Comments

greggles’s picture

What documentation is necessary? I think the documentation available in-line in the module is actually quite good.

greggles’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
greggles’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
greggles’s picture

Is 2327995 really a release blocker? It seems like a bug, but not absolutely necessary to get done, right?

coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

Updating issue summary with current priorities.

coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Next release will be beta2.

Note, if you're presently running beta1 that the upgrade to beta2 will break encrypted stored data (TOTP seeds, recovery codes, etc) because of #2339449: Use better encryption and random source.

It is recommended that you disable any TFA requirements and communicate to your users that they'll need to reset TFA settings.

damienmckenna’s picture

Title: [meta] TFA tag releases » Plan for TFA 7.x-2.0 release
Category: Task » Plan

How about we focus this on one single release, i.e. 2.0?

greggles’s picture

The two remaining issues would be very nice to have, but I don't think they merit holding back a 7.x-2.0 release.

Leeteq’s picture

As discussed over at #2482851: Policy on resetting accounts after TFA is enabled. , IMO allowing multiple TFA registrations per account may be part of the solution to facilitate self-serving disabling of TFA. See the related issues.

greggles’s picture

Thanks for the feedback Leeteq - do you see these related issues as necessary items to fix prior to a 7.x-2.0?

Leeteq’s picture

Issue summary: View changes

@greggles: if confirmed also by others than me, then definitely the first one. The latter I find to be an important feature, (especially in context with #2482851: Policy on resetting accounts after TFA is enabled. ) , but perhaps not exactly a 2.0 release blocker, although "close" IMHO. I have adjusted the issue summary accordingly. (PS. if #2537392: Security tab empty after successful TFA registration, and the TFA verification page lacks the recovery button can NOT be reproduced by others, then just close it as such)

Leeteq’s picture

banviktor’s picture

banviktor’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
greggles’s picture

It seems to me like none of these are blockers.

coltrane’s picture

Issue summary: View changes
coltrane’s picture

Title: Plan for TFA 7.x-2.0 release » Plan for TFA 7.x-2.1 release
Issue summary: View changes
damienmckenna’s picture

I crosslinked a few items which are RTBC, it'd be good to get them in too.

edvanleeuwen’s picture

Is this going to happen sometime?

greggles’s picture

In the cross-linked issues which seem like they are the really critical items?

The 2 issues that seem most critical to me are the mcrypt and drush issue. More testing/review of those would be great.

The destination issue seems like a good bug fix, but it has a lot of changes to important variables. I don't have the time/motivation to give that the real review it would need. If someone else can give an in-depth review of it from a security perspective that would be great (#2687021: TFA redirects to 404 if ?destination includes query parameters).

greggles’s picture

There's an RC for the 2.1 release at https://www.drupal.org/project/tfa/releases/7.x-2.1-rc1

It includes several important fixes. Please help test and review those changes to confirm they are good. We could release a final 7.x-2.1 in 2 weeks or so if no new bugs are found in this rc1.

edvanleeuwen’s picture

damienmckenna’s picture

@edvanleeuwen: Please open a new issue for the tfa_logout() problem, and a separate one for the TFA Basic module as it needs to be updated to use OpenSSL instead of mcrypt.

greggles’s picture

Yes, ideally those should be new issues since this is a release plan issue. Item #2 seems like a release blocker for this module.

jcnventura’s picture

#2 is not a release blocker. Not sure when those warnings appear, but if people do have the mcrypt extension installed, the module will use it. It's very likely that whoever installs mcrypt for PHP 7.2+ should not see those messages anymore. Hopefully they only occur in PHP 7.0-7.1.

edvanleeuwen’s picture

PHP version used when the errors appeared: 7.3(.21).

jcnventura’s picture

Funny that. The PECL source code for the extension doesn't have any deprecation code, can it be Frankenstein'ed version of PHP 7.3 that still contains the mcrypt code instead of using the PECL extension?

edvanleeuwen’s picture

Could you please help me how to tell, @jcnventura?
I have installed it using the php-extension script here https://help.poralix.com/articles/install-pecl-extension-for-php-directa...

Extension resides in
/usr/local/php73/lib/php/extensions/no-debug-non-zts-20180731/mcrypt.so

jcnventura’s picture

Easiest is probably this strings /usr/local/php73/lib/php/extensions/no-debug-non-zts-20180731/mcrypt.so | grep -i deprecated

edvanleeuwen’s picture

Ok, this gives:
mcrypt and mdecrypt stream filters have been deprecated

edvanleeuwen’s picture

Removed the mcrypt library (php-extension.sh remove mcrypt). Recompiled php. No more errors.

jcnventura’s picture

Title: Plan for TFA 7.x-2.1 release » Plan for TFA 7.x-2.2 release

Let's be honest about the fact that this plan won't apply to the 7.x-2.1 release, which will mostly be about #2820710: Mcrypt is required, but it is deprecated in PHP 7.1+.

jcnventura’s picture

Status: Active » Closed (outdated)

Let's be even more honest, and admit there's actually no plan anymore. Whatever gets RTBCd by enough people may get committed, and after some time if something warrants a release, that will happen.