Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Keep User Logged In: Export key for encrypted key login #152

Merged
merged 57 commits into from
Nov 8, 2022
Merged

Conversation

darkwing
Copy link
Contributor

@darkwing darkwing commented Sep 30, 2022

This is an alternative to #147 , whereby we create an encryption key based off of the derived key of browser-passworder

Depends on: MetaMask/browser-passworder#20

@darkwing darkwing requested a review from a team as a code owner September 30, 2022 20:46
@darkwing darkwing marked this pull request as draft September 30, 2022 20:46
@darkwing darkwing force-pushed the export-key branch 4 times, most recently from 189f85b to 12f4526 Compare September 30, 2022 20:56
@darkwing darkwing marked this pull request as ready for review October 14, 2022 14:55
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@Gudahtt
Copy link
Member

Gudahtt commented Oct 26, 2022

How will this work with mobile? Mobile's encryptor doesn't have any equivalent function to encryptWithDetail/decryptWithDetail, nor does it have any need for it.

index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated

if (this.password) {
const { vault: newVault, exportedKeyString } =
await this.encryptor.encryptWithDetail(
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

An alternative approach (which should not require API changes to browser-passworder) would be to generate the key itself here (if it does not exist) and use the existing encryptWithKeyMethod. That would reduce the code complexity and reduce the number of potential states.

Was this considered, and if so, why is it not preferred?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This package has to work across both mobile and extension, and they use entirely different encryption methods. Mobile uses a native AES API, whereas extension uses the web crypto API. This is managed by keeping all cryptography in the "encryptor" instance, which is injected into this class.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you elaborate on how that would reduce the number of potential states? I don't follow that part.

Copy link
Contributor

@legobeat legobeat Nov 2, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Gudahtt I was loosely referring to branching complexity. Inlining the logic in encryptWithDetail could reduce the call sites into encryptor, parallel logic, and code surface area. Consider:

        ___
_______/   \______________
       \___/

vs

     _____    ________
____/     \__/        \____
    \_____/  \________/

Conversely for decrypt.

Does that make sense?

It's not a large number of codes we're talking about here, but when juggling passphrases and exposed private keys around it's prudent to be more picky IMO.

Copy link
Member

@Gudahtt Gudahtt Nov 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah I see. I don't think it would reduce branching complexity overall, but it would shift some steps from that package into this one.

Either way, we will have to persist the keyring state with a password and no key, or with a key and no password. And the same goes for unlock: sometimes we'll have a password but no key, and sometimes we'll have a key but no password. That's two paths each, for unlock and persist.

Handling mobile as well is more complex, as their encryptor doesn't yet support returning a key (it has no immediate need to support this). So that's an additional path for unlock and persist (where a password is supplied, but we don't want to ask for a key and cache it).

Even if we inline some of the encryptor changes here, we would still have those 6 branches, the same as we have now.

Copy link
Member

@Gudahtt Gudahtt Nov 3, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We could eliminate two of those branches by updating the mobile encryptor to also support encryptWithDetail.

But it's unclear to me how that would benefit mobile. I guess it would let them keep the key in-memory and let the garbage collector cleanup the password, which.... seems preferable but it's hard to argue it has any tangible benefit to security beyond allowing us to simplify some of this code. Postponing that change for later makes sense to me, especially given that a lot of things are waiting on this change (a lot of MV3 bugs surrounding the restart of the service worker are linked to this work).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we just wanted to reduce the API surface of the encryptor, that would be a bit easier to accomplish. We could update encrypt and decrypt to return an object, and add the details to that rather than adding the new encryptWithDetails/decryptWithDetails functions.

That'd make the extension encryptor act differently from the mobile encryptor for those methods, so we'd need to handle that difference or change the mobile one as well. But that wouldn't be too difficult either way. I expect we'll want to do this eventually.

index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated

this.store.updateState({ vault });

// The keyring updates need to be announced before updating the exportedKeyStrings
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is the relationship between these two updates? It's not clear to me why this order is important.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Grrrr. It's a weird extension issue. If I call this.memStore.updateState({ encryptionKey: newExportedKeyString }); before _updateMemStoreKeyrings, the account is created in the keyring but somehow isn't being propagated to the extension before the Preferences controller tries to syncAddresses.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The visual side effect is that the new account wouldn't be selected in the extension -- Account 1 would be selected. When you open up the accounts menu, however, it's there.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comment could be covering the why insteadof/alongwith the what

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, could a test cover this to guarantee it's not undone?

Copy link
Member

@Gudahtt Gudahtt Nov 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If I call this.memStore.updateState({ encryptionKey: newExportedKeyString }); before _updateMemStoreKeyrings, the account is created in the keyring but somehow isn't being propagated to the extension before the Preferences controller tries to syncAddresses.

Is this also why the calls to _updateMemStoreKeyrings were removed in a number of places? I was curious about that as well.

Edit: Oh nevermind, I see now. This line is within persistAllKeyrings, so it was removed from those other places to not be redundant with this addition. Sorry got mixed up for a moment.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Huh this is pretty tricky. I think I follow though.

Whenever memStore is updated, it'll trigger some other things to run (including syncAddresses). By setting the encryption key here before calling _updateMemStoreKeyrings, these state update get triggered with an outdated set of keyrings and associated accounts.

An update with stale keyrings/accounts is a problem because it has side-effects like choosing a new selected address in some cases. Whereas a stale (i.e. unset) encryption key is not a problem at all. It just gets set in the next update.

@Gudahtt
Copy link
Member

Gudahtt commented Nov 2, 2022

The cacheEncryptionKey option looks good! Simpler than I thought it would be

index.js Outdated
@@ -131,7 +141,7 @@ class KeyringController extends EventEmitter {
throw new Error('KeyringController - First Account not found.');
}

await this.persistAllKeyrings(password);
await this.persistAllKeyrings();
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why does this need to be called twice? Looks like the initial call is redundant or there's not enough separation of concerns for addNewKeyring to work regardless.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good question. I suspect that it was originally called here for the side-effect of setting this.password. Now that we're setting this.password sooner, this might not be required.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Heh, it's from the first ever commit:
FirstCommit

async persistAllKeyrings() {
const { encryptionKey } = this.memStore.getState();

if (!this.password && !encryptionKey) {
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the difference between holding something in memory store vs class field? Why do we use/need both?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@darkwing darkwing Nov 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Putting the encryptionKey in the memory store bubbles it up to the extension, which allows us to store it in session storage each time it changes: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/15558/files#diff-6fbff2cfe97ac01b77296ef2122c7e0a5b3ff6a84b584b4d1a87482f35eea3d6R3941

Copy link
Member

@Gudahtt Gudahtt Nov 7, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We don't generally have a use for public class fields; the password field should be private. That's a change I was going to make in a separate PR at some point; it would be a breaking change because @metamask/controllers uses this field today, but it does not need to.

} else {
vault = await this.encryptor.decrypt(password, encryptedVault);
this.password = password;
}
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

(nit) This if structure looks similar across both functions. I'd be tempted to create a function that accepts state and descriptively named functions as reactions to certain states.

naugtur
naugtur previously approved these changes Nov 6, 2022
Copy link

@naugtur naugtur left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Left some comments, but none of them are blockers.
Please consider addressing them before merging, but you have my approval already. This is Fiiiine!

package.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
darkwing and others added 2 commits November 7, 2022 15:15
* origin/main:
  Set password sooner to avoid redundant persistance (#154)
  Ensure newly created vaults are unlocked (#155)
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
darkwing and others added 3 commits November 7, 2022 17:36
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Mark Stacey <markjstacey@gmail.com>
}),

decrypt(_password, _text) {
encryptWithDetail: sinon.stub().callsFake(function (_password, dataObj) {
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It'd be nice to have test coverage for a mobile encryptor as well. Maybe we can leave this as-is, and move these modifications to a new mock encryptor module? Or set two up here, and return them as named exports rather than as the default export.

Then we can ensure things blow up properly if cacheEncryptionKey is enabled with an encryptor that doesn't support it.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Converting this to a class might make that easier, as was done here: https://github.com/MetaMask/controllers/blob/main/tests/mocks/mockEncryptor.ts

Then we can extend the base encryptor to create the one with the browser-passworder additional methods.

test/index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
test/index.js Outdated

expect(keyringController.password).toBe(password);
expect(keyringController.memStore.getState().encryptionSalt).toBe('SALT');
// eslint-disable-next-line jest/no-restricted-matchers
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: In these cases where w want to ensure we have a non-empty string, we can use expect(...).toStrictEqual(expect.stringMatching('.+')). This is a bit more specific than the truthy check in that it ensures it's a string, and it avoids the need for this ignore comment.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Excellent, I had no idea!

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is one more place you could use this (on this line 😅 )

Gudahtt
Gudahtt previously approved these changes Nov 8, 2022
Copy link
Member

@Gudahtt Gudahtt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM! Still a lint failure to resolve, but this all looks great and I can re-approve after that's fixed.

it('unlocks the keyrings with valid information', async function () {
keyringController.cacheEncryptionKey = true;
const returnValue = await keyringController.encryptor.decryptWithKey();
const stub = sinon.stub(keyringController.encryptor, 'decryptWithKey');
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Nit: IMO this would be a better test with this removed. The keyrings-based assertion is enough to show this works; this part just makes the test more fragile by tying it to internals.

test/index.js Show resolved Hide resolved
@darkwing darkwing merged commit 27507b0 into main Nov 8, 2022
@darkwing darkwing deleted the export-key branch November 8, 2022 23:02
@legobeat legobeat mentioned this pull request Sep 10, 2023
9 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants