Enable V2 authentication for Me2Me host.

Enable V2 authentication for Me2Me host.

Updated both Me2me host and simple host to accept spake2_hmac auth. They still
accept V1 authentication. Also the corresponding scripts are updated to ask
for PIN

BUG=107777
Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=118860

[Sergey Ulanov, 2012-01-23 20:26:52]

Updated the scripts to allow empty PINs.

[Wez, 2012-01-23 23:53:49]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
File remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:41: using
remoting::protocol::SharedSecretHash;
nit: Do you really need this? protocol::SharedSecretHash seems plenty short for
the member declaration below.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:115:
scoped_refptr<remoting::JsonHostConfig> host_config =
nit: Unnecessary remoting::s

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:142: &host_secret_hash_string)) {
nit: Indentation.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:165: xmpp_auth_service_ =
remoting::kChromotingTokenDefaultServiceName;
nit: Here too.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:209: remoting::ChromotingHostContext
context_;
nit: Doesn't need remoting::

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:225: scoped_ptr<remoting::HeartbeatSender>
heartbeat_sender_;
nit: This doesn't need the remoting:: prefix.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
File remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h:25: struct SharedSecretHash
{
nit: SharedSecretHash -> HostSharedSecret?

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h:30: // must be in form
"<hash_function>;<hash_value_base64>".
nit: ":" rather than ";" - ";" tends to get used where there may be a variable
number of arguments separated.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
File remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py:176: pin = getpass.getpass("Host PIN (can
be empty): ")
nit: Verify that the PIN is either empty or at least 4 characters long?

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py:178: hmac.new(str(self.host_id), pin,
hashlib.sha256).digest())
nit: It will make changes to inform the client of whether a PIN is required
easier of you store nothing when the user doesn't enter a PIN, and have the host
understand that.  That would also let the host be backward-compatible with
existing dogfooder's configs.

[Wez, 2012-01-23 23:54:07]

lgtm

[Sergey Ulanov, 2012-01-24 06:32:21]

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
File remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:41: using
remoting::protocol::SharedSecretHash;
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Do you really need this? protocol::SharedSecretHash seems plenty short
for
> the member declaration below.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:115:
scoped_refptr<remoting::JsonHostConfig> host_config =
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Unnecessary remoting::s

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:142: &host_secret_hash_string)) {
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Indentation.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:165: xmpp_auth_service_ =
remoting::kChromotingTokenDefaultServiceName;
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Here too.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:209: remoting::ChromotingHostContext
context_;
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Doesn't need remoting::

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/host/remoting_me2me...
remoting/host/remoting_me2me_host.cc:225: scoped_ptr<remoting::HeartbeatSender>
heartbeat_sender_;
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: This doesn't need the remoting:: prefix.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
File remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h:25: struct SharedSecretHash
{
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: SharedSecretHash -> HostSharedSecret?

IMHO SharedSecretHash better reflects the purpose of this struct. Also,
potentially it can be moved on the client side (if moved to a different file).

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/protocol/me2me_host...
remoting/protocol/me2me_host_authenticator_factory.h:30: // must be in form
"<hash_function>;<hash_value_base64>".
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: ":" rather than ";" - ";" tends to get used where there may be a variable
> number of arguments separated.

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
File remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py:176: pin = getpass.getpass("Host PIN (can
be empty): ")
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: Verify that the PIN is either empty or at least 4 characters long?

Done.

http://codereview.chromium.org/9270031/diff/6001/remoting/tools/me2me_virtual...
remoting/tools/me2me_virtual_host.py:178: hmac.new(str(self.host_id), pin,
hashlib.sha256).digest())
On 2012/01/23 23:53:49, Wez wrote:
> nit: It will make changes to inform the client of whether a PIN is required
> easier of you store nothing when the user doesn't enter a PIN, and have the
host
> understand that.  That would also let the host be backward-compatible with
> existing dogfooder's configs.

Done.

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-01-24 16:43:38]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
https://chromium-status.appspot.com/cq/sergeyu@chromium.org/9270031/10004

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2012-01-24 18:24:27]

Change committed as 118860