Paul Rastoin
0b817e3bc0
## What `validateWorkspaceUpdatePermissions` returned early with no checks at all when the workspace was in `PENDING_CREATION`, so `updateWorkspace` accepted any field during that window. It now allows only the fields needed to set the workspace up (`displayName`, `subdomain`, `logo`) and rejects everything else until the workspace is activated. Note that `updateWorkspace`'s resolver guard is `CustomPermissionGuard`, which always returns true and only documents that the check lives in the resolver/service, so this service method is the actual enforcement point. ## Why A workspace stays in `PENDING_CREATION` from signup until onboarding completes, and the JWT strategy issues an authenticated context for it without resolving member permissions. During that window every field was writable with no permission check, including security relevant ones such as `allowImpersonation`, `isTwoFactorAuthenticationEnforced` and `isPublicInviteLinkEnabled`. In practice the only principal present before activation is the workspace creator, who is granted the Admin role (`canUpdateAllSettings`) the moment activation completes, so there is no privilege escalation over another user today. This is defense in depth: the early return was broader than it needed to be, and it becomes a real gap if the "only the creator exists before activation" assumption ever stops holding, for example a workspace left pending or a future flow that adds members before activation. The bypass exists because a pending workspace has no roles yet, so permissions cannot be resolved for it. Keeping a small explicit allowlist preserves that while removing the blanket skip. ## Scope Only the `updateWorkspace` path. `SettingsPermissionGuard` has a similar bypass for `PENDING_CREATION` / `ONGOING_CREATION`, but it covers 62 resolvers including billing endpoints that onboarding legitimately calls before activation, so narrowing it needs its own analysis and is deliberately left out. ## Tests `workspace-update-before-activation.integration-spec.ts`, run against a real database with the seeded workspace flipped to `PENDING_CREATION`: - a security sensitive field (`allowImpersonation`) is rejected and the stored value is unchanged - mixing a setup field with a security sensitive one rejects the whole update, and `displayName` is not persisted - setup fields (`displayName`) still apply, so the restriction does not break workspace setup Both rejection tests were verified to fail when the old blanket early return is put back, while the positive control keeps passing. The existing `settings-permissions/workspace*` suites still pass (38 tests total), confirming no change for activated workspaces. --- _Generated by [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/code/session_01Qf58T7Lm7PazNbS3UwaZPd)_ <!-- This is an auto-generated description by cubic. --> <a href="https://cubic.dev/pr/twentyhq/twenty/pull/23781?utm_source=github" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-no-image-dialog="true"><picture><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: dark)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"><source media="(prefers-color-scheme: light)" srcset="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-light.svg"><img alt="Review in cubic" src="https://www.cubic.dev/buttons/review-in-cubic-dark.svg"></picture></a> <!-- End of auto-generated description by cubic. -->
19 lines
411 B
TypeScript
19 lines
411 B
TypeScript
import gql from 'graphql-tag';
|
|
|
|
import { type UpdateWorkspaceInput } from 'src/engine/core-modules/workspace/dtos/update-workspace-input';
|
|
|
|
export const updateWorkspaceOperationFactory = ({
|
|
data,
|
|
}: {
|
|
data: UpdateWorkspaceInput;
|
|
}) => ({
|
|
query: gql`
|
|
mutation UpdateWorkspace($data: UpdateWorkspaceInput!) {
|
|
updateWorkspace(data: $data) {
|
|
id
|
|
}
|
|
}
|
|
`,
|
|
variables: { data },
|
|
});
|