Auth: Port VMaNGOS implementation of TOTP for 1.12 #513
Conversation
|
Vanilla client has a keypad that we are using for token. Was not aware it was broken. This keypad is then not present in tbc. |
|
How do the implementations differ? Because if the token field is filled with a token and a vanilla client tries to log in, it just fails with a connection error. Edit: OK PIN is indeed implemented clientside, but the logon-challenge never sends a PIN request and I don't know if it checks for pin reply Edit: we also don't have any handlers for pin reply (cmd 181 and on pin entry then cmd 96) Edit3: VMaNGOS has PIN implemented. I'll check their implementation to see where we go wrong |
|
@killerwife I added the VMaNGOS code for TOTP authentication using the PIN keypad (tho I disabled the random scrambling of it. it's hard enough as it is to type 6 digits on that keypad within 30 seconds, to do it with a scrambled keypad is a huge pain) How do I properly credit VMaNGOS? |
| pkt << uint32(0); | ||
| pkt << uint64(0); | ||
| pkt << uint64(0); | ||
| uint32 gridSeedPkt = m_gridSeed = static_cast<uint32>(0/*urand()*/); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Leaving this as 0 instead of urand() (neither of which really need a static_cast, but the compiler will optimize that out anyway) means that the keypad on the client is not scrambled. Adding any other number (or urand()) here will scramble the keypad, making text entry more difficult for no real benefit. It's not a physical keypad where an attacker could look at your finger movements to determine the code you're entering, after all. If an attacker can see your screen, you have bigger problems.
Left it in in case someone sees the need to enable scrambling, tho.
insunaa
changed the title
|
Any progress on this? |
|
Other one was merged so closing this |
🍰 Pullrequest
This PR prevents realmd from requiring a valid token response from the client if the client is older than 1.12.3, as it was only implemented in 2.4.3. Checking specifically for 1.12.3 and not for 2.4.3 because a TBC server may possibly allow other builds than just 2.4.3 and it shouldn't be possible to use these to circumvent a token that would otherwise be enforced with 2.4.3