[PM-28842] Add validation to prevent excessive master password policy values

[r-tome]

🎟️ Tracking

https://bitwarden.atlassian.net/browse/PM-28842

📔 Objective

Fixes an issue where organization owners could set unreasonably large values for the master password policy's minimum length (e.g., 1000).

Clients PR

⏰ Reminders before review

• Contributor guidelines followed
• All formatters and local linters executed and passed
• Written new unit and / or integration tests where applicable
• Protected functional changes with optionality (feature flags)
• Used internationalization (i18n) for all UI strings
• CI builds passed
• Communicated to DevOps any deployment requirements
• Updated any necessary documentation (Confluence, contributing docs) or informed the documentation team

🦮 Reviewer guidelines

• 👍 (:+1:) or similar for great changes
• 📝 (:memo:) or ℹ️ (:information_source:) for notes or general info
• ❓ (:question:) for questions
• 🤔 (:thinking:) or 💭 (:thought_balloon:) for more open inquiry that's not quite a confirmed issue and could potentially benefit from discussion
• 🎨 (:art:) for suggestions / improvements
• ❌ (:x:) or ⚠️ (:warning:) for more significant problems or concerns needing attention
• 🌱 (:seedling:) or ♻️ (:recycle:) for future improvements or indications of technical debt
• ⛏ (:pick:) for minor or nitpick changes

[github-actions]

Checkmarx One – Scan Summary & Details – ac761254-412f-4562-a3f6-b63995ff3ee6

Fixed Issues (1)

Great job! The following issues were fixed in this Pull Request

Severity	Issue	Source File / Package
	Use_Of_Hardcoded_Password	/src/Core/Constants.cs: 169

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 83.33333% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 55.07%. Comparing base (f2aa742) to head (fcc38f4).
⚠️ Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...Core/AdminConsole/Utilities/PolicyDataValidator.cs	83.33%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #6807      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.03%   55.07%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files        1934     1934              
  Lines       85581    85787     +206     
  Branches     7656     7677      +21     
==========================================
+ Hits        47098    47244     +146     
- Misses      36695    36751      +56     
- Partials     1788     1792       +4     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[claude]

Claude finished @r-tome's task in 3m 2s —— View job

---

Overall Assessment: APPROVE

This PR adds validation to prevent organization owners from setting unreasonably large values for master password policy's minimum length and complexity. The implementation is well-designed with comprehensive test coverage across unit and integration test layers.

Code Review Details

Security

• ✅ Validation limits are appropriate (MinLength: 12-128, MinComplexity: 0-4)
• ✅ Prevents denial-of-service through impossible password requirements
• ✅ Zero-knowledge principles maintained - no exposure of sensitive data

Correctness

• ✅ Validation logic correctly implemented using DataAnnotations
• ✅ Error messages are clear and informative
• ✅ Validation occurs at request model conversion, preventing invalid new policies
• ✅ Existing policies with values outside ranges are grandfathered (not a breaking change)

Test Coverage

• ✅ Comprehensive unit tests for boundary conditions (min, max, below min, above max)
• ✅ Integration tests for both Admin and Public API endpoints
• ✅ Edge cases covered (null values, multiple invalid fields, type mismatches)

Code Quality

• ✅ XML documentation added for clarity
• ✅ Follows established patterns in the codebase
• ✅ Consistent with other policy validation approaches

Breaking Changes

• ✅ None - Only validates NEW policy updates
• ✅ Existing policies continue to function
• ✅ Database migration not required

No issues found. The implementation is production-ready.

---

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.5 [email protected]