We've seen in some communities abuse of user profile where bios and other fields are used in malicious ways, such as malware distribution. A common pattern between all the abuse cases we've seen is that the malicious actors tend to have 0 posts and have a low trust level.
To eliminate this abuse vector, or at least make it much less effective, we're making the following changes to user profiles:
1. Anonymous, TL0 and TL1 users cannot see any user profiles for users with 0 posts except for staff users
2. Anonymous and TL0 users can only see profiles of TL1 users and above
Users can always see their own profile, and they can still hide their profiles via the "Hide my public profile" preference. Staff can always see any user's profile.
Internal topic: t/142853.
It splits the hide_profile_and_presence user option and the default_hide_profile_and_presence site setting for more granular control. It keeps the option to hide the profile under /u/username/preferences/interface and adds the presence toggle in the quick user menu.
Co-authored-by: Régis Hanol <regis@hanol.fr>
Previously admins could still click on topics when `suppress_secured_categories_from_admin` was set
This change improves the block so admins without permission will not be allowed to click through till they add themselves to appropriate groups
Keep in mind this setting is a quality of life setting and not a SECURITY
setting, admins have an infinite way of bypassing visiblity limits
This commit introduces a feature that allows an admin to delete a user's
associated account. After deletion, a log will be recorded in staff
actions.
ref=t/136675
In TopicController, in addition to ensure_can_move_posts!, we also
checked if the topic is private message in this line:
```ruby
raise Discourse::InvalidAccess if params[:archetype] == "private_message" && !guardian.is_staff?
```
However, this was not present in `guardian.can_move_posts?`. As a result,
the frontend topic view got an incorrect serialized result, thinking
that TL4 could move the private message post. In fact, once they tried
to move it, they got the `InvalidAccess` error message.
This commit fixes that TL4 will no longer sees the "move to" option in
the "select post" panel for a private message.
Currently, categories support designating only 1 group as a moderation group on the category. This commit removes the one group limitation and makes it possible to designate multiple groups as mods on a category.
Internal topic: t/124648.
### Why?
Before, all flags were static. Therefore, they were stored in class variables and serialized by SiteSerializer. Recently, we added an option for admins to add their own flags or disable existing flags. Therefore, the class variable had to be dropped because it was unsafe for a multisite environment. However, it started causing performance problems.
### Solution
When a new Flag system is used, instead of using PostActionType, we can serialize Flags and use fragment cache for performance reasons.
At the same time, we are still supporting deprecated `replace_flags` API call. When it is used, we fall back to the old solution and the admin cannot add custom flags. In a couple of months, we will be able to drop that API function and clean that code properly. However, because it may still be used, redis cache was introduced to improve performance.
To test backward compatibility you can add this code to any plugin
```ruby
replace_flags do |flag_settings|
flag_settings.add(
4,
:inappropriate,
topic_type: true,
notify_type: true,
auto_action_type: true,
)
flag_settings.add(1001, :trolling, topic_type: true, notify_type: true, auto_action_type: true)
end
```
### Why?
Before, all flags were static. Therefore, they were stored in class variables and serialized by SiteSerializer. Recently, we added an option for admins to add their own flags or disable existing flags. Therefore, the class variable had to be dropped because it was unsafe for a multisite environment. However, it started causing performance problems.
### Solution
When a new Flag system is used, instead of using PostActionType, we can serialize Flags and use fragment cache for performance reasons.
At the same time, we are still supporting deprecated `replace_flags` API call. When it is used, we fall back to the old solution and the admin cannot add custom flags. In a couple of months, we will be able to drop that API function and clean that code properly. However, because it may still be used, redis cache was introduced to improve performance.
To test backward compatibility you can add this code to any plugin
```ruby
replace_flags do |flag_settings|
flag_settings.add(
4,
:inappropriate,
topic_type: true,
notify_type: true,
auto_action_type: true,
)
flag_settings.add(1001, :trolling, topic_type: true, notify_type: true, auto_action_type: true)
end
```
Admin can create up to 50 custom flags. It is limited for performance reasons.
When the limit is reached "Add button" is disabled and backend is protected by guardian.
Allow admin to create custom flag which requires an additional message.
I decided to rename the old `custom_flag` into `require_message` as it is more descriptive.
Allow admin to create custom flag which requires an additional message.
I decided to rename the old `custom_flag` into `require_message` as it is more descriptive.
Continued work on moderate flags UI.
In this PR admins are allowed to change the order of flags. The notify user flag is always on top but all other flags can be moved.
Followup 3094f32ff5,
this fixes an issue with the logic in this commit where
we were returning false if any of the conditionals here
were false, regardless of the type of `obj`, where we should
have only done this if `obj` was a `PostAction`, which lead
us to return false in cases where we were checking if the
user could edit their own post as anon.
When a post is created by an incoming email, we show
an envelope icon on it which then opens a modal with the
raw email contents. Previously this was staff (admin+mod)
only, but now this commit adds the `view_raw_email_allowed_groups`
site setting, so any group can be added to give users permission
to see this.
Removes duplication from LimitedEdit to see who can edit
posts, and also removes the old trust level setting check
since it's no longer necessary.
Also make it so staff can always edit since can_edit_post?
already has a staff escape hatch.
Followup fb087b7ff6
post_links_allowed_groups is an odd check tied to
unrestricted_link_posting? in PostGuardian, in that
it doesn't have an escape hatch for staff like most
of the rest of these group based settings.
It doesn't make sense to exclude admins or mods from
posting links, so just always allow them to avoid confusion.
We've changed access settings to be group membership based rather than based on the TL value directly. We kept both conditions here while we updated any plugins and themes. It should now be safe to remove.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_tag_topics site setting to tag_topic_allowed_groups.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_post_links site setting to post_links_allowed_groups.
This isn't used by any of our plugins or themes, so very little fallout.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_tag_topics site setting to tag_topic_allowed_groups.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_create_tag site setting to create_tag_allowed_groups.
This PR maintains backwards compatibility until we can update plugins and themes using this.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_allow_self_wiki site setting to self_wiki_allowed_groups.
Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
A bug that allowed TL1 to convert other's posts to wiki.
The issue was introduced in this PR: https://github.com/discourse/discourse/pull/24999/files
The wiki can be created if a user is TL3 and it is their own post - default 3 for setting `SiteSetting.min_trust_to_allow_self_wiki`
In addition, a wiki can be created by staff and TL4 users for any post.
Using min_trust_to_create_topic and create_topic_allowed_groups together was part of #24740
Now, when plugins specs are fixed, we can safely remove that part of logic.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_level_to_allow_user_card_background site setting to user_card_background_allowed_groups.
Nothing of note here. This is used in exactly one place, and there's no fallout.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the tl4_delete_posts_and_topics site setting to delete_all_posts_and_topics_allowed_groups.
This one is a bit different from previous ones, as it's a boolean flag, and the default should be no group. Pay special attention to the migration during review.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_flag_posts site setting to flag_post_allowed_groups.
Note: In the original setting, "posts" is plural. I have changed this to "post" singular in the new setting to match others.
We're changing the implementation of trust levels to use groups. Part of this is to have site settings that reference trust levels use groups instead. It converts the min_trust_to_edit_post site setting to edit_post_allowed_groups.
The old implementation will co-exist for a short period while I update any references in plugins and themes.
This change converts the min_trust_to_create_topic site setting to
create_topic_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
- Hides the old setting
- Adds the new site setting
- Add a deprecation warning
- Updates to use the new setting
- Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was
changed
- Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
- Updates tests to account for the new change
- After a couple of months, we will remove the min_trust_to_create_topicsetting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
Applies the embed_unlisted site setting consistently across topic embeds, including those created via the WP Discourse plugin. Relatedly, adds a embed exception to can_create_unlisted_topic? check. Users creating embedded topics are not always staff.
This change converts the min_trust_to_edit_wiki_post site setting to edit_wiki_post_allowed_groups.
See: https://meta.discourse.org/t/283408
Hides the old setting
Adds the new site setting
Add a deprecation warning
Updates to use the new setting
Adds a migration to fill in the new setting if the old setting was changed
Adds an entry to the site_setting.keywords section
Updates tests to account for the new change
After a couple of months, we will remove the email_in_min_trust setting entirely.
Internal ref: /t/117248
Admins are always able to send PMs, so it doesn't make
sense that they shouldn't be able to convert topics just
because they aren't in personal_message_enabled_groups.
Osama Sayegh
Jan Cernik
Sam
Linca
Krzysztof Kotlarek
Martin Brennan
Arpit Jalan
Ted Johansson
Penar Musaraj
Angus McLeod
Bianca Nenciu
Mark VanLandingham
Natalie Tay
Bianca Nenciu