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

Problematic Default Configuration for Devise.secret_key #251

Open
luna-lightblade opened this issue May 31, 2024 · 7 comments
Open

Problematic Default Configuration for Devise.secret_key #251

luna-lightblade opened this issue May 31, 2024 · 7 comments
Labels

Comments

@luna-lightblade
Copy link

Currently the default behavior when generating a Solidus application using the generator and including Solidus Auth Devise is to set the Devise.secret_key to a random value at application boot.

This is handled by lib/generators/solidus/auth/install/templates/config/initializers/devise.rb and creates the following code in config/initializers/devise.rb.

# frozen_string_literal: true

Devise.secret_key = SecureRandom.hex(50).inspect

This creates problematic behavior, because the secret key base used to generate password reset tokens uses an ephemeral key which is lost on application reboot, and is not known across different instances of the same application (for example multiple Kubernetes pods running the app). As a result, all password reset links are invalidated when the application is restarted, and password reset links will fail to function if a different replica of the application handles the request to set the password from the replica that initiated the reset.

By default, Devise uses Rails.application.secret_key_base if you do not set Devise.secret_key explicitly which is generally stable across restarts and (if correctly configured) different replicas of the application. Accepting this as the default behavior by not setting Devise.secret_key at all would prevent these problems that the default behavior currently produces.

Solidus Version: 4.3.4

To Reproduce
The behavior is reproduced when creating a new solidus application using the solidus generator.

@jarednorman
Copy link
Member

I feel like there must be more context here, or all our apps using this would have encountered issues with their passwords not working.

@fthobe
Copy link

fthobe commented Jan 5, 2025

@luna-lightblade were you able to reproduce the problem on new installations?

@fthobe
Copy link

fthobe commented Jan 19, 2025

@luna-lightblade I did reproduce the problem and what you said makes absolute sense.

The thing is this one: while a staging deployment might be restarted frequently, a production one is not, the multi instance point is very valid though.

@jarednorman this is no desired behavior, but not an issue neither if solidus is not spread across multiple instances. This is not a safety issue, but it is a valid question to either document limitations on multi instance scenarios or fix this and write the hash to generate the key into db.

@fthobe
Copy link

fthobe commented Feb 8, 2025

@jarednorman this is a legitimate bug in multi server scenarios, we should generate this key once and document that it's needed to replicate it when using multiple instances with shared DB.

Do you know if there are more similar encryption keys that are temporary in nature?

@jarednorman
Copy link
Member

I've only run Solidus in multi-instance scenarios, which leaves me very confused as to why this hasn't been an issue. Regardless, I think we should remove this. It doesn't make any sense to me.

@fthobe
Copy link

fthobe commented Feb 10, 2025

I think it's very hard to catch depending on your load balancer / rev proxy config as it might present intermittently if you do round robin or only on fall back during the window of validity of the token.

Should it be written into db?

@fthobe
Copy link

fthobe commented Feb 10, 2025

I've only run Solidus in multi-instance scenarios, which leaves me very confused as to why this hasn't been an issue.

Could you check what you do on multi instance scenarios or do you have only fall back scenarios? It wouldn't present till a failover from one instance to another.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants