Add validation for two factor codes #13870
Conversation
melvin-bot
bot
requested review from
madmax330 and
parasharrajat
and removed request for
a team
|
@parasharrajat @madmax330 One of you needs to copy/paste the Reviewer Checklist from here into a new comment on this PR and complete it. If you have the K2 extension, you can simply click: [this button] |
src/libs/ValidationUtils.js
Outdated
| * @returns {Boolean} | ||
| */ | ||
| function isValidTwoFactorCode(code) { | ||
| const result = code.match(CONST.REGEX.BASE64); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why are we checking base64 here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Matches our WAF rule here
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm that was added before we even had 2FA. It's a bit weird that we would call something valid that is not valid.
If our 2FA checks doesn't accept letters let's not allow them here since that's the whole point of this function
cc @bondydaa
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That was added for OldDot 2FA. We use the same logic in NewDot. Our 2FA recovery codes are alphanumeric so those are valid from an API standpoint.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we're talking about two different things.
I'm saying the client-side validation for this should be whatever this input accepts. So if this input only expects numbers it should only "validate" numbers regardless of what the API validates.
If this is also the same input we use for recover codes then this is fine.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree with the point above. We should only check against the acceptable code.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is also the same input we use for recover codes then this is fine.
Yeah we use this two factor field for entering both normal two factor codes and recovery codes. So yes this input does expect both letters and numbers. We're just adding validation to handle special characters input
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm alright, I thought I read somewhere that we don't have recovery codes on NewDot yet
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah this was the thread: https://expensify.slack.com/archives/C03U7DCU4/p1672348143934859
So I think you should also change the input to be text instead of number pad if you're going to validate recovery codes as well.
But from that thread it looks like that will be handled somewhere separately so I think you should just validate the numbers for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Tbh I think the only thing preventing proper support of recovery codes is just the character limit so it feels wrong to just add more artificial limits, but I guess that can be decided at another time.
we are matching against |
Are you asking what happens if the user somehow enters special characters in iOS? If so it should be work fine like on other platforms. I was just noting that the iOS numpad doesn't have special characters so we can't QA it there. |
No, I meant to say that regex allows |
Two factor codes are usually numbers only so I think that shouldn't be an issue. However, our recovery codes are alphanumeric (and also longer than 6 characters). So that does mean you can't enter recovery codes in NewDot at the moment. I'll look around to see if this is planned or a bug. Either way, I'd log that separately. EDIT: recovery codes are planned for the future so I think we're good on this front. |
src/CONST.js
Outdated
| @@ -760,6 +760,7 @@ const CONST = { | |||
| EMOJI_NAME: /:[\w+-]+:/g, | |||
| EMOJI_SUGGESTIONS: /:[a-zA-Z]{1,20}(\s[a-zA-Z]{0,20})?$/, | |||
| AFTER_FIRST_LINE_BREAK: /\n.*/g, | |||
| CODE_2FA: /^[\w\d+/]+={0,2}$/, // matches twoFactorAuthCode WAF rule | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| CODE_2FA: /^[\w\d+/]+={0,2}$/, // matches twoFactorAuthCode WAF rule | |
| CODE_2FA: /^[\w\d+/]+={0,2}$/, // Matches twoFactorAuthCode WAF rule |
@arosiclair How can I do that? |
You can enable 2FA in OldDot |
Screenshots🔲 iOS / nativescreen-2022-12-31_16.38.18.mp4🔲 iOS / SafariGetting issues signing In(known to team). But I am sure it is working. 🔲 MacOS / Desktopscreen-2022-12-31_17.41.06.mp4🔲 MacOS / Chromescreen-2022-12-31_14.11.52.mp4🔲 Android / ChromeGetting issues signing In(known to team). But I am sure it is working. 🔲 Android / nativescreen-2022-12-31_16.05.25.mp4 |
|
Please fix the last requested change and I'll approve. |
|
Just pushed changes to validate only 6 digits. Ready for another review |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM.
Reviewer Checklist
- I have verified the author checklist is complete (all boxes are checked off).
- I verified the correct issue is linked in the
### Fixed Issuessection above - I verified testing steps are clear and they cover the changes made in this PR
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
Testssection - I verified the steps for Staging and/or Production testing are in the
QA stepssection - I verified the steps cover any possible failure scenarios (i.e. verify an input displays the correct error message if the entered data is not correct)
- I turned off my network connection and tested it while offline to ensure it matches the expected behavior (i.e. verify the default avatar icon is displayed if app is offline)
- I verified the steps for local testing are in the
- I checked that screenshots or videos are included for tests on all platforms
- I included screenshots or videos for tests on all platforms
- I verified tests pass on all platforms & I tested again on:
- Android / native
- Android / Chrome
- iOS / native
- iOS / Safari
- MacOS / Chrome / Safari
- MacOS / Desktop
- If there are any errors in the console that are unrelated to this PR, I either fixed them (preferred) or linked to where I reported them in Slack
- I verified proper code patterns were followed (see Reviewing the code)
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
toggleReportand notonIconClick). - I verified that comments were added to code that is not self explanatory
- I verified that any new or modified comments were clear, correct English, and explained "why" the code was doing something instead of only explaining "what" the code was doing.
- I verified any copy / text shown in the product is localized by adding it to
src/languages/*files and using the translation method - I verified all numbers, amounts, dates and phone numbers shown in the product are using the localization methods
- I verified any copy / text that was added to the app is correct English and approved by marketing by adding the
Waiting for Copylabel for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy. - I verified proper file naming conventions were followed for any new files or renamed files. All non-platform specific files are named after what they export and are not named "index.js". All platform-specific files are named for the platform the code supports as outlined in the README.
- I verified the JSDocs style guidelines (in
STYLE.md) were followed
- I verified that any callback methods that were added or modified are named for what the method does and never what callback they handle (i.e.
- If a new code pattern is added I verified it was agreed to be used by multiple Expensify engineers
- I verified that this PR follows the guidelines as stated in the Review Guidelines
- I verified other components that can be impacted by these changes have been tested, and I retested again (i.e. if the PR modifies a shared library or component like
Avatar, I verified the components usingAvatarhave been tested & I retested again) - I verified all code is DRY (the PR doesn't include any logic written more than once, with the exception of tests)
- I verified any variables that can be defined as constants (ie. in CONST.js or at the top of the file that uses the constant) are defined as such
- If a new component is created I verified that:
- A similar component doesn't exist in the codebase
- All props are defined accurately and each prop has a
/** comment above it */ - The file is named correctly
- The component has a clear name that is non-ambiguous and the purpose of the component can be inferred from the name alone
- The only data being stored in the state is data necessary for rendering and nothing else
- For Class Components, any internal methods passed to components event handlers are bound to
thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor) - Any internal methods bound to
thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick) - All JSX used for rendering exists in the render method
- The component has the minimum amount of code necessary for its purpose, and it is broken down into smaller components in order to separate concerns and functions
- If any new file was added I verified that:
- The file has a description of what it does and/or why is needed at the top of the file if the code is not self explanatory
- If a new CSS style is added I verified that:
- A similar style doesn't already exist
- The style can't be created with an existing StyleUtils function (i.e.
StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)
- If the PR modifies a generic component, I tested and verified that those changes do not break usages of that component in the rest of the App (i.e. if a shared library or component like
Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases) - If the PR modifies a component related to any of the existing Storybook stories, I tested and verified all stories for that component are still working as expected.
- If a new page is added, I verified it's using the
ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page. - I have checked off every checkbox in the PR reviewer checklist, including those that don't apply to this PR.
🎀 👀 🎀 C+ reviewed
cc: @madmax330
|
✋ This PR was not deployed to staging yet because QA is ongoing. It will be automatically deployed to staging after the next production release. |
|
🚀 Deployed to staging by @madmax330 in version: 1.2.48-0 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.48-2 🚀
|
|
🚀 Deployed to production by @luacmartins in version: 1.2.49-0 🚀
|
Details
Adds validation to ensure entered 2FA codes are base64. This matches requirements for
twoFactorAuthCodein the API. Special characters can be entered on web, desktop, and android (including web). On iOS, the numpad doesn't allow entry of any special characters.Fixed Issues
$ #13660
Tests
Web, Desktop, Android, mWeb Android
Offline tests
None
QA Steps
Same as Tests
PR Author Checklist
### Fixed Issuessection aboveTestssectionOffline stepssectionQA stepssectiontoggleReportand notonIconClick)src/languages/*files and using the translation methodWaiting for Copylabel for a copy review on the original GH to get the correct copy.STYLE.md) were followedAvatar, I verified the components usingAvatarare working as expected)/** comment above it */thisproperly so there are no scoping issues (i.e. foronClick={this.submit}the methodthis.submitshould be bound tothisin the constructor)thisare necessary to be bound (i.e. avoidthis.submit = this.submit.bind(this);ifthis.submitis never passed to a component event handler likeonClick)StyleUtils.getBackgroundAndBorderStyle(themeColors.componentBG)Avataris modified, I verified thatAvataris working as expected in all cases)ScrollViewcomponent to make it scrollable when more elements are added to the page.Screenshots/Videos
Web
Mobile Web - Chrome
Mobile Web - Safari
None
Desktop
iOS
None
Android