Files
DodoSSH/src/DodoSSH.Contracts/Teams.cs
T
jaap-jan 69bc9e270b Let a team be joined only by somebody who is already here
An invitation decided access from an assertion about an address. Everything else
in this model decides it from something a person did — an admin naming an
account, a key holder wrapping a vault key to a key they verified — and this was
the one place a token's email claim was the thing that let somebody in.

It was guarded as tightly as that can be guarded: the claim was refused outright
on an unverified or absent `email_verified`, with no setting to relax it. But the
guard and the risk were the same shape. The whole defence was one boolean sent by
a system the deployment does not control.

So `POST /teams/{id}/members` is the only way in, and an address with no account
is refused with `no-such-account` — which is now the end of the road rather than
the signal to invite. Both clients say the remedy: that person signs in here
once, which is what creates the account, and then they can be added. The desktop
leaves the address in the box, because a message telling you to come back later
is one you act on later.

Gone with it: the `team_invitation` table, the claim hook in the sign-in path,
and `Oidc:EmailVerifiedClaim`, which that hook was the only reader of. Nothing in
the server now reads the email claim to decide anything.

Pending invitations are dropped rather than converted. Converting one would mean
creating a membership because an address matched, which is the property being
removed — and an invitation to an address that did have an account here had
already been claimed by the hourly sweep, so what is left is offers to people who
never arrived.

Two tests carry the property rather than the feature: the endpoint inventory
asserts the three routes are absent, and the API suite adds an address that has
no account, watches the refusal, then signs that address in and checks it joined
nothing. Without the second half, a server that merely renamed the deferred path
would pass.
2026-08-05 08:28:57 +02:00

419 lines
20 KiB
C#

namespace DodoSSH.Contracts;
/// <summary>
/// A member's role within a team, as it travels on the wire.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// A separate type from <c>DodoSSH.Domain.TeamRole</c> only because both are visible inside the
/// server, exactly as <c>GrantPurpose</c> is separate from <c>GrantKind</c>. The <b>numeric values
/// must match</b> that enum, and a test pins them: the two are converted by cast, so a renumbering
/// here silently promotes or demotes every member on the next deployment.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// There is no <c>ConnectOnly</c> role, and there will not be one built this way. Connect is a
/// user-interface hint rather than a boundary — SSH terminates on the client, so opening a session
/// needs the credential's plaintext on that machine, and "may connect but may not read the key" is
/// unenforceable in this architecture. See <c>docs/adr/0001-e2ee-trust-model.md</c>.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
public enum TeamMemberRole
{
/// <summary>Not a legal value.</summary>
Unspecified = 0,
/// <summary>May read the team's vaults and nothing else.</summary>
Viewer = 10,
/// <summary>May read and change the team's vaults.</summary>
Member = 20,
/// <summary>May also manage members, create vaults, and share vault keys.</summary>
Admin = 30,
/// <summary>Sole owner. Everything an admin may do, and cannot be removed while sole.</summary>
Owner = 40,
}
/// <summary>State of a team membership, as it travels on the wire.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Values match <c>DodoSSH.Domain.MembershipStatus</c>, for the reason
/// <see cref="TeamMemberRole"/> gives.
/// </remarks>
public enum TeamMemberStatus
{
/// <summary>Not a legal value.</summary>
Unspecified = 0,
/// <summary>
/// Invited but not yet accepted.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// <b>Nothing writes this, and nothing in this server can.</b> A membership names an account —
/// <c>team_membership.user_id</c> is not nullable and carries a foreign key — so a row in this
/// state would have to point at somebody who has never signed in. There was a separate invitation
/// record that stood in for exactly that, and it is gone: an address is not a way into a team, and
/// only an account that exists can be added. See <c>docs/adr/0009-team-access-model.md</c>.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// Retained because the column exists and holds this value in nobody's database, and because a
/// client must not fail on a value a later server may send.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
Invited = 1,
/// <summary>Active member.</summary>
Active = 2,
/// <summary>Removed. Retained so audit history stays resolvable to a person.</summary>
Revoked = 3,
}
/// <summary>State of a vault key grant, as it travels on the wire.</summary>
/// <remarks>Values match <c>DodoSSH.Domain.GrantState</c>.</remarks>
public enum VaultGrantState
{
/// <summary>Not a legal value.</summary>
Unspecified = 0,
/// <summary>Usable.</summary>
Active = 1,
/// <summary>
/// The recipient's identity key changed or the vault was rekeyed, so a member holding Share
/// must wrap the key afresh before the recipient can read anything again.
/// </summary>
AwaitingRewrap = 2,
/// <summary>
/// Revoked. Blocks future reads only — anything already downloaded is already gone, and the
/// remediation for a departed member is rotating the SSH credential itself. See ADR 0001.
/// </summary>
Revoked = 3,
}
/// <summary>A team the caller belongs to.</summary>
/// <param name="TeamId">The team.</param>
/// <param name="Name">Display name.</param>
/// <param name="Slug">URL-safe unique identifier.</param>
/// <param name="Description">Optional description.</param>
/// <param name="Role">The caller's own role.</param>
/// <param name="MemberCount">Active members, including the caller.</param>
/// <param name="VaultCount">Vaults the team owns.</param>
/// <param name="CreatedAt">When the team was created.</param>
public sealed record TeamSummary(
Guid TeamId,
string Name,
string Slug,
string? Description,
TeamMemberRole Role,
int MemberCount,
int VaultCount,
DateTimeOffset CreatedAt);
/// <summary>A request to create a team.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <see cref="TeamId"/> is chosen by the client for the same reason a vault id is: a request whose
/// response was lost can be re-sent verbatim and returns the identical team rather than creating a
/// second one under a name the user only meant to type once.
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="TeamId">Client-generated UUIDv7.</param>
/// <param name="Name">Display name.</param>
/// <param name="Slug">
/// URL-safe unique identifier, lowercase. Unique across the deployment, so this is the one field a
/// create can fail on for a reason the caller cannot see coming.
/// </param>
/// <param name="Description">Optional description.</param>
public sealed record CreateTeamRequest(
Guid TeamId,
string Name,
string Slug,
string? Description);
/// <summary>Renames a team, or changes its description.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// The slug is not here and cannot be changed. It is what a URL, an operator's query and any bookmark
/// name, and it is unique only among <em>live</em> teams — so a rename could take a slug an archived
/// team is still holding on to, and the archived one could then never be brought back. Renaming the
/// display name is the operation people actually want; renaming the identifier is a migration.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// A whole replacement rather than a patch: both fields are always sent, so clearing a description is
/// sending null rather than a distinct verb. There is nowhere to record <em>when</em> a team was last
/// renamed — <c>team</c> has no updated-at column — so no client can show "edited", and this contract
/// does not pretend one can.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="Name">Display name. Required.</param>
/// <param name="Description">Optional description. Null clears it.</param>
public sealed record UpdateTeamRequest(string Name, string? Description);
/// <summary>Hands a team's ownership to another member.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// Its own operation rather than a role change, because it is two writes that must not be separable:
/// the recipient becomes owner and the outgoing owner becomes an admin, in one transaction. Ownership
/// is sole, so doing it as two role changes would leave the team either briefly ownerless or briefly
/// owned twice, and <see cref="ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest"/> refuses
/// <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Owner"/> outright for exactly that reason.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// The outgoing owner is demoted to <see cref="TeamMemberRole.Admin"/> rather than removed. Removing
/// them would revoke their vault key grants and flag every team vault for rekey, which is a far larger
/// act than the one being asked for — and somebody handing over a team is usually staying in it.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="UserId">
/// The member to hand it to. Must already be an active member: adding somebody and making them owner
/// in one step would let an address typed once take the team.
/// </param>
public sealed record TransferTeamOwnershipRequest(Guid UserId);
/// <summary>One member of a team.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Carries no avatar, because no picture is stored anywhere. It does now carry a last-active time —
/// see <see cref="LastActiveAt"/>, which names precisely what it measures, because the useful version
/// of that column and the misleading one differ only in what the server bothered to write down.
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="UserId">The member.</param>
/// <param name="Email">Email, for display.</param>
/// <param name="DisplayName">Display name.</param>
/// <param name="Role">Role within the team.</param>
/// <param name="Status">Membership state.</param>
/// <param name="IsEnrolled">
/// Whether this member has published an identity key. A member who has not cannot be granted a
/// vault key at all — there is nothing to wrap one to — so the interface has to be able to say so
/// rather than offering a share that would fail.
/// </param>
/// <param name="JoinedAt">When the membership became active.</param>
/// <param name="LastActiveAt">
/// When this account last made an authenticated request, or null if it never has.
/// <para>
/// It is deliberately coarse. The server records it at most once per account per hour, so a value an
/// hour old means "recently" rather than "at that instant" — which is the granularity the question is
/// actually asked at, and a far smaller thing to know about a colleague than a per-request timeline
/// would be. Displaying it to the minute would be reading precision into it that is not there.
/// </para>
/// </param>
public sealed record TeamMemberSummary(
Guid UserId,
string? Email,
string? DisplayName,
TeamMemberRole Role,
TeamMemberStatus Status,
bool IsEnrolled,
DateTimeOffset? JoinedAt,
DateTimeOffset? LastActiveAt = null);
/// <summary>Adds a member to a team.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// <b>By user id when the caller has one, and the id comes from a directory lookup they have already
/// made.</b> That ordering is not incidental: whoever adds a member is usually about to wrap a vault
/// key to their public key, and the key they must verify is the one the directory returned. Resolving
/// an address server-side when an id was available would put an account resolution the client never
/// saw between those two steps.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// <b><see cref="Email"/> exists because the directory cannot answer for everybody.</b> It returns
/// only accounts that have published a key — an entry exists to be wrapped to, and one carrying no key
/// is a check callers forget exactly once — so an account between its first sign-in and its enrollment
/// is invisible there. It is still an account, and it can still be a member: membership is server-side
/// authorization and grants nothing readable, which is why <see cref="TeamMemberSummary.IsEnrolled"/>
/// exists to say that a member has no key yet. Without this field such a person could not be added at
/// all, and a caller reading the directory's silence as "no account here" would report an absence to
/// somebody who is standing right there.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// <b>This is the only way into a team.</b> There is no invitation and no address-based path — a
/// membership is granted to an account that already exists, named by somebody who can see it. That
/// rules out the shape where a team is joined by whoever turns up holding a token asserting an
/// address, which is the same attack <c>OidcOptions.AllowEmailLinking</c> refuses one door along. The
/// cost is stated rather than hidden: somebody who has never signed in here cannot be added yet, and
/// the refusal says so. See <c>docs/adr/0009-team-access-model.md</c>.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// No key is verified on this path, and none needs to be: nothing is wrapped by adding somebody. The
/// key that matters is fetched and checked at share time, from the directory, by the machine holding
/// the vault key.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="UserId">
/// The account to add, as returned by the directory. <see cref="Guid.Empty"/> defers to
/// <see cref="Email"/>.
/// </param>
/// <param name="Role">Role to grant.</param>
/// <param name="Email">
/// The address to resolve, used only when <see cref="UserId"/> is <see cref="Guid.Empty"/>. Matched
/// case-insensitively, exactly as the directory matches. An address with no account here is refused
/// with <see cref="ProblemCodes.NoSuchAccount"/>, which is the end of the road rather than a step on
/// it: the remedy is that person signing in once, and it belongs to them rather than to the caller.
/// </param>
public sealed record AddTeamMemberRequest(
Guid UserId,
TeamMemberRole Role,
string? Email = null);
/// <summary>Changes a member's role.</summary>
/// <param name="Role">The new role.</param>
public sealed record ChangeTeamMemberRoleRequest(TeamMemberRole Role);
/// <summary>
/// Creates a vault owned by a team, with its key already wrapped to the creator.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// Shaped like <see cref="PersonalVaultRequest"/> and for the same reasons: the vault key is
/// generated on the client and sealed to the creator's own X25519 key, so the server cannot produce
/// this and cannot check that <see cref="WrappedVaultKey"/> contains anything in particular. A vault
/// created with no grant would be a container nobody could ever open, so the two arrive together.
/// <para>
/// The creator's grant carries no key log head, exactly as a personal vault's does not: there is no
/// third party whose key could have been substituted. Every <em>other</em> member's grant does carry
/// one — see <see cref="IssueVaultGrantRequest"/>.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="VaultId">Client-generated UUIDv7.</param>
/// <param name="Name">Display name. Plaintext, as all vault names are.</param>
/// <param name="WrappedVaultKey">The vault key sealed to the creator's encryption key.</param>
/// <param name="GrantSignature">Ed25519 signature over the canonical grant tuple.</param>
/// <param name="GrantedAt">Signing timestamp, part of the signed tuple.</param>
public sealed record CreateTeamVaultRequest(
Guid VaultId,
string Name,
byte[] WrappedVaultKey,
byte[] GrantSignature,
DateTimeOffset GrantedAt);
/// <summary>Renames a vault.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// The one field of a vault a person chose, and the only one that can be changed. A vault's key
/// generation, its owner and its rekey flag are all consequences of something else happening; its name
/// is what somebody typed into a box, and typing the wrong thing into a box is the ordinary mistake this
/// exists to undo.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// It is plaintext, as vault names have always been — a person has to be able to choose a vault before
/// anything is decrypted (<c>docs/crypto.md</c> §10). So a rename is visible to the operator, exactly as
/// the original name was, and this changes nothing about what the server can read.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// A whole replacement rather than a patch, for the reason <see cref="UpdateTeamRequest"/> is one: there
/// is a single field, so a repeat is the same vault rather than a second edit.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="Name">Display name. Required, 1 to 256 characters.</param>
public sealed record UpdateVaultRequest(string Name);
/// <summary>Issues a vault key grant to another member.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// The wrap is made by a client that holds the vault key, to a public key it has verified. The
/// server stores both the ciphertext and the signature and can check neither — which is the property
/// that makes it a zero-knowledge server rather than a key-holding one.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// <see cref="KeyLogHead"/> is required here and absent for a self-grant. A third party's key could
/// have been substituted by the server; recording the log head the granter observed while wrapping
/// is what converts that from an undetectable attack into a detectable one. See docs/crypto.md §7.2.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="RecipientUserId">Who the key was wrapped to.</param>
/// <param name="RecipientKeyFingerprint">
/// The exact identity key it was wrapped to. Stored so a later rotation invalidates this grant
/// explicitly rather than leaving a row that no longer opens.
/// </param>
/// <param name="KeyGeneration">
/// The generation wrapped. Rejected when it is not the vault's current one, because a grant for a
/// superseded generation opens nothing and would read as corruption at the far end.
/// </param>
/// <param name="WrappedVaultKey">The vault key sealed to the recipient. Opaque to the server.</param>
/// <param name="KeyLogHead">The key log head the granter observed while wrapping.</param>
/// <param name="GrantSignature">Ed25519 signature over the canonical grant tuple.</param>
/// <param name="GrantedAt">Signing timestamp, part of the signed tuple.</param>
public sealed record IssueVaultGrantRequest(
Guid RecipientUserId,
byte[] RecipientKeyFingerprint,
uint KeyGeneration,
byte[] WrappedVaultKey,
byte[] KeyLogHead,
byte[] GrantSignature,
DateTimeOffset GrantedAt);
/// <summary>
/// Moves a vault to a fresh key, wrapped to the caller.
/// </summary>
/// <remarks>
/// <para>
/// The new key is generated by a client that already holds the current one, and arrives sealed to that
/// same client — the server can neither produce it nor tell that it differs from the old one. What the
/// server does is decide the moment it takes effect: the generation advances in one transaction, so
/// there is no instant at which two clients disagree about which generation is current.
/// </para>
/// <para>
/// <b>Grants for earlier generations are kept, not revoked.</b> Every item still carries the generation
/// it was sealed under, so withdrawing them would make the vault's whole history unreadable to the
/// people who are still in it. The departed member's grants are revoked — that is what
/// <c>RevokeGrantAsync</c> and removal from the team already do — and this is what stops them reading
/// anything written from here on. It does not reach back; see ADR 0001.
/// </para>
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="KeyGeneration">
/// The generation being created. Must be exactly one past the vault's current one, so two clients
/// rotating at once cannot both believe they succeeded.
/// </param>
/// <param name="WrappedVaultKey">The new vault key, sealed to the caller's own encryption key.</param>
/// <param name="GrantSignature">Ed25519 signature over the canonical grant tuple.</param>
/// <param name="GrantedAt">Signing timestamp, part of the signed tuple.</param>
public sealed record RekeyVaultRequest(
uint KeyGeneration,
byte[] WrappedVaultKey,
byte[] GrantSignature,
DateTimeOffset GrantedAt);
/// <summary>One vault key grant, as the sharing interface sees it.</summary>
/// <remarks>
/// The wrapped key itself is deliberately not here. A member reads their own through
/// <see cref="VaultSummary.WrappedVaultKey"/>; this listing exists so somebody holding Share can see
/// <em>who has one</em>, and serving every member's sealed key to every member would be a pointless
/// widening of what a stolen access token yields.
/// </remarks>
/// <param name="RecipientUserId">Who holds it.</param>
/// <param name="Email">Their email, for display.</param>
/// <param name="DisplayName">Their display name.</param>
/// <param name="KeyGeneration">Generation this grant is for.</param>
/// <param name="State">Grant state.</param>
/// <param name="GranterUserId">Who issued it.</param>
/// <param name="CreatedAt">When it was issued.</param>
/// <param name="RevokedAt">When it was revoked, if it was.</param>
public sealed record VaultGrantSummary(
Guid RecipientUserId,
string? Email,
string? DisplayName,
uint KeyGeneration,
VaultGrantState State,
Guid GranterUserId,
DateTimeOffset CreatedAt,
DateTimeOffset? RevokedAt);
/// <summary>Who can open a vault, and at which generation.</summary>
/// <param name="VaultId">The vault.</param>
/// <param name="KeyGeneration">
/// The vault's current generation. A grant listed at anything lower is stale, which is what a client
/// compares against rather than inferring from <see cref="VaultGrantSummary.State"/> alone.
/// </param>
/// <param name="RekeyRequired">Whether a membership change has left this vault needing a rekey.</param>
/// <param name="Grants">
/// One row per holder, including those whose access has been withdrawn. Not one per grant: a rotated
/// vault leaves a member holding one grant per generation, and the row carries the best of them — so
/// <see cref="VaultGrantSummary.KeyGeneration"/> below <paramref name="KeyGeneration"/> means they have
/// not been wrapped the current key yet, rather than that one of their grants is old.
/// </param>
public sealed record VaultGrantsResponse(
Guid VaultId,
uint KeyGeneration,
bool RekeyRequired,
IReadOnlyList<VaultGrantSummary> Grants);