Hello Simon and Raphael, Thanks for your input. I’ve adopted all your suggestions into the PR.
For the settings, I’ve now mirrored the TEMPLATE structure. I entirely agree that adding a new structure is an unnecessary burden on our users. I’m not too fond of Simon’s suggestion, as I’d like to have some basic configurability for each validator, without having to create an instance and store it somewhere yourself. That is still an option for advances customisation. Erik > On 08 Mar 2015, at 18:04, charettes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Erik, > > This looks promising. I like how the validators can be chained and the whole > simplicity of the patch. > > Here's some comments I also left on the PR; > I think the settings should be name AUTH_PASSWORD_VALIDATORS since it's being > use by the auth contrib app; > I would avoid mixing the backend and validators terminology. e.g > `get_password_validators` sounds like a more consistent name then > `get_password_backends`; > I would either make `help_text` a property of rename the method to > `get_help_text`. > Like Raphael I also think we should avoid introducing a new way of defining > settings. I suggest we use a list of path to instances of password validators > instead: > > > AUTH_PASSWORD_VALIDATORS = [ > 'django.contrib.auth.password_validators.min_eight_chars_validator', > ] > > And document MinimumLengthPasswordValidator so you can create your own > instances and point the setting to it. > > Simon > > Le dimanche 8 mars 2015 10:48:00 UTC-4, Erik Romijn a écrit : > Hello all, > > I've taken another stab at 16860[1]: having a password validation/policy in > Django. I've made an initial simple PR[2] to show the approach I'd like to > use - no tests or documentation yet, the example validators are not very > nice, possibly bad naming, etc. But this should be sufficient to show how I > would like to tackle this. There's quite a few decisions to take, influencing > the later possibilities, which I'll try to outline below. > > Users choosing awful passwords is a serious security issue. Although password > validation can only go so far - especially to the extent that we can > implement in Django itself - to me it seems part of our responsibility in > helping Django developers to build safer websites. > > First, let me briefly describe my approach: we add a new setting to define > zero or more password validator classes. Optionally, a class can be provided > with custom arguments to it's constructor. Each validator class has a > help_text() method and a validate(password, user) method. The former produces > a translatable sentence to be included in the form field's help text. The > validate method validates a certain password, optionally taking the context > of a user into account and passes its judgement on the password. If a > validator considers a password insufficient, it raises a ValidationError. > > This is tied to the validation and form field setup in SetPasswordForm and > AdminPasswordChangeForm. An obvious choice seems to be to tie this to > User.set_password(). However, I intentionally did not include that step, as I > feel this validation should primarily take place on the user frontend site > with forms. This mirrors the way we typically handle this in Django. Should > someone feel different, and want to tie this to set_password() as well, this > is possible with a custom user object. Tying this validation into any other > place is also trivial: just adding a single line. > > I decided not to go for standard Django validators, as I felt this would > offer insufficient flexibility and configurability - as was already raised in > previous discussions on this issue. > > In the ticket, Shai described a few particular goals for this feature: > > - Informing the user of the various password requirements: this is possible > by each validator providing a description, which can be dependent on it's > configuration, of it's requirements. Independent sentences from different > validators are now concatenated, an approach which will not always yield the > prettiest language. > - Allowing policies to chain together smoothly: multiple validators can be > run sequentially, stopping after the first failure. > - Provide flexibility for complex requirements (some may include their own > models): this is entirely possible within the design. > - Backwards compatibility: the default setting is to have no validators, > which means no change and no modifications in help text. I do suggest we > include some reasonable defaults in the standard project template. > - Javascript validation assistance or HTML5 support: not implemented > currently, but this could be added in a similar way as help texts. > - Prevent using email, username or other user attributes as (part of) > passwords: where possible, the user object is passed to the validator. > There's a (not pretty) example of this in the PR. > - Prevent reuse of old passwords: it is possible in the design for a > validator to store all passwords it saw. I have doubts on whether this would > be a good approach though. > > So I think this design makes it simple to have sane defaults for new > projects, extensive configurability while keeping simple scenarios simple to > configure, and easy extensibility with third party password validators > (zxcvbn comes to mind). I'd love to hear any feedback and ideas you may have. > > Erik > > > [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16860 > <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16860> > [2] https://github.com/django/django/pull/4276 > <https://github.com/django/django/pull/4276> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers > <http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/494039b5-c06b-4afc-aaf3-0705db37d13e%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/494039b5-c06b-4afc-aaf3-0705db37d13e%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/EA8C10FE-C7DA-40DF-933F-1485BDDADBF8%40solidlinks.nl. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
