43c939b6978ee8a787074a1ea81a7a486c9ac0b6
6
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 jaap-jan
|
e9cea2ccbc |
Let a shared vault arrive, a bucket be found, and a vault be deleted
Three things a user reported, one of which was a real bug and one of which was
not the bug it looked like.
**A vault shared with somebody never reached their machine.** The grant was
correct at both ends: the sharing client verified the recipient's key against the
key log and wrapped every generation to it, the server stored it, and /me would
have returned it. Nothing asked. VaultSession.RefreshVaultsAsync — the method
whose own summary says it is "called after a share and on a periodic pass" — had
no caller anywhere in the application, so the vault list was whatever the last
browser sign-in cached. A restart did not help: an offline unlock reads that same
cache. The vault appeared only if the recipient happened to sign in through the
browser again, which is why this looked like sharing being broken rather than
like a list that was never re-read.
So every synchronisation pass now re-reads it, before it syncs. SyncOnceAsync
takes the whole server rather than its sync half for that reason, and the order
matters: a vault admitted by the refresh is one that same pass then pulls, where
the other order would show a newly shared vault as an empty one until the minute
after. The shell is told only when the set actually changed — it rebuilds the tab
strip's vault menu from the session's list, and doing that on every quiet pass
would rebuild a menu once a minute for nothing.
The test needed the fake server to be able to do something no test here had
needed before: hand this account a vault it did not make. ShareVaultWithMe wraps
a real key to the encryption key this account enrolled, so the keyring opens it
exactly as it opens a real colleague's — a helper that filled the field with
bytes would let a vault appear in the list and never prove it could be read.
**Adding an S3 bucket on the desktop works, and could not be found.** The report
was that it is not possible; driving the real XAML headlessly says otherwise —
Keychain, + BUCKET, and the editor saves. What is true is that S3 is where
somebody goes looking, and from there SELECT BUCKET opened a combo box with
nothing in it and no sentence anywhere saying that a bucket is a keychain item.
From where the user was standing that is indistinguishable from an application
with no way to add one.
The empty state now says what a bucket is and offers a button that lands on the
keychain with the editor already open — navigating to the screen and leaving
+ BUCKET to be found among five buttons would be most of the same problem. The
phone gets the sentence and no button: its keychain screen reads and deletes and
edits nothing, so there is no editor to send anybody to, and naming the machine
that has one beats an empty control that reads as a screen still loading.
The keychain screen's layout test grew the two categories it never covered.
Tags and buckets arrived after it was written, and the header strip it measures
is one that has overflowed twice before.
**A vault can now be deleted.** DELETE /api/v1/vaults/{id}, gated on Admin —
the line the rename already drew, for a stronger version of its reason, since
this takes the vault from everybody in it at once. The row is soft-deleted and
every grant to it withdrawn in one write; VaultAccessService filters on the stamp
at both ends, so from that moment the vault is absent from every member's /me and
every call naming it answers 404. Their clients notice on the pass described
above.
The team behind it is archived when it owned nothing else, which is the mirror of
renaming it: a vault made from the vaults screen gets a team named after it that
nobody was ever shown, and leaving that behind would leave a membership list no
screen has a row for. That is a second call rather than one transaction —
archiving is TeamService's, it refuses while a team owns vaults, and it can only
tell that this one no longer does once the deletion is committed. A crash between
the two leaves an empty team: invisible, archivable afterwards, harmless, and a
better failure than a vault that could not be deleted because tidying up after it
did not work.
Two refusals worth stating. The personal vault cannot be deleted at either end:
it is created by enrollment, everything filed nowhere else lives in it, and no
call would make another. And the items are kept — ciphertext behind a vault
nothing will resolve, so deleting them buys no confidentiality while destroying
what an operator undoing a mistake would need.
The client drops the key from the keyring and the row from the cache rather than
waiting for a refresh, so the list is right immediately; the items stay, as they
stay for a vault whose grant was withdrawn, because a copy is on every other
member's machine too and removing these rows would be the client pretending to a
reach it does not have. The confirmation says that out loud before it is
answered. It is the one sentence this screen must not leave implied: deletion is
no more retroactive than revocation is. See ADR 0001.
Desktop only, deliberately. The Android vaults screen offers no rename and no
hand-over either, so adding delete alone there would be the one destructive vault
operation on a screen with no other.
Three places asserted that a vault can never be deleted — TeamService's refusal
message, the TeamNotEmpty problem code, and ADR 0009 — and each now names the
route instead.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
a0568d4c35 |
Merge branch 'main' into the vaults screen, and let it rotate keys too
Main built vault key rotation while this branch was reshaping the screen that would drive it, so the two met in the same three files. Every other conflict was textual and resolved by taking both; these are the ones where a decision had to be made. **The view model.** Main taught TeamsViewModel three things and this branch had renamed and rewritten it into VaultsViewModel. All three are ported rather than dropped, because each is a behaviour rather than wording: adding somebody now wraps the vault to them on the spot instead of leaving SHARE KEY to be pressed, removing somebody rotates the vault and hands the new key to whoever is left, and a share reports how many generations were wrapped. The session calls they reach — ShareTeamVaultsAsync and RekeyTeamVaultsAsync — are scoped to a membership list rather than to one vault, and they are called that way here rather than narrowed: adding somebody is a change to the list, so every vault the list carries is one they can now fetch. This screen makes lists that carry one vault, so the sentences name one; where a list carries several, naming them all is the honest report, and the members section already says the list is shared. AddMemberAsync ran two lines over the length limit once the sharing was in it, so the calls behind it moved to AddOrInviteAsync and the three-way refusal to WhyNobodyCanBeAdded — the command reads as its guards now, which is what it was before the sharing arrived. **The tests.** Main's four new cases are ported to the vault-first API, including the one that matters most: the tampered key log is corrupted *before* the add, because the add is now a route to a wrap and a test that corrupted it afterwards would be asserting about the manual route only. SelectingAVault_ListsWhoHoldsAKey now expects two holders rather than one — main's fake records the creator's own self-grant, and a key-holder list that omitted it would show the one person who can certainly open a new vault as somebody who cannot. **The README.** The limits list is six rather than four or five: main's rotation entries and this branch's "a vault cannot be deleted" describe different things and both are true. "The rekey is flagged, never performed" is gone, since it is now performed, and M3 reads *Done* rather than *Done, except rekey*. One thing worth writing down that neither side had. An invitation claimed at sign-in still leaves the key owed, where an add does not: at the moment an invitation is issued there is no account and no published key to wrap to, and the claim happens on the invitee's machine, which holds nothing. Manual check 12.1 says so, because a reader who knows adding shares would otherwise read that step as stale. 1561 tests pass. |
||
|
jaap-jan
|
8707629a6c |
Make the vault the thing you share, and ask a host which one it lives in
The teams screen listed teams that owned vaults, so sharing four servers with two
colleagues meant creating a team, then a vault inside it, then wrapping a key.
Two of those three steps are about a concept nobody arrives wanting. The screen
now lists vaults: naming one creates the membership list that carries it, named
after the vault and owned by you, and members, invitations, roles, hand-over and
key holders all hang off the vault they apply to.
Nothing on the server moved. VaultAccessService still resolves a shared vault
through team_membership and every membership call still names a team id — what
went is the requirement that anybody make one. The split the whole design rests
on is untouched and is still what the screen is built around: adding somebody
authorises the server to serve them, and only a machine holding the key can make
the vault readable. ADR 0009 keeps its decision and gains an addendum recording
which half of it a person is now asked about.
The one place the team resurfaces is a membership list carrying several vaults,
which this screen cannot produce and does not hide: the members section says so,
because "adding somebody here adds them there" is precisely the fact a
vault-shaped screen is in a position to conceal.
Two things left the interface and one arrived. Creating a team is gone, and so is
archiving one — it was only ever possible for a team owning no vaults, and a
screen whose rows are vaults has no row for one, so the button would have been
unreachable or always refused. The endpoint is unchanged and the screen states
the limit instead, since a vault cannot be deleted at all. The exception is a
create whose second call failed: cancelling that form archives the membership
list it left behind, which is a deliberate departure from this client's rule
against tidying up on the user's behalf, made because nothing else can reach it.
What arrived is PUT /api/v1/vaults/{id}. Without it the screen loses its only
editing action, since renaming the team behind a vault is invisible to everybody
who was never shown the team. It is gated on PermissionFlags.Admin — the line
UpdateTeamEndpoint already draws, because a name is what everybody in the vault
sees it called rather than part of its contents — and it renames the owning team
with it when that team carries nothing else, so the row an operator reads and the
name a user says cannot drift apart. The slug never moves, for the reason it does
not move on a team rename. The session edits its cached vault row rather than
replacing it with the response, which deliberately carries no wrapped key.
The host editor now asks which vault a host goes into, beside the name, while
adding and only where there is more than one vault to write to. It is a second
picker rather than the keychain screen's reused, and the two selections are
separate on purpose: that one is a standing preference about where new items go,
this is a field of the host in front of you, and binding both to one selection
would mean a click on the other screen could move a half-typed host. An existing
host is not offered it at all rather than offered it disabled — the two vaults
are encrypted under different keys, so moving an item is a delete and a retype.
That forced a fix worth naming. The group picker was built from the active
vault's groups whatever vault the host was being filed into, so a host put in a
shared vault could be filed under a group only its author can resolve — a
colleague would see it filed under nothing, which is the quietest kind of wrong.
Groups are now kept per vault and the picker follows the vault choice.
Two renames, because the pair they would otherwise have made is a bug farm:
ShellScreen.Vault became Keychain and VaultScreen became KeychainScreen, which is
what the rail has always labelled that screen, leaving Vault for one vault's
contents and Vaults for the vaults themselves. The enum values are unchanged;
NavRail.axaml writes them as x:Static literals.
1536 tests pass, seven more than before. Five are new on the server — the rename
endpoint's success, the team it does and does not take with it, the two refusals
and the empty name — and the client suite gains six and folds four together,
having lost the two about archiving a team.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
5d447da532 |
Take a rotated vault's contents onto the new key as well
Rotating a vault re-keyed the vault and not its contents, which was the deal struck last time: everything already stored stayed sealed under the generation it was written with, every remaining member kept the older keys, and the guarantee was narrowed to "nothing written from now on". That left one gap worth closing — somebody who walked off with the old key could still open old ciphertext they later got hold of — and the reason it was safe to defer is the reason it was cheap to add. A vault at mixed generations reads perfectly well, so the pass that moves items across can stop half way and be run again. VaultResealer walks the vault and rewrites each item as an ordinary upsert against the version the server holds. It never decodes the plaintext: an item is opened and the same bytes are sealed again under a fresh data key, so an item written by a newer client crosses a rotation untouched rather than being re-encoded through this build's codec and quietly losing the fields this build has no concept of. It also means nothing in the pass knows what an item is, which is why one loop covers every type including the ones added after it. A conflict is counted and skipped rather than merged — there is nothing to merge, since no content changes — and the next pass picks the item up at the version the other client left. The half that a pass over stored items cannot see is a change queued before the rotation and pushed after it, which would put a brand-new item into the vault under the key the person who just left still holds. So the push path re-seals a stale payload as it dispatches it, writing the revision back to the outbox first so that a retry sends the same bytes rather than a fresh envelope. Between the two, nothing reaches the server under a superseded generation at all. Queued items are therefore deliberately left alone by the pass: rewriting one there would overwrite the user's unpushed work with the version the server holds, which is the one thing a re-keying pass must never do. Removal runs it last, after a sync — a mirror that is behind produces a batch of conflicts instead of a re-sealed vault — and the status line distinguishes the two guarantees, because they are not the same: a vault fully re-sealed is closed to the person who left, and one with items outstanding is closed only to what happens next. Six tests, and three mutations run against them: making the re-seal return the payload unchanged fails five of the six, making the push path skip re-sealing fails the queued-edit test and only that one, and counting conflicts as applied fails the write-elsewhere test. One of the six was wrong before it was right — it modelled a third-party write by re-pushing an existing payload at a bumped version, which no real client would do, and it took reading the AAD to see that the test was lying rather than the code. |
||
|
jaap-jan
|
d5b1a73182 |
Move the keys when a membership changes, not just the flag
Adding somebody to a team granted them nothing readable and removing them
rotated nothing. Both were honest — the interface said so in as many words — and
both left the actual work to a button somebody had to remember to press, on a
machine that happened to hold the key. Adding now wraps every team vault this
machine can open to the new member, and removing revokes their grants and moves
each of those vaults to a fresh key that goes to whoever is left.
The rotation is where the design had to be decided rather than written. A vault
key is per generation and an item carries the generation it was sealed under, so
advancing the vault and withdrawing the old grants would make everything already
stored unreadable to everybody, including whoever pressed the button. So earlier
grants are kept: a member holds one per generation, /me serves them as
PriorKeyWraps, and VaultKeyring holds a key per generation — the newest for
writing, the item's own for reading, chosen per item on every read path. Sharing
issues one grant per generation held, because a recipient handed only the current
key would open the vault to find most of it undecryptable; revocation takes every
generation, because leaving the history behind leaves them able to read
everything written before the rotation.
The bump itself is one server transaction. POST /vaults/{id}/rekey must name
exactly current + 1 and the vault's xmin token makes that binding, so two admins
rotating at once do not both walk away believing they succeeded — the second is
refused and told to read the vault again. The server contributes the moment and
no cryptography: it cannot generate the key, cannot tell that the one it is
handed differs from the old one, and checks that the caller held the old one the
only way it can, by requiring a live grant at the current generation.
What this does not do is re-encrypt what is already stored, and the product says
so rather than the reassuring version: everything written from the rotation
onwards is unreadable to the person who left, and nothing about the past changes.
That half is deferred and is safe to add incrementally precisely because a vault
at mixed generations stays readable. ADR 0010 records the alternatives — revoking
the old grants, chaining each key under its successor, re-sealing every item in
one request against a server that caps a push at 500 operations — and why each
was rejected.
Two things fell out of the change rather than being asked for. The grant listing
would have shown a member once per generation, so it now returns one row per
holder carrying the best key they hold, which is what makes a row below the
vault's generation mean "still owed the new key". And MarkUnreadable gives up the
write target as well as reporting: a client whose vault was rotated elsewhere
would otherwise have gone on sealing items under its superseded key — readable to
its author, unreadable to everybody else, with nothing to show for it.
|
||
|
jaap-jan
|
95816de0c5 |
Share a vault with a team, without the server holding a key
M3's teams, sharing and ACLs. Teams with roles, a public-key directory, the append-only key log served for clients to check it against, team-owned vaults, and vault key grants wrapped by a client and stored opaquely by the server. VaultAccessService resolves team membership to PermissionFlags, so a viewer may pull and may not push; the desktop client reads and syncs every vault it holds a key for, and a real TEAMS screen replaces the one that said it did not exist. No migration: team, team_membership, vault.team_id and vault_key_grant have all been there since the first one, which is what carrying two unused tables bought. Membership is authorisation. A grant is access. The obvious model is one concept — "access", with a role attached, handed out by the server — and this architecture cannot implement it: a vault key is sealed to each member's X25519 key, and only a client holding the plaintext can seal it for somebody else. So "give Bob access" decomposes into a database write and a wrap, which happen on different machines. Adding a member makes the server serve them the vault; it cannot make it readable. VaultSummary.WrappedVaultKey is null in the meantime and the vault appears in their list saying it is waiting for a key, because hiding it until a grant existed would have been tidier and would have implied the server was the thing granting access. The screen says the same thing after every add, in the status line. ADR 0009 records the whole decision. Sharing verifies or refuses. A directory lookup is a claim by the server about a third party's public key, and wrapping to an unverified claim hands the vault to whoever made it — no amount of transport security helps, because the server is inside the threat model. KeyLogAudit reads the whole log, recomputes every entry's hash from its own contents, checks the chain from genesis, and refuses unless the offered key appears in it unchanged. There is no override flag: one that exists gets used on the day the log is briefly unreachable, and the resulting grant is indistinguishable from a correct one afterwards. What it still cannot promise is that the key is the right person's, so the fingerprint comes back for an out-of-band comparison and the success message says so every time. A test corrupts the fake server's log by one byte and watches the client refuse rather than warn. The roles are only the ones that are enforceable. There is no ConnectOnly, despite the design asking for one and TeamRole having room: SSH terminates on the client, so a session needs the credential's plaintext on that machine, and "may connect but may not read the key" cannot be enforced here. Shipping it as an option in a dropdown would have been a lie. Connect rides along with Read and is documented as an interface hint. Removal is named for what it does — it revokes grants and flags the vault for rekey, and claims nothing about what is already on somebody's laptop. Three things are deliberately absent, and each is a refusal rather than an omission. The rekey itself, because re-wrapping every item's data key under a new vault key needs a client holding the current one; the server records that a rotation is owed and the interface reports it, which is more honest than a button that only appears to do it. Ownership transfer, because allowing an owner to be removed without one leaves a team nobody can administer. And cross-vault host key trust: a pin in a team vault is listed but not consulted at connect time, because any member with Write could otherwise pre-approve a fingerprint another member's client then trusts silently for a host in their own vault. Scoping trust properly needs a scope on the SSH connect path, which IKnownHostStore has not got; until then the narrow direction is the safe one and the cost is in the README rather than hidden. Reading now spans vaults and writing still does not. Every list on the vault and hosts screens covers each vault the keyring opened, rows carry the vault they came from, and an edit goes back to that vault rather than to the active one — writing it to the active vault would fork the item and only show up when a colleague wondered why their change never arrived. A new item goes wherever a picker says, defaulting to the personal vault and never moving on its own, because an item filed into a team's vault is visible to that team and moving it back means deleting and retyping. The sidebar heading stops naming one vault once there are two, and each row names its own. The server checks what it can and nothing it cannot. It will not record a grant for a key its recipient no longer holds, for a superseded generation, or for somebody who is not in the team — each of those would otherwise surface days later at the far end as a tag failure indistinguishable from corruption. It does not verify the wrap or the signature, and the grant service says so: that would be a convenience and never the boundary, and would put an asymmetric implementation on a machine that is supposed to hold no keys. Two bugs the tests found. TeamsViewModel's busy gate blocked its own reload, so a team created a moment earlier was missing from the list it had just been added to. And syncing every vault turned a failure from an exception into a report, which made a background pass announce an unreachable vault once a minute — the exact behaviour AnAutomaticPassThatFails_LeavesTheStatusAlone exists to prevent. The fact is recorded and the message swallowed, as it was before; pressing Sync still names the vault and the reason. Also fixes a build break this branch started with: QuickConnectTests was never updated when M2 added ISftpSessionFactory to the shell's constructor, so nothing built at all. |