valid, we don't want false positives :-)

grzuy · 2020-06-27T00:49:40Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion.rb

@@ -16,7 +16,8 @@ def verify(challenge, public_key:, sign_count:, user_verification: nil)
 encoder.decode(challenge),
 public_key: encoder.decode(public_key),
 sign_count: sign_count,
- user_verification: user_verification
+ user_verification: user_verification,
+ rp_id: client_extension_outputs[:appid] ? appid : nil


Shouldn't we also need to check the new config is present here?

Yes!! That's what we are doing here 🙂

santiagorodriguez96 · 2020-06-29T18:50:23Z

Have you considered adding the extension automatically to the output of WebAuthn::Credential.options_for_get when the user set the config?

That's actually a good idea! I'll give it a try 👀

This commits adds the `appid` extension automatically to the output of `WebAuthn::Credential.options_for_get` when the user set the `legacy_u2f_appid` config, if the said extension wasn't already requested in the call to that method.

grzuy

Thanks for the testing efforts!

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential/request_options.rb

… that receives the argument

grzuy · 2021-03-09T23:51:21Z

Also, separated the tests suites for PublicKeyCredentialWithAttestation (which was the one that was before, but named PublicKeyCredential) and PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion so we can test this feature separately.

Split off this ☝️ into it's own separate commit (f787a2f) and pushed to master because that's valuable and independent of this PR.

brauliomartinezlm

Great contribution @santiagorodriguez96 !

Left you a couple of comments/questions.

Also, do you know why this was not included in the RelyingParty API in 3.0.0.alpha1 ?

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion.rb

brauliomartinezlm · 2021-06-20T15:17:42Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential/options.rb

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ class Options

 def initialize(timeout: default_timeout, extensions: nil)
 @timeout = timeout
- @extensions = extensions
+ @extensions = default_extensions.merge(extensions || {})


I was analyzing #319 (comment) and I'm not sure if you processed with what you concluded or. This looks to me as if you're still trying to cover the case when extensions is still pass in as nil. Else I would have the default in the method definition itself.

Seems that this changes came after the comment that you mentioned – take a look at this comment: #319 (comment). I can change it so we do not support the case when extensions is still pass in as nil but I also don't think it hurts to have it 🤔

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-26T17:22:09Z

Also, do you know why this was not included in the RelyingParty API in 3.0.0.alpha1 ?

I don't really know, but the PR now has some conflicts to resolve that are related to the RelayingParty API. I'll try to fix them so we can get this back on track and hopefully merge it 🙂

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-27T17:47:26Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion.rb

+ def appid
+ appid_domain = relying_party.legacy_u2f_appid || relying_party.id ||
+ relying_party.origin || raise("Unspecified expected origin")
+
+ URI.parse(appid_domain).to_s
+ end


Correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect this is incorrect – we should only check for the legacy_u2f_appid if the appid extension is present given that if it is not set, even if we pass in the rp_id, the verification will fail.

I would also consider raising an exception if the appid extension is present but the legacy_u2f_appid was not set 🤔

Updated in 4058bea.

we should only check for the legacy_u2f_appid if the appid extension is present given that if it is not set, even if we pass in the rp_id, the verification will fail.

I confirmed that this is the case: if I leave PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion#appid to be:

def appid appid_domain = relying_party.legacy_u2f_appid || relying_party.id || relying_party.origin || raise("Unspecified expected origin") URI.parse(appid_domain).to_s end

then this spec that I created will fail with a WebAuthn::RpIdVerificationError

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-27T17:52:08Z

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion.rb

+ appid_domain = relying_party.legacy_u2f_appid || relying_party.id ||
+ relying_party.origin || raise("Unspecified expected origin")
+
+ URI.parse(appid_domain).to_s


I don't think this is needed either: AppID should be a web origin – like https://login.example.com – so doing URI.parse(appid).to_s should always return appid if I'm not mistaken

If the appid extension was requested and the output was `true` but the `legacy_u2f_appid` config was not set, raise an error. We were previously were passing the `rp_id` instead if the mentioned config was not present, but that is needlessly given that it will fail with a rp verification error.

…tials

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-28T17:32:11Z

spec/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion_spec.rb

@@ -233,5 +235,111 @@
 end
 end
 end
+
+ context "when verifying a migrated U2F credential" do


I've just noticed that we have very similar test cases here...

Maybe it's a good idea to change spec/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion_spec.rb to mock WebAuthn::AuthenticatorAssertionResponse#verify so that we can just test that we are sending the right parameters to it 🤔

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-28T17:43:06Z

spec/webauthn/public_key_credential_with_assertion_spec.rb

+ it "raises an error" do
+ expect do
+ public_key_credential.verify(
+ challenge,
+ public_key: credential_public_key,
+ sign_count: credential_sign_count
+ )
+ end.to raise_error("Unspecified legacy U2F AppID")


This one is a tricky one tbh...

PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion #verify when verifying a migrated U2F credential and appid is not set in configuration file raises an error

We currently support that you can call AuthenticatorAssertionResponse.from_get(extensions: { appid: { 'my_appid' } – without the need of setting the appid in the config – and that will correctly send the extension. But doing it this way will raise an error if you use PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion#verify – in the case that the extension output returning from the client was true.

In the U2F migration docs it states that you have to call AuthenticatorAssertionResponse#verify instead and pass the appid as the rp_id, but I feel that we could also accept the rp_id param in PublicKeyCredentialWithAssertion#verify so we don't force users to use the former – which is not that "smart" and does not perform all the verifications.

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-10-28T20:48:45Z

I've updated the docs – both the U2F migration doc and the Configuration section in the README. @bdewater it would be great if you could take a quick look at them and check that they still make sense 🙂

bdewater · 2022-11-04T13:04:30Z

README.md

+ # Otherwise you would have to re-register those credentials to scope them to the RP ID.
+ # See https://github.com/cedarcode/webauthn-ruby/blob/master/docs/u2f_migration.md.
+ # 
+ # config.legacy_u2f_appid = "https://login.example.com"


I would keep this out of the readme - by now the U2F API is well on its way out (even removed from Chrome) so this will confuse newcomers looking to get started.

Good call! Updated in 1e6564f 🙂

santiagorodriguez96 · 2022-11-07T12:53:04Z

The build is failing because there's a fixup commit in the branch. I tried rebasing to squash it but there were too much conflicts at this point. I think I'll just go ahead and Squash and Merge it instead.

feat: add capability of handling appid extension

3614245

santiagorodriguez96 requested review from grzuy and bdewater June 18, 2020 15:54

fixup! feat: add capability of handling appid extension

e926b6a

This commits adds the capability of specifying which App ID was used previously for registering U2F credentials.

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

Base automatically changed from provide_extensions_as_an_output_of_the_verification to master June 22, 2020 14:21

santiagorodriguez96 marked this pull request as ready for review June 22, 2020 14:22

grzuy reviewed Jun 27, 2020

View reviewed changes

santiagorodriguez96 added 5 commits June 29, 2020 14:55

Merge branch 'master' into handle_appid

d86913d

refactor: change appid term to legacy_u2f_appid

c937870

refactor: avoid defaulting client_extension_outputs to an empty hash

2ed4ea1

refactor: fix typo

82e28e5

test: add test case to check that fails when response is not valid

6ccbb5b

santiagorodriguez96 force-pushed the handle_appid branch from 020b8f2 to fe644dd Compare June 30, 2020 15:07

santiagorodriguez96 requested a review from grzuy June 30, 2020 15:08

grzuy reviewed Jul 30, 2020

View reviewed changes

lib/webauthn/public_key_credential/request_options.rb Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

santiagorodriguez96 requested a review from grzuy July 31, 2020 13:36

grzuy added 2 commits March 9, 2021 20:00

Merge branch 'master' into handle_appid

d8b318e

refactor: responsibility of setting the @extensions only on the class…

8ad104f

… that receives the argument

Merge branch 'master' into handle_appid

79c2864

brauliomartinezlm reviewed Jun 20, 2021

View reviewed changes

santiagorodriguez96 added 2 commits October 26, 2022 15:18

Merge branch 'master' into handle_appid

c6d3aae

style: fix bad merge

84ce0d1

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 27, 2022

View reviewed changes

santiagorodriguez96 requested review from brauliomartinezlm and removed request for grzuy October 27, 2022 17:52

santiagorodriguez96 force-pushed the handle_appid branch from c820cd1 to c572bcb Compare October 28, 2022 16:55

test: improve coverage for verifying assertion of migrated U2F creden…

4beef45

…tials

santiagorodriguez96 force-pushed the handle_appid branch from c572bcb to 4beef45 Compare October 28, 2022 17:00

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 28, 2022

View reviewed changes

santiagorodriguez96 and others added 3 commits October 28, 2022 14:53

style: remove unneeded variables

68e5f1e

docs: update U2F migration documentation

33055e0

docs: update #Configuration section in README

a276f08

refactor: remove symbol support for appid client extension output

1d7b5c1

bdewater approved these changes Nov 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

docs: remove reference to legacy_u2f_appid in Configuration section

1e6564f

santiagorodriguez96 merged commit b90c6fd into master Nov 11, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 deleted the handle_appid branch November 11, 2022 18:16

santiagorodriguez96 mentioned this pull request Nov 11, 2022

feat: add capability of handling appid extension #377

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

feat: add capability of handling appid extension #319

feat: add capability of handling appid extension #319

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 18, 2020

grzuy left a comment •

edited

Loading

grzuy Jun 27, 2020

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 29, 2020

grzuy Jun 27, 2020

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 29, 2020

grzuy Jun 27, 2020

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 29, 2020

grzuy left a comment

grzuy commented Mar 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading

brauliomartinezlm left a comment •

edited

Loading

brauliomartinezlm Jun 20, 2021

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 26, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 26, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 27, 2022 •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 27, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 28, 2022

bdewater Nov 4, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Nov 4, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 commented Nov 7, 2022

		appid_domain = WebAuthn.configuration.appid \|\| WebAuthn.configuration.rp_id \|\|
		WebAuthn.configuration.origin \|\| raise("Unspecified expected origin")

feat: add capability of handling appid extension #319

feat: add capability of handling appid extension #319

Conversation

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 18, 2020 • edited Loading

What

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

grzuy left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 29, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 29, 2020

grzuy left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

grzuy commented Mar 9, 2021 • edited Loading

brauliomartinezlm left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 26, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 27, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 commented Oct 28, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

santiagorodriguez96 commented Nov 7, 2022

santiagorodriguez96 commented Jun 18, 2020 •

edited

Loading

grzuy left a comment •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 Jun 29, 2020 •

edited

Loading

grzuy commented Mar 9, 2021 •

edited

Loading

brauliomartinezlm left a comment •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 27, 2022 •

edited

Loading

santiagorodriguez96 Oct 28, 2022 •

edited

Loading