Refactor password logic to prevent accidental password leakage #708
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
pspeter
force-pushed
the
simplify-password-logic
branch
2 times, most recently
from
64034a4 to
22caa89
Compare
pspeter
commented
Nov 10, 2019
pspeter
force-pushed
the
simplify-password-logic
branch
4 times, most recently
from
0ef9444 to
4f4ed80
Compare
wren
modified the milestones:
v2.1.1 - Doctor's Orders,
v2.1.2 - Non-critical bug fixes
pspeter
force-pushed
the
simplify-password-logic
branch
2 times, most recently
from
02d6c5d to
421c1a4
Compare
This commit should greatly simplify all password handling logic. No passwords are stored in the config dict anymore. Only the Encrypted Journals have any password related logic. I also had to remove some password fields from the test files, which shows how dangerous the previous approach was. A slight code change could've leaked passwords to the config file. However, I had to change the install progress a little bit to make this work. It will now not ask you for a password right away but rather if you want to encrypt or not. Only if you reply 'y' will it ask you for the password later on.
pspeter
force-pushed
the
simplify-password-logic
branch
from
421c1a4 to
444d6de
Compare
wren
changed the title
|
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Stacked on #706 and #705, merge those before merging this PR. I can also rebase on master afterwards before merging to avoid duplicate commits.After working with the passwords a bit in #706, I noticed how they were sometimes stored in the same dict as all the other journal specific configuration. I also noticed how some of the test files even had password fields in them.
I was worried that real passwords would accidentally get written to the jrnl config file in the future (and subsequently leaked through peoples dotfile repositories...). To prevent that, I refactored a lot of the code to constrict the password handling logic only to the EncryptedJournal classes and away from the other configuration that gets saved to disk.
However, I had to change the install progress a little bit to make this work. It will now not ask you for a password right away but rather if you want to encrypt or not. Only if you reply 'y' will it ask you for the password later on.
Currently this still breaks the install, which we do not have tests for by the way.Checklist