Loop B red-team (money/security/dup-mod adversarial) findings on the full payments overhaul: - CRITICAL-ish: IDEMPOTENCY_KEY_REUSED (409) no longer classified as a definitive 402 in chargeFailureStatus — it means the ORIGINAL charge may have landed with a different body, so it is now AMBIGUOUS (503): the frontend keeps the same idempotency key, the pending row stays rescuable by the sweep (which already treated it as ambiguous), and the frontend no longer regenerates the key into a possible double charge. SCA verification-required codes remain definitive 402. - HIGH: reissueTwoFACodeAfterFailedCharge now writes a CRITICAL admin notification (insertCriticalPaymentNotification) when issuance is refused (missing pepper / unavailable delivery) instead of silently stranding the customer; documented that a pepper CHANGE invalidates all pending codes. - MEDIUM: family-alive cache invalidation crash window documented (invalidate-after- commit leaves up to 30s warm on a crash; the near-TTL DB re-check bounds it). - Consolidation regression checks (8b2fe3b helpers): writeChargeSnapshot guard preserved at all sites, postChargeRecheck identical, squareRefundStatusToLocal mappings verified, reissue fresh-only semantics confirmed at all 5 call sites. Verified: 26/26 dev packages, both vet tags, frontend tests + build, env-docs 42/42.
116 lines
6.0 KiB
Go
116 lines
6.0 KiB
Go
//go:build !dev && !test
|
|
|
|
package user
|
|
|
|
// Production builds (neither the `dev` nor the `test` tag) must never persist
|
|
// an unsalted digest and must never write a 2FA code in plaintext by default:
|
|
// the plaintext [2FA] log delivery and the TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER fallback exist
|
|
// only in dev/test builds (twofa_dev.go). Here code issuance fails closed on
|
|
// BOTH missing configuration pieces:
|
|
//
|
|
// - a missing TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER (an unsalted digest in the 1M code space
|
|
// would be offline-brute-forceable from a log/DB leak), mirroring how
|
|
// main.go refuses to start without a strong JWT_SECRET_KEY; and
|
|
// - a missing delivery channel. The email/SMS transport is not wired yet
|
|
// (P6), so the ONLY production channel is the operator's explicit opt-in
|
|
// to the insecure log-delivery mode (TWO_FACTOR_ALLOW_LOG_DELIVERY=true).
|
|
// Without it, issuing a code would silently dead-end setup — the user
|
|
// could never receive the code and the enforced saved-card-payments gate
|
|
// would lock them out with no way forward. Issuance is refused and the
|
|
// handlers surface errTwoFADeliveryUnavailable ("2FA requires an email or
|
|
// SMS delivery channel; contact the salon").
|
|
//
|
|
// The plaintext code is therefore never written to the server log unless the
|
|
// operator explicitly opted into log delivery and accepted its risk.
|
|
|
|
import (
|
|
"crussell/internal/twofa"
|
|
"errors"
|
|
"log"
|
|
"os"
|
|
)
|
|
|
|
// twoFAAllowLogDeliveryEnv is the explicit operator opt-in that makes this
|
|
// production build deliver 2FA codes via the server log ([2FA] prefix) — the
|
|
// documented INSECURE stand-in for the not-yet-wired email/SMS transport (P6).
|
|
// Production builds fail closed without it: no delivery channel is configured,
|
|
// so code issuance is refused (see twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed) and setup surfaces
|
|
// errTwoFADeliveryUnavailable. Set it ONLY to keep the operator-relays-the-code
|
|
// flow working in a deployment that understands the risk (anyone with backend
|
|
// log access can defeat the 2FA gate on saved-card charges). Defined here in
|
|
// the prod build only — dev/test builds always deliver via the log and never
|
|
// consult this flag.
|
|
const twoFAAllowLogDeliveryEnv = "TWO_FACTOR_ALLOW_LOG_DELIVERY"
|
|
|
|
// errTwoFAPepperRequired is returned by twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed when
|
|
// TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER is unset in a production build. Refusing to issue is the
|
|
// only safe outcome: without the pepper a pending code would be persisted as an
|
|
// unsalted SHA-256 digest in the 1M code space, which a log/DB leak could
|
|
// brute-force offline.
|
|
var errTwoFAPepperRequired = errors.New("TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER is not set; refusing to issue a 2FA code (an unsalted digest would be offline-brute-forceable)")
|
|
|
|
// init registers the production pepper reader into the shared verification
|
|
// core (crussell/internal/twofa): raw env read, no fallback — code issuance
|
|
// fails closed via twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed, so no pending code is ever
|
|
// persisted as an unsalted SHA-256 digest.
|
|
func init() {
|
|
twofa.SetPepperProvider(func() string { return os.Getenv(twoFAPepperEnv) })
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// twoFADeliveryAvailable reports whether a 2FA code delivery channel exists in
|
|
// this build. Production: true only when the operator explicitly opted into the
|
|
// insecure log-delivery mode (TWO_FACTOR_ALLOW_LOG_DELIVERY=true) or a real
|
|
// email/SMS transport is wired (not yet — P6). Default false: no channel, so
|
|
// code issuance is refused and setup surfaces errTwoFADeliveryUnavailable
|
|
// instead of a silent dead-end.
|
|
func twoFADeliveryAvailable() bool {
|
|
return os.Getenv(twoFAAllowLogDeliveryEnv) == "true"
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed reports whether a 2FA code may be issued in this
|
|
// deployment. Production requires BOTH a delivery channel and TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER:
|
|
// without a channel (no email/SMS, no TWO_FACTOR_ALLOW_LOG_DELIVERY=true) the
|
|
// code could never reach the user — issuing one would silently lock the user
|
|
// out of the enforced saved-card-payments gate; and without the pepper every
|
|
// stored code would be an offline-brute-forceable unsalted digest. Either way
|
|
// issuance is refused (fail-closed). Dev/test builds always allow issuance
|
|
// (twofa_dev.go).
|
|
//
|
|
// The pepper check is the ONLY hard gate here (plus the delivery channel), and
|
|
// it is also the ONLY hard gate on the payments re-issue path
|
|
// (payments.twoFAReissueIssueAllowed). PEPPER-CHANGE HAZARD (Loop B finding 2):
|
|
// the pepper keys the HMAC-SHA256 of every stored pending-code hash, so
|
|
// CHANGING TWO_FACTOR_PEPPER invalidates ALL pending codes — every stored hash
|
|
// was computed with the old pepper and can never match a code minted under the
|
|
// new one. An operator who changes the pepper must re-mint every user's code
|
|
// (or have each user re-run 2FA setup), or enforced saved-card charges will
|
|
// strand customers with 400 ErrMissingOrExpired forever.
|
|
func twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed() error {
|
|
if os.Getenv(twoFAPepperEnv) == "" {
|
|
return errTwoFAPepperRequired
|
|
}
|
|
if !twoFADeliveryAvailable() {
|
|
return errTwoFADeliveryUnavailable
|
|
}
|
|
return nil
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
// twoFADeliverCode delivers a fresh verification code to the user. Production
|
|
// has no wired email/SMS transport (P6), so the ONLY channel is the operator's
|
|
// explicit, insecure opt-in to log delivery (TWO_FACTOR_ALLOW_LOG_DELIVERY=true
|
|
// — anyone with backend log access could defeat the 2FA gate on saved-card
|
|
// charges). WITHOUT that flag the plaintext code is NEVER written to the log;
|
|
// twoFAEnsureIssueAllowed already refused issuance, so this no-op is
|
|
// unreachable. With the flag set, the code is written to the [2FA] log line
|
|
// and an operator relays it to the user out-of-band, exactly like the
|
|
// documented dev flow — the operator has accepted the risk of log-based
|
|
// delivery. MEDIUM-3b: the user id and the plaintext code go to SEPARATE log
|
|
// lines so a single record cannot trivially pair a code with its owner.
|
|
func twoFADeliverCode(userID, label, code string) {
|
|
if os.Getenv(twoFAAllowLogDeliveryEnv) == "true" {
|
|
log.Printf("[2FA] code delivery requested (user=%s, purpose=%s)", userID, label)
|
|
log.Printf("[2FA] code: %s", code)
|
|
}
|
|
// Otherwise: deliberate no-op — never log the plaintext code by default.
|
|
}
|