Re: Deprecate CICharField, CIEmailField, CITextField

['Johannes Maron' via Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)]

Thanks Adam,

of course I read your well-written article before diving into this topic,
thanks for sharing.

However, I don't agree about the index. The best solution is using the
CITEXT db type, which is very much alive.
Should Django to deprecate support for the db type, a 3rd party package
seems the bast choice for me.
With the downside of me having to maintain yet another package. But I can
understand if the Django project has no interest in maintenance.

In any event, I opened a ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/34501

Best Joe


On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 11:36 AM 'Adam Johnson' via Django developers
(Contributions to Django itself)  wrote:

> Just to note, for anyone that finds it useful, that I wrote a blog post on
> migrating to collations:
> https://adamj.eu/tech/2023/02/23/migrate-django-postgresql-ci-fields-case-insensitive-collation/
>
> But yes, I have also been thinking like Tom that indexing UPPER("email")
> seems to be the path of least complexity...
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 8:12 AM Tom Carrick  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wrote most of the code for collation support, and I also argued
>> (softly) against deprecating citext support for the reasons you stated.
>>
>> However, I've changed my mind on this now. As you can't index the citext
>> column for LIKE queries, doing these types of searches on any real amount
>> of data is going to be too slow in most cases. I actually think the best
>> practice right now for having searchable case-insensitive emails is to do
>> it old-school - have a regular EmailField with an index on UPPER("email")
>> and then make sure you always use iexact, istartswith etc. and this will
>> properly use the indexes and result in a faster search.
>>
>> So I see very few advantages now to keeping CITEXT at all, and they're
>> quite easy to add as a third party package as Mariusz suggested if anyone
>> is so inclined.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 at 12:09, Mariusz Felisiak <
>> felisiak.mari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> > Unless we want to drop support for the CITEXT extension, ...
>>>
>>> What do you mean by that? As far as I'm now, we don't do anything
>>> special to support CITEXT extension 🤔.
>>>
>>> > I'd caution to revert the deprecation and keep support ...
>>>
>>> I'm obviously biased as the author of this proposition and patch,
>>> however, IMO, small differences between using CI fields and collations
>>> don't justify maintaining 3 additional fields that were mostly untested.
>>> Also, they are deprecated in a LTS so folks still have *3* more years
>>> to update their code. In the worst case someone can create 3rd party
>>> package with them.
>>>
>>> Unless something is fundamentally broken I'm against reverting.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Mariusz
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5c11b704-68c4-490d-84bf-90c734cc02d1n%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
>> 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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAHoz%3DMb25iGN%2BHodxgE6Y%2B5d%2B5qoHERvkMiuiHrs%3DXnpeC%3D-xg%40mail.gmail.com
>> 
>> .
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/nDMnO98nexY/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAMyDDM3PuF92jEdTocGPtG%2Bq0n%2B%3DfRfZ05gTw8w3T6kZ5p6xBQ%40mail.gmail.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 django-d

Re: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

[Stratos Moros]

Hello Everyone,

Looks like lax will do the trick, but it's not like there aren't legit 
cases for same-site policy to be set to something less restrictive.


I agree. In my experience there are legitimate cases for setting 
SameSite=None, especially concerning iframes.


Specifically, when developing a web app intended to be embedded as an 
iframe by a different top-level origin, you can't really use cookies 
unless their SameSite attribute is None. This is the case even if you 
manage the cookies entirely inside the iframe and its origin.


In such cases, you really do need Django's current CSRF protection. 
Personally I wouldn't mind it being off by default, since SameSite=Lax 
seems to be enough for most cases, but this could be a footgun for some 
people.


Best,
Stratos


On 17 Apr 2023, at 10:55, Jure Erznožnik wrote:


https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/262245/are-csrf-attacks-a-thing-of-the-past

Looks like lax will do the trick, but it's not like there aren't legit 
cases for same-site policy to be set to something less restrictive.


LP,
Jure

On 17. 04. 23 09:24, Jacob Rief wrote:

On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:45:16 AM UTC+2 Curtis Maloney wrote:

Are you implying that all CSRF attacks protected by Django's
current machinery are entirely mitigated by SameSite=Lax on the
_session_ cookiue?

Yes. Therefore imho, the CSRF protection is just some nasty legacy, 
developers have to fiddle with. It doesn't add any security benefit 
anymore.
That said, maybe there is still a possible attack vector on cross 
site request forgeries, but I was unable to exploit them with 
disabled CSRF protection.
Therefore it would be great, if someone with more hacking experience 
than myself, could try this.


– Jacob
--
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/18aaa4cf-4612-4373-bd91-90cfb3fd07b8n%40googlegroups.com 
 
.


--
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/86ced442-e7f9-aab8-9a03-d9c2362b60f9%40gmail.com.


--
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CA2FC1A6-4307-4076-B158-197D8A9481B6%40gmail.com.

Re: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

[Jacob Rief]

In such cases, you really do need Django's current CSRF protection. 
Personally I wouldn't mind it being off by default, since SameSite=Lax 
seems to be enough for most cases, but this could be a footgun for some 
people.


This could be handled by the configuration checker, which runs after 
reading the setup. Whenever CSRF_COOKIE_SAMESITE=None but 
'django.middleware.csrf.CsrfViewMiddleware' is missing in the MIDDLEWARE 
 
setting, a warning shall be issued.

– Jacob
 

-- 
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/4e9c5627-3f29-48aa-bf4d-65ec4df179e8n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

['Ryan Hiebert' via Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 8:34:14 AM UTC-5 Stratos Moros wrote:

[...] In my experience there are legitimate cases for setting 
SameSite=None, especially concerning iframes.

Specifically, when developing a web app intended to be embedded as an 
iframe by a different top-level origin, you can't really use cookies unless 
their SameSite attribute is None. This is the case even if you manage the 
cookies entirely inside the iframe and its origin.

In my experience, even SameSite None is not sufficient to use cookies in 
cross-site iframes. Safari doesn't allow those cookies to be sent unless 
you visit the site directly first. I've heard movements for Firefox and/or 
Chrome having similar behavior, but I haven't been working with iframes 
recently enough to know the current state of that.

In such cases, you really do need Django's current CSRF protection. 
Personally I wouldn't mind it being off by default, since SameSite=Lax 
seems to be enough for most cases, but this could be a footgun for some 
people.

There certainly are legitimate use-cases. I like Jacob's following 
suggestion for a check that might help alleviate a misconfiguration 
concern, if they did change SameSite to none without activating CSRF 
protection. If it were possible to identify other places where there might 
be a sharp-edge misconfiguration because of the cross-domain difference of 
meaning between samesite and what CSRF needs, that could be good as well. 
And those checks would, I think, be worthwhile even without changing the 
default, since they are currently possible configurations.

I think what we want to weigh is whether the footgun of *not* having CSRF 
by default is bigger than the significant complexity overhead of managing 
the CSRF projection in a new project. It's marking all views, adding tags 
to all form templates, and I think it can be easy to underestimate the 
attention it requires. If we can eliminate this overhead, especially for 
beginners starting out with Django and web development, that sounds like a 
great benefit. Lowering the barrier to entry is worth a lot.

-- 
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/553aea07-90de-41ce-a71c-6529ebc97eb3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

[Stratos Moros]

In my experience, even SameSite None is not sufficient to use cookies 
in cross-site iframes. Safari doesn't allow those cookies to be sent 
unless you visit the site directly first. I've heard movements for 
Firefox and/or Chrome having similar behavior, but I haven't been 
working with iframes recently enough to know the current state of 
that.


You are correct about this and I've been bitten by this in the past. 
(Un)fortunately, I am currently involved with enterprise™ projects 
where Safari is a distant afterthought.


There certainly are legitimate use-cases. I like Jacob's following 
suggestion for a check that might help alleviate a misconfiguration 
concern, if they did change SameSite to none without activating CSRF 
protection. If it were possible to identify other places where there 
might be a sharp-edge misconfiguration because of the cross-domain 
difference of meaning between samesite and what CSRF needs, that could 
be good as well. And those checks would, I think, be worthwhile even 
without changing the default, since they are currently possible 
configurations.


If CSRF is turned off by default, adding such a check would be a good 
idea. It should definitely check for `SESSION_COOKIE_SAMESITE`'s value, 
since the session cookie is usually the one that needs protection from 
CSRF, but I haven't thought deeply about theotherthe cookies. This could 
have implications regarding `HttpResponse.set_cookie`, since it can't be 
checked by a system check.


I think what we want to weigh is whether the footgun of *not* having 
CSRF by default is bigger than the significant complexity overhead of 
managing the CSRF projection in a new project. It's marking all views, 
adding tags to all form templates, and I think it can be easy to 
underestimate the attention it requires. If we can eliminate this 
overhead, especially for beginners starting out with Django and web 
development, that sounds like a great benefit. Lowering the barrier to 
entry is worth a lot.


I mostly wanted to argue against the removal of the current CSRF 
machinery altogether, since it is still necessary for certain use cases.


Removing it from the default template is a harder question. I completely 
understand the complexity point, since I've lost track of how many times 
I've had to explain what a CSRF error is and why you should care. Still, 
I'm not sure if removing it from the default template would be OK, since 
it would trade off security for convenience (even if only for marginal 
cases).


Best,
Stratos

--
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/A1CC86D7-24E6-457F-9B62-3FD4C82A775C%40gmail.com.

RE: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

[jure.erznoznik]

Well, TBH, I've just completed dealing with CSRF form in my projects. I ended 
up exempting the particular view from CSRF because I didn't know how to get the 
stuff to work. The problem was that django parsed the body payload, which was 
JSON and thus rejected its contents (because it wasn't form payload type – POST 
method). As a result, DRF then had no payload to work with… I shouldn't go into 
too much detail as it's irrelevant to the point.

 

But, I've been considering I need a modernised CSRF: currently it works by 
generating a new token every page served. But we have switched our front-end to 
SPA and that doesn't make much sense any more since CSRF token itself doesn't 
change at all, since Django template system only ever serves one page. AFAIK, 
DRF doesn't ganerate new tokens in its pipelines.

 

Takeaway: I don't think having CSRF enabled causes any significant downsides, 
even with a simpler, more modern handling. It does its thing regardless and 
doesn't interfere if it thinks everything is ok. Otherwise, it just saved your 
a** 😉

 

LP,

Jure

 

From: django-developers@googlegroups.com  
On Behalf Of Stratos Moros
Sent: torek, 18. april 2023 19:53
To: Django developers (Contributions to Django itself) 

Subject: Re: Drop CSRF middleware from the settings template

 

In my experience, even SameSite None is not sufficient to use cookies in 
cross-site iframes. Safari doesn't allow those cookies to be sent unless you 
visit the site directly first. I've heard movements for Firefox and/or Chrome 
having similar behavior, but I haven't been working with iframes recently 
enough to know the current state of that.

You are correct about this and I've been bitten by this in the past. 
(Un)fortunately, I am currently involved with enterprise™ projects where Safari 
is a distant afterthought.

There certainly are legitimate use-cases. I like Jacob's following suggestion 
for a check that might help alleviate a misconfiguration concern, if they did 
change SameSite to none without activating CSRF protection. If it were possible 
to identify other places where there might be a sharp-edge misconfiguration 
because of the cross-domain difference of meaning between samesite and what 
CSRF needs, that could be good as well. And those checks would, I think, be 
worthwhile even without changing the default, since they are currently possible 
configurations.

If CSRF is turned off by default, adding such a check would be a good idea. It 
should definitely check for SESSION_COOKIE_SAMESITE's value, since the session 
cookie is usually the one that needs protection from CSRF, but I haven't 
thought deeply about theotherthe cookies. This could have implications 
regarding HttpResponse.set_cookie, since it can't be checked by a system check.

I think what we want to weigh is whether the footgun of *not* having CSRF by 
default is bigger than the significant complexity overhead of managing the CSRF 
projection in a new project. It's marking all views, adding tags to all form 
templates, and I think it can be easy to underestimate the attention it 
requires. If we can eliminate this overhead, especially for beginners starting 
out with Django and web development, that sounds like a great benefit. Lowering 
the barrier to entry is worth a lot.

I mostly wanted to argue against the removal of the current CSRF machinery 
altogether, since it is still necessary for certain use cases.

Removing it from the default template is a harder question. I completely 
understand the complexity point, since I've lost track of how many times I've 
had to explain what a CSRF error is and why you should care. Still, I'm not 
sure if removing it from the default template would be OK, since it would trade 
off security for convenience (even if only for marginal cases).

Best,
Stratos

-- 
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/A1CC86D7-24E6-457F-9B62-3FD4C82A775C%40gmail.com
 

 .

-- 
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 django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/009201d97238%2467e0a190%2437a1e4b0%24%40gmail.com.