Files
DodoSSH/src/DodoSSH.Api/Features/Teams/VaultGrantEndpoints.cs
T
jaap-jan 6846f67c20 Server: send each item at the revision its ciphertext is sealed at, keep team archiving with the owner, refuse suspended accounts, and stop enrolment failing after an hour
- Pull hydrated every historical change entry with the item's current ciphertext under that entry's
  old revision. The AAD binds the revision, so a client opened it at the wrong version, failed, and
  parked its own pending edit as undecryptable. Entries an item has since moved past are left out; the
  later entry carries the same payload under the right number, and a fresh device no longer downloads
  an item once per edit it ever had.
- Deleting a team's last vault archived the team whoever deleted it, so an admin could archive it out
  from under its owner. Only the owner's delete archives it now, and TeamService.ArchiveAsync checks.
- UserStatus was checked nowhere on the request path. ActiveAccountRequirement on both policies answers
  403 account-not-active for a suspended or deprovisioned account.
- The hourly last-seen update moves xmin under the tracked user, and enrolment then saved that user
  against the stale token: a 500 for anybody enrolling more than an hour after first signing in. The
  entity is reloaded after the update.
2026-10-02 13:16:48 +02:00

411 lines
15 KiB
C#

using DodoSSH.Api.Authorization;
using DodoSSH.Api.Setup;
using DodoSSH.Contracts;
using DodoSSH.Domain.Authorization;
using FastEndpoints;
using Microsoft.AspNetCore.Http.HttpResults;
namespace DodoSSH.Api.Features.Teams;
/// <summary>Lists who can open a vault.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Read, not Share. Every member who can read a vault can already see the sharing graph — the server
/// stores it in plaintext and says so in docs/crypto.md §10 — so gating this on Share would hide from
/// the people it is about something the operator can read either way.
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class ListVaultGrantsEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants)
: EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<Ok<VaultGrantsResponse>, NotFound>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
Get("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}/grants");
Policies(Auth.EnrolledPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("ListVaultGrants")
.WithSummary("Lists who holds a key to this vault.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<Ok<VaultGrantsResponse>, NotFound>> ExecuteAsync(
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
return TypedResults.Ok(await grants.ListGrantsAsync(access.Vault!, ct).ConfigureAwait(false));
}
}
/// <summary>Renames a vault.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// Admin rather than Write, and the line is the one <c>UpdateTeamEndpoint</c> draws: a name is what
/// everybody in the vault sees it called, so changing it is an administrative act rather than an edit
/// to the vault's contents. A member who may add hosts to a shared vault may not rename it out from
/// under the people who share it.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// Authenticated rather than Enrolled, unlike everything else about a vault here. A rename touches no
/// key material and needs none — somebody added to a team before they have finished setting their own
/// machine up can still be reading this screen — and requiring a published identity key would refuse
/// them for a reason that has nothing to do with what they are asking.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class RenameVaultEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants)
: Endpoint<UpdateVaultRequest, Results<Ok<VaultSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
// PUT, for the reason the team rename is a PUT: one field, always sent whole, and a repeat is
// the same vault rather than a second edit.
Put("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}");
Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("RenameVault")
.WithSummary("Renames a vault.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<Ok<VaultSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
UpdateVaultRequest req,
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
if (!access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Admin))
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
"Only an admin or the owner of the team that owns this vault can rename it.");
}
try
{
return TypedResults.Ok(
await grants.RenameVaultAsync(access.Vault!, req, ct).ConfigureAwait(false));
}
catch (TeamInvalidException exception)
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidTeam, exception.Message);
}
}
}
/// <summary>Deletes a vault.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// Admin, like the rename above and for a stronger version of the same reason: this takes the vault away
/// from everybody in it at once, so it belongs to whoever administers the membership list rather than to
/// anybody who may write to its contents.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// Authenticated rather than Enrolled, again like the rename. Deleting a vault touches no key material —
/// it withdraws grants rather than wrapping anything — so requiring a published identity key would refuse
/// an admin for a reason that has nothing to do with what they are asking.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// <b>The team behind it is archived in a second call, and the two are deliberately not one
/// transaction.</b> Archiving is <c>TeamService</c>'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 on every screen, archivable afterwards by the endpoint that exists for it,
/// and harmless — which is a better failure than a vault that could not be deleted because tidying up its
/// team failed.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class DeleteVaultEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants,
TeamService teams)
: EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
Delete("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}");
Policies(Auth.AuthenticatedPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("DeleteVault")
.WithSummary("Deletes a vault and withdraws every key to it.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
// Indistinguishable from a vault that never existed, and from one somebody else deleted a
// moment ago — which is what makes a repeat of this call safe to send.
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
if (!access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Admin))
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
"Only an admin or the owner of the team that owns this vault can delete it.");
}
try
{
var orphaned = await grants.DeleteVaultAsync(user, access.Vault!, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
// Archived only by its owner. Archiving revokes every membership, the owner's included, and an
// admin the owner promoted must not be able to do that by deleting vaults one at a time when the
// archive endpoint refuses them outright. An admin's delete stands; the empty team is left for
// the owner, who can archive it or make a vault in it.
if (orphaned is not null
&& (await teams.ResolveAsync(user.Id, orphaned.Id, ct).ConfigureAwait(false)).IsOwner)
{
await teams.ArchiveAsync(user, orphaned, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
}
return TypedResults.NoContent();
}
catch (VaultGrantInvalidException exception)
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant, exception.Message);
}
catch (TeamNotEmptyException)
{
// The team gained a vault between the delete and the archive. The deletion stands and is what
// was asked for; the team staying is not a failure the caller can or should act on.
return TypedResults.NoContent();
}
}
}
/// <summary>Wraps this vault's key to another member.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// The one call in this API whose body the server can neither produce nor check. It stores a sealed
/// key and a signature over a tuple it never verifies — see docs/crypto.md §6 and §7 — which is
/// exactly why sharing is a client operation with a server-side record rather than a server feature.
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class IssueVaultGrantEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants)
: Endpoint<IssueVaultGrantRequest, Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
Post("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}/grants");
Policies(Auth.EnrolledPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("IssueVaultGrant")
.WithSummary("Records a vault key wrapped to another member.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
IssueVaultGrantRequest req,
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
if (!access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Share))
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
"You do not have permission to share this vault.");
}
try
{
await grants.IssueGrantAsync(user, access.Vault!, req, ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
// 204. There is nothing to return that the caller does not already hold — it produced
// the wrap — and echoing the sealed key back would put it on the wire twice for nothing.
return TypedResults.NoContent();
}
catch (VaultGrantInvalidException exception)
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant, exception.Message);
}
}
}
/// <summary>Moves this vault to a fresh key.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Gated on Share rather than on a rotation permission of its own. Rotating decides who can read what
/// is written next, which is the same question sharing and withdrawing answer, and a fourth permission
/// would be a distinction nobody administering a team would be able to explain.
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class RekeyVaultEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants)
: Endpoint<RekeyVaultRequest, Results<Ok<VaultSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
Post("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}/rekey");
Policies(Auth.EnrolledPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("RekeyVault")
.WithSummary("Advances this vault's key generation, wrapped to the caller.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<Ok<VaultSummary>, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
RekeyVaultRequest req,
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
if (!access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Share))
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
"You do not have permission to share this vault, so you cannot rotate its key.");
}
try
{
var summary = await grants
.RekeyAsync(user, access.Vault!, (int)access.Permissions, req, ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
return TypedResults.Ok(summary);
}
catch (VaultGrantInvalidException exception)
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant, exception.Message);
}
}
}
/// <summary>Withdraws a member's key to this vault.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// 404 for a member who holds no live grant, rather than a bland 204, for the reason device
/// revocation gives: "revoked" is what the user reads, and reading it about the wrong account is
/// worse than being told to look again. A caller driving towards "they cannot read this any more"
/// can treat 404 as having arrived.
/// </remarks>
internal sealed class RevokeVaultGrantEndpoint(
ICurrentUserContext currentUser,
IVaultAccessService vaultAccess,
VaultGrantService grants)
: EndpointWithoutRequest<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>>
{
/// <inheritdoc />
public override void Configure()
{
Delete("/api/v1/vaults/{vaultId:guid}/grants/{userId:guid}");
Policies(Auth.EnrolledPolicy);
Description(b => b
.WithName("RevokeVaultGrant")
.WithSummary("Withdraws a member's key to this vault. Blocks future reads only.")
.WithTags("Vaults"));
}
/// <inheritdoc />
public override async Task<Results<NoContent, NotFound, ProblemHttpResult>> ExecuteAsync(
CancellationToken ct)
{
var user = await currentUser.GetOrProvisionAsync(ct).ConfigureAwait(false);
var access = await vaultAccess
.ResolveAsync(user.Id, Route<Guid>("vaultId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
if (!access.Granted || !access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Read))
{
return TypedResults.NotFound();
}
if (!access.Permissions.HasFlag(PermissionFlags.Share))
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status403Forbidden,
ProblemCodes.Forbidden,
"You do not have permission to share this vault.");
}
try
{
var revoked = await grants
.RevokeGrantAsync(user, access.Vault!, Route<Guid>("userId"), ct)
.ConfigureAwait(false);
return revoked ? TypedResults.NoContent() : TypedResults.NotFound();
}
catch (VaultGrantInvalidException exception)
{
return Problems.Coded(
StatusCodes.Status400BadRequest, ProblemCodes.InvalidVaultGrant, exception.Message);
}
}
}