D15: retire D13/D14 (LDAPS, never deployed), move straight to Okta OIDC
This commit is contained in:
75
docs/waves/decisions-2026-09-02.md
Normal file
75
docs/waves/decisions-2026-09-02.md
Normal file
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
|
||||
# Decisions — September 2, 2026
|
||||
|
||||
One item, and it retires two decided-and-built items rather than amending them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## D15 — Authentication moves to Okta OIDC; D13 and D14 are retired before deployment
|
||||
|
||||
- **Amends:** retires `D13` (LDAPS simple bind against `prime.local`) and `D14` (the CLI
|
||||
authenticates against the domain). Both were decided and reaffirmed August 21 2026,
|
||||
built across nine tasks (`T10.1`–`T10.9`), and verified against the live domain. Neither
|
||||
reached production. Approved by Nick Siegfried.
|
||||
- **Surface:** `server/auth.py`, `server/app.py` (`login()`), `html/login.html`,
|
||||
`html/login.js`, `html/auth-guard.js`. `server/ldap_auth.py` does not carry forward —
|
||||
there is no LDAPS bind in the new design, not even as a fallback.
|
||||
- **Wave:** 10. The label is reused fresh: the LDAPS work that previously answered to
|
||||
"wave 10" was built on `feat/ldaps-directory-auth`, which is deleted rather than merged,
|
||||
and never appeared in `IMPLEMENTATION.md`'s wave table. It carries no claim on the
|
||||
number.
|
||||
|
||||
### What D13/D14 were, for the record
|
||||
|
||||
The branch carrying them is deleted, not merged, so their decision record
|
||||
(`docs/waves/decisions-2026-08-21.md`) no longer exists on any branch. Preserved here so
|
||||
the reasoning isn't lost along with it:
|
||||
|
||||
D13 chose a direct LDAPS simple bind to `ldaps://prime.local:636` as the sign-in
|
||||
mechanism: no password stored, a successful bind was the authentication, accounts were
|
||||
provisioned just-in-time from the directory, and roles stayed local. D14 moved the CLI
|
||||
onto the same bind, removing `create-admin`/`create`. Both were built, tested
|
||||
(1284/1288 checks, Aug 24), and screenshotted at 390px and 1440px. Neither ever deployed —
|
||||
`wp.controls.dev` still runs the pre-D13 local-password login as of this decision.
|
||||
|
||||
### The decision
|
||||
|
||||
Skip LDAPS entirely. Authentication becomes an Okta OIDC authorization-code flow,
|
||||
replacing local passwords directly — the same full replacement D13 intended, just via
|
||||
Okta instead of a domain bind. No LDAPS bind exists in this design at any point.
|
||||
|
||||
Four things carry forward from D13 unchanged, because they were never LDAPS-specific to
|
||||
begin with:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **No password is stored.** The app never sees a credential of any kind; Okta owns
|
||||
authentication entirely.
|
||||
2. **Accounts are provisioned just-in-time.** A first successful Okta sign-in with no
|
||||
matching local `users` row creates one, at the default role. The matching logic that
|
||||
was going to key off a directory search instead keys off an OIDC identity claim.
|
||||
3. **Roles stay local.** Okta, and AD behind it, supplies identity only. This app decides
|
||||
what an identity may do. Restated because it is the one rule the whole access-control
|
||||
design depends on — see `BL-029` and the governance discussion that followed it.
|
||||
4. **Existing accounts keep their roles** on first Okta login, exactly as D13's criterion
|
||||
4 read for LDAPS.
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this, and not LDAPS first and Okta second
|
||||
|
||||
`BL-029` (recorded on this branch as `BL-027` before the renumbering forced by main's
|
||||
independent use of that number) already laid out why OIDC beats the LDAPS bind on three
|
||||
counts: this app never sees a password, MFA comes from Okta rather than needing to be
|
||||
built, and the domain-lockout hazard that forced `AUTH_MAX_ATTEMPTS` down to 2 disappears,
|
||||
because failed attempts land on Okta rather than on a bind this app makes. D13 was decided
|
||||
before it was known the company already runs an Okta tenant. Once that was confirmed
|
||||
(security's scoping reply, September 2026), shipping LDAPS first and replacing it with
|
||||
Okta days later would mean building and deploying the weaker mechanism on purpose. Going
|
||||
straight to Okta avoids that.
|
||||
|
||||
### What still needs answering before this is buildable
|
||||
|
||||
Open from the security scoping thread, not yet closed:
|
||||
|
||||
- Which OIDC claim carries the AD `sAMAccountName` equivalent (`preferred_username`,
|
||||
`upn`, or a custom claim) — asked of security, answer pending.
|
||||
- The exact redirect/callback URI once the hostname situation is reconfirmed
|
||||
(`https://wp.controls.dev/api/auth/okta/callback` proposed).
|
||||
- The `Business Technology Group` pilot in Okta, requested for initial testing, with
|
||||
normal Okta session/MFA behavior rather than a stricter per-app rule.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user