
RST cleanup to comply with the RST guidelines. This is required so we can use "make test", as there are currently hundreds of errors. For now, it is unusable because of the oldest code in this repo. closes odoo/documentation#3581 Signed-off-by: Castillo Jonathan (jcs) <jcs@odoo.com>
487 lines
17 KiB
ReStructuredText
487 lines
17 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
|
.. _reference/security:
|
|
|
|
================
|
|
Security in Odoo
|
|
================
|
|
|
|
Aside from manually managing access using custom code, Odoo provides two main
|
|
data-driven mechanisms to manage or restrict access to data.
|
|
|
|
Both mechanisms are linked to specific users through *groups*: a user belongs
|
|
to any number of groups, and security mechanisms are associated to groups,
|
|
thus applying security mechanisms to users.
|
|
|
|
.. class:: res.groups
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: name
|
|
|
|
serves as user-readable identification for the group (spells out the
|
|
role / purpose of the group)
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: category_id
|
|
|
|
The *module category*, serves to associate groups with an Odoo App
|
|
(~a set of related business models) and convert them into an exclusive
|
|
selection in the user form.
|
|
|
|
.. todo:: clarify & document special cases & relationship between
|
|
groups & categories better
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: implied_ids
|
|
|
|
Other groups to set on the user alongside this one. This is a
|
|
convenience pseudo-inheritance relationship: it's possible to
|
|
explicitly remove implied groups from a user without removing the
|
|
implier.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: comment
|
|
|
|
Additional notes on the group e.g.
|
|
|
|
.. _reference/security/acl:
|
|
|
|
Access Rights
|
|
=============
|
|
|
|
*Grants* access to an entire model for a given set of operations. If no access
|
|
rights matches an operation on a model for a user (through their group), the
|
|
user doesn't have access.
|
|
|
|
Access rights are additive, a user's accesses are the union of the accesses
|
|
they get through all their groups e.g. given a user who is part of group A
|
|
granting read and create access and a group B granting update access, the user
|
|
will have all three of create, read, and update.
|
|
|
|
.. class:: ir.model.access
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: name
|
|
|
|
The purpose or role of the group.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: model_id
|
|
|
|
The model whose access the ACL controls.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: group_id
|
|
|
|
The :class:`res.groups` to which the accesses are granted, an empty
|
|
:attr:`group_id` means the ACL is granted to *every user*
|
|
(non-employees e.g. portal or public users).
|
|
|
|
The :samp:`perm_{method}` attributes grant the corresponding CRUD access
|
|
when set, they are all unset by default.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_create
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_read
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_write
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_unlink
|
|
|
|
.. _reference/security/rules:
|
|
|
|
Record Rules
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
Record rules are *conditions* which must be satisfied in order for an operation
|
|
to be allowed. Record rules are evaluated record-by-record, following access
|
|
rights.
|
|
|
|
Record rules are default-allow: if access rights grant access and no rule
|
|
applies to the operation and model for the user, the access is granted.
|
|
|
|
.. class:: ir.rule
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: name
|
|
|
|
The description of the rule.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: model_id
|
|
|
|
The model to which the rule applies.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: groups
|
|
|
|
The :class:`res.groups` to which access is granted (or not). Multiple
|
|
groups can be specified. If no group is specified, the rule is *global*
|
|
which is treated differently than "group" rules (see below).
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: global
|
|
|
|
Computed on the basis of :attr:`groups`, provides easy access to the
|
|
global status (or not) of the rule.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: domain_force
|
|
|
|
A predicate specified as a :ref:`domain <reference/orm/domains>`, the
|
|
rule allows the selected operations if the domain matches the record,
|
|
and forbids it otherwise.
|
|
|
|
The domain is a *python expression* which can use the following
|
|
variables:
|
|
|
|
``time``
|
|
Python's :mod:`python:time` module.
|
|
``user``
|
|
The current user, as a singleton recordset.
|
|
``company_id``
|
|
The current user's currently selected company as a single company id
|
|
(not a recordset).
|
|
``company_ids``
|
|
All the companies to which the current user has access as a list of
|
|
company ids (not a recordset), see
|
|
:ref:`howto/company/security` for more details.
|
|
|
|
The :samp:`perm_{method}` have completely different semantics than for
|
|
:class:`ir.model.access`: for rules, they specify which operation the rules
|
|
applies *for*. If an operation is not selected, then the rule is not checked
|
|
for it, as if the rule did not exist.
|
|
|
|
All operations are selected by default.
|
|
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_create
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_read
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_write
|
|
.. attribute:: perm_unlink
|
|
|
|
.. _reference/security/rules/global:
|
|
|
|
Global rules versus group rules
|
|
-------------------------------
|
|
|
|
There is a large difference between global and group rules in how they compose
|
|
and combine:
|
|
|
|
* Global rules *intersect*, if two global rules apply then *both* must be
|
|
satisfied for the access to be granted, this means adding global rules always
|
|
restricts access further.
|
|
* Group rules *unify*, if two group rules apply then *either* can be
|
|
satisfied for the access to be granted. This means adding group rules can
|
|
expand access, but not beyond the bounds defined by global rules.
|
|
* The global and group rulesets *intersect*, which means the first group rule
|
|
being added to a given global ruleset will restrict access.
|
|
|
|
.. danger::
|
|
|
|
Creating multiple global rules is risky as it's possible to create
|
|
non-overlapping rulesets, which will remove all access.
|
|
|
|
.. _reference/security/fields:
|
|
|
|
Field Access
|
|
============
|
|
|
|
An ORM :class:`~odoo.fields.Field` can have a ``groups`` attribute
|
|
providing a list of groups (as a comma-separated string of
|
|
:term:`external identifiers`).
|
|
|
|
If the current user is not in one of the listed groups, he will not have
|
|
access to the field:
|
|
|
|
* restricted fields are automatically removed from requested views
|
|
* restricted fields are removed from :meth:`~odoo.models.Model.fields_get`
|
|
responses
|
|
* attempts to (explicitly) read from or write to restricted fields results in
|
|
an access error
|
|
|
|
.. todo::
|
|
|
|
field access groups apply to the Superuser in fields_get but not in
|
|
read/write...
|
|
|
|
.. _time module: https://docs.python.org/3/library/time.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
.. _reference/security/pitfalls:
|
|
|
|
Security Pitfalls
|
|
=================
|
|
|
|
As a developer, it is important to understand the security mechanisms and avoid
|
|
common mistakes leading to insecure code.
|
|
|
|
Unsafe Public Methods
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
Any public method can be executed via a :ref:`RPC call
|
|
<api/external_api/calling_methods>` with the chosen parameters. The methods
|
|
starting with a ``_`` are not callable from an action button or external API.
|
|
|
|
On public methods, the record on which a method is executed and the parameters
|
|
can not be trusted, ACL being only verified during CRUD operations.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# this method is public and its arguments can not be trusted
|
|
def action_done(self):
|
|
if self.state == "draft" and self.user_has_groups('base.manager'):
|
|
self._set_state("done")
|
|
|
|
# this method is private and can only be called from other python methods
|
|
def _set_state(self, new_state):
|
|
self.sudo().write({"state": new_state})
|
|
|
|
Making a method private is obviously not enough and care must be taken to use it
|
|
properly.
|
|
|
|
Bypassing the ORM
|
|
-----------------
|
|
|
|
You should never use the database cursor directly when the ORM can do the same
|
|
thing! By doing so you are bypassing all the ORM features, possibly the
|
|
automated behaviours like translations, invalidation of fields, ``active``,
|
|
access rights and so on.
|
|
|
|
And chances are that you are also making the code harder to read and probably
|
|
less secure.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# very very wrong
|
|
self.env.cr.execute('SELECT id FROM auction_lots WHERE auction_id in (' + ','.join(map(str, ids))+') AND state=%s AND obj_price > 0', ('draft',))
|
|
auction_lots_ids = [x[0] for x in self.env.cr.fetchall()]
|
|
|
|
# no injection, but still wrong
|
|
self.env.cr.execute('SELECT id FROM auction_lots WHERE auction_id in %s '\
|
|
'AND state=%s AND obj_price > 0', (tuple(ids), 'draft',))
|
|
auction_lots_ids = [x[0] for x in self.env.cr.fetchall()]
|
|
|
|
# better
|
|
auction_lots_ids = self.search([('auction_id','in',ids), ('state','=','draft'), ('obj_price','>',0)])
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL injections
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|
|
|
Care must be taken not to introduce SQL injections vulnerabilities when using
|
|
manual SQL queries. The vulnerability is present when user input is either
|
|
incorrectly filtered or badly quoted, allowing an attacker to introduce
|
|
undesirable clauses to a SQL query (such as circumventing filters or
|
|
executing ``UPDATE`` or ``DELETE`` commands).
|
|
|
|
The best way to be safe is to never, NEVER use Python string concatenation (+)
|
|
or string parameters interpolation (%) to pass variables to a SQL query string.
|
|
|
|
The second reason, which is almost as important, is that it is the job of the
|
|
database abstraction layer (psycopg2) to decide how to format query parameters,
|
|
not your job! For example psycopg2 knows that when you pass a list of values
|
|
it needs to format them as a comma-separated list, enclosed in parentheses !
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# the following is very bad:
|
|
# - it's a SQL injection vulnerability
|
|
# - it's unreadable
|
|
# - it's not your job to format the list of ids
|
|
self.env.cr.execute('SELECT distinct child_id FROM account_account_consol_rel ' +
|
|
'WHERE parent_id IN ('+','.join(map(str, ids))+')')
|
|
|
|
# better
|
|
self.env.cr.execute('SELECT DISTINCT child_id '\
|
|
'FROM account_account_consol_rel '\
|
|
'WHERE parent_id IN %s',
|
|
(tuple(ids),))
|
|
|
|
This is very important, so please be careful also when refactoring, and most
|
|
importantly do not copy these patterns!
|
|
|
|
Here is a memorable example to help you remember what the issue is about (but
|
|
do not copy the code there). Before continuing, please be sure to read the
|
|
online documentation of pyscopg2 to learn of to use it properly:
|
|
|
|
- `The problem with query parameters <http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/usage.html#the-problem-with-the-query-parameters>`_
|
|
- `How to pass parameters with psycopg2 <http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/usage.html#passing-parameters-to-sql-queries>`_
|
|
- `Advanced parameter types <http://initd.org/psycopg/docs/usage.html#adaptation-of-python-values-to-sql-types>`_
|
|
- `Psycopg documentation <https://www.psycopg.org/docs/sql.html>`_
|
|
|
|
Unescaped field content
|
|
-----------------------
|
|
|
|
When rendering content using JavaScript and XML, one may be tempted to use
|
|
a ``t-raw`` to display rich-text content. This should be avoided as a frequent
|
|
`XSS <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-site_scripting>`_ vector.
|
|
|
|
It is very hard to control the integrity of the data from the computation until
|
|
the final integration in the browser DOM. A ``t-raw`` that is correctly escaped
|
|
at the time of introduction may no longer be safe at the next bugfix or
|
|
refactoring.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
QWeb.render('insecure_template', {
|
|
info_message: "You have an <strong>important</strong> notification",
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: xml
|
|
|
|
<div t-name="insecure_template">
|
|
<div id="information-bar"><t t-raw="info_message" /></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
The above code may feel safe as the message content is controlled but is a bad
|
|
practice that may lead to unexpected security vulnerabilities once this code
|
|
evolves in the future.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
// XSS possible with unescaped user provided content !
|
|
QWeb.render('insecure_template', {
|
|
info_message: "You have an <strong>important</strong> notification on " \
|
|
+ "the product <strong>" + product.name + "</strong>",
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
While formatting the template differently would prevent such vulnerabilities.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: javascript
|
|
|
|
QWeb.render('secure_template', {
|
|
message: "You have an important notification on the product:",
|
|
subject: product.name
|
|
})
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: xml
|
|
|
|
<div t-name="secure_template">
|
|
<div id="information-bar">
|
|
<div class="info"><t t-esc="message" /></div>
|
|
<div class="subject"><t t-esc="subject" /></div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: css
|
|
|
|
.subject {
|
|
font-weight: bold;
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
Escaping vs Sanitizing
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
.. important::
|
|
|
|
Escaping is always 100% mandatory when you mix data and code, no matter how
|
|
safe the data
|
|
|
|
**Escaping** converts *TEXT* to *CODE*. It is absolutely mandatory to do it
|
|
every time you mix *DATA/TEXT* with *CODE* (e.g. generating HTML or python code
|
|
to be evaluated inside a `safe_eval`), because *CODE* always requires *TEXT* to
|
|
be encoded. It is critical for security, but it's also a question of
|
|
correctness. Even when there is no security risk (because the text is 100%
|
|
guarantee to be safe or trusted), it is still required (e.g. to avoid breaking
|
|
the layout in generated HTML).
|
|
|
|
Escaping will never break any feature, as long as the developer identifies which
|
|
variable contains *TEXT* and which contains *CODE*.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
>>> from odoo.tools import html_escape, html_sanitize
|
|
>>> data = "<R&D>" # `data` is some TEXT coming from somewhere
|
|
|
|
# Escaping turns it into CODE, good!
|
|
>>> code = html_escape(data)
|
|
>>> code
|
|
'<R&D>'
|
|
|
|
# Now you can mix it with other code...
|
|
>>> self.message_post(body="<strong>%s</strong>" % code)
|
|
|
|
**Sanitizing** converts *CODE* to *SAFER CODE* (but not necessary *safe* code).
|
|
It does not work on *TEXT*. Sanitizing is only necessary when *CODE* is
|
|
untrusted, because it comes in full or in part from some user-provided data. If
|
|
the user-provided data is in the form of *TEXT* (e.g. the content from a form
|
|
filled by a user), and if that data was correctly escaped before putting it in
|
|
*CODE*, then sanitizing is useless (but can still be done). If however, the
|
|
user-provided data was **not escaped**, then sanitizing will **not** work as
|
|
expected.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# Sanitizing without escaping is BROKEN: data is corrupted!
|
|
>>> html_sanitize(data)
|
|
''
|
|
|
|
# Sanitizing *after* escaping is OK!
|
|
>>> html_sanitize(code)
|
|
'<p><R&D></p>'
|
|
|
|
Sanitizing can break features, depending on whether the *CODE* is expected to
|
|
contain patterns that are not safe. That's why `fields.Html` and
|
|
`tools.html_sanitize()` have options to fine-tune the level of sanitization for
|
|
styles, etc. Those options have to be carefully considered depending on where
|
|
the data comes from, and the desired features. The sanitization safety is
|
|
balanced against sanitization breakages: the safer the sanitisation the more
|
|
likely it is to break things.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
>>code = "<p class='text-warning'>Important Information</p>"
|
|
# this will remove the style, which may break features
|
|
# but is necessary if the source is untrusted
|
|
>> html_sanitize(code, strip_classes=True)
|
|
'<p>Important Information</p>'
|
|
|
|
Evaluating content
|
|
------------------
|
|
|
|
Some may want to ``eval`` to parse user provided content. Using ``eval`` should
|
|
be avoided at all cost. A safer, sandboxed, method :class:`~odoo.tools.safe_eval`
|
|
can be used instead but still gives tremendous capabilities to the user running
|
|
it and must be reserved for trusted privileged users only as it breaks the
|
|
barrier between code and data.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# very bad
|
|
domain = eval(self.filter_domain)
|
|
return self.search(domain)
|
|
|
|
# better but still not recommended
|
|
from odoo.tools import safe_eval
|
|
domain = safe_eval(self.filter_domain)
|
|
return self.search(domain)
|
|
|
|
# good
|
|
from ast import literal_eval
|
|
domain = literal_eval(self.filter_domain)
|
|
return self.search(domain)
|
|
|
|
Parsing content does not need ``eval``
|
|
|
|
========== ================== ================================
|
|
Language Data type Suitable parser
|
|
========== ================== ================================
|
|
Python int, float, etc. int(), float()
|
|
Javascript int, float, etc. parseInt(), parseFloat()
|
|
Python dict json.loads(), ast.literal_eval()
|
|
Javascript object, list, etc. JSON.parse()
|
|
========== ================== ================================
|
|
|
|
Accessing object attributes
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
If the values of a record needs to be retrieved or modified dynamically, one may
|
|
want to use the ``getattr`` and ``setattr`` methods.
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# unsafe retrieval of a field value
|
|
def _get_state_value(self, res_id, state_field):
|
|
record = self.sudo().browse(res_id)
|
|
return getattr(record, state_field, False)
|
|
|
|
This code is however not safe as it allows to access any property of the record,
|
|
including private attributes or methods.
|
|
|
|
The ``__getitem__`` of a recordset has been defined and accessing a dynamic
|
|
field value can be easily achieved safely:
|
|
|
|
.. code-block:: python
|
|
|
|
# better retrieval of a field value
|
|
def _get_state_value(self, res_id, state_field):
|
|
record = self.sudo().browse(res_id)
|
|
return record[state_field]
|
|
|
|
The above method is obviously still too optimistic and additional verifications
|
|
on the record id and field value must be done.
|