I am very confused as to how Safari 2.3 works in certain respects, and why sites can’t easily circumvent it. I don’t understand under what circumstances limits are applied, what the exact limits are, to what they are applied, and for how long.
To clarify my question I broke it down into several cases. I will be referring to Apple’s official blog post about ITP 2.3 [1] which you can quote from, but feel free to link to any other authoritative or factually correct sources in your answer.
For third-party sites loaded in iframes:
Why can’t they just use localStorage to store the values of cookies, and send this data along not as actual browser cookies🍪, but as data in the body of the request? Similarly, they can parse the response to updaye localStorage. What limits does ITP actually place on localStorage in third party iframes?
If the localStorage is frequently purged (see question 1), why can’t they simply use postMessage to tell a script on the enclosing website to store some information (perhaps encrypted) and then spit it back whenever it loads an iframe?
For sites that use link decoration
I still don’t understand what the limits on localStorage are in third party sites in iframes, which did NOT get classified as link decorator sites. But let’s say they are link decorator sites. According to [1] Apple only start limiting stuff further if there is a querystring or fragment. But can’t a website rather trivially store this information in the URL path before the querystring, ie /in/here without ?in=here … certainly large companies like Google can trivially choose to do that?
In the case a site has been labeled as a tracking site, does that mean all its non-cookie data is limited to 7 days? What about cookies set by the server, aren’t they exempted? So then simply make a request to your server to set the cookie instead of using Javascript. After all, the operator of the site is very likely to also have access to its HTTP server and app code.
For all sites
Why can’t a service like Google Analytics or Facebook’s widgets simply convince a site to additional add a CNAME to their DNS and get Google’s and Facebook’s servers under a subdomain like gmail.mysite.com or analytics.mysite.com ? And then boom, they can read and set cookies again, in some cases even on the top-level domain for website owners who don’t know better. Doesn’t this completely defeat the goals of Apple’s ITP, since Google and Facebook have now become a “second party” in some sense?
Here on StackOverflow, when we log out on iOS Safari the StackOverflow network is able to log out of multiple sites at once … how is that even accomplished if no one can track users across websites? I have heard it said that “second party cookies” still can be stored but what exactly makes a second party cookie different from a third party?
My question is broken down into 6 cases but the overall theme is, in each case: how does Apple’s latest ITP work in that case, and how does it actually block all cases of potentially malicious tracking (to the point where a well-funded company can’t just do the workarounds above) while at the same time allowing legitimate use cases?
[1] https://webkit.org/blog/9521/intelligent-tracking-prevention-2-3/
Related
I would like to offer the possibility to delete the last hour web history of my users (in order to protect people who used the website but don't have technical skills) or at minimum the url of the website and the referer (google search, social media link, etc.)
Is it possible with a html/js button which would interact with history like some extension ( https://developer.mozilla.org/fr/docs/Mozilla/Add-ons/WebExtensions/API/history/deleteUrl ) ?
Thanks for your help
Clear-Site-Data is a header, implemented to different degrees by different browsers, to indicate to the browser that you'd like the browser to clear cookies, caches and other kinds of storage for your site. This can be a useful security practice for your site -- to clear any sign that the user has logged in, or to make sure that no one who uses the device later will be able to access that user's account.
While I can see important and legitimate use cases for it, it isn't possible to force or prompt the browser to delete the browsing history, even just for your site. You can see how there might be security issues with that, like an attacker clearing evidence of their malicious site from the user's device, or just annoying websites that hide themselves from history and so the user can't see where they were. See these other questions that have also longed for this capability:
How to clear browsing history using JavaScript?
How to clear browsers (IE, Firefox, Opera, Chrome) history using JavaScript or Java except from browser itself?
You might consider exploring the History.replaceState method and other parts of the History API. That won't let you delete URLs and referrers in general, but it can be used to modify the URL of the current page in the history. So if a user arrives on your site visiting a page about something particularly sensitive or revealing, you might be able to modify the current history so that their browser only records that the user visited your domain, and not that particular page.
I recently asked this question and user's #DalmTo and #Sergio NH they gave me an exhaustive answer for which I thank them very much.
Moving forward to question, we started publishing the application, and its verification was not required, since no scope was added (here it is a little unclear why the requests worked in an application with a test mode in which these scope were not added (google drive, google sheet and google ads)).
However, this time the application in the "In Production" mode began to give us an "Unverified app screen" (see Unverified app screen). We decided that we still need to add scope to the list, and, of course, that the scope list (their list is described above) requires verification by Google.
We started filling in the necessary fields, while studying the Google documentation at the same time, and came across the following information (see block Verification process -> What are the requirements for verification?):
Apps not applicable for verification
Apps for internal use only
(single domain use) Apps for personal use only Apps that are Gmail
SMTP plugins for WordPress Apps that are in development or
staging/testing
Apps for personal use only
And this is just our case: we have already received permission from Google Ads and are just generating simple reports that we want to integrate with Google Sheet. I.e., this is an elementary script that works within this account (however, we still need to request the first concert screen, even for this developer account) and cannot be distributed to any other accounts.
But when adding our scope, Google requires us to pass verification, forcing us to fill in the required fields, in the form of domains and their verification via the Search Console (we have already done this and this stage does not cause difficulties) and links to Youtube videos - where we must show how scope is used.
And just this stage is not clear. We do not allow other people's accounts to connect to this application, and the software does not have any interface, it is just a script that receives data from Google Ads and saves it to Google Sheet (creating a file via Google Drive). We have described all this in the scope usage description field. But the link to the Youtube video is require field, and we sincerely do not understand why (considering our case) we should record something, and most importantly, what exactly we should record in this case. If the documentation itself says that in our case we do not even need a verification.
Maybe we did not understand something and now we are doing it wrong? We will be glad to receive any tips from experts working with Google Cloud Console and apologize in advance for broken English.
We also apologize in advance to the StackOverflow community that we have to publish such elementary (which we are absolutely sure of from our side) questions here. We come here from Google Cloud Console - > Support - > Community support, and we must first try to publish posts in the Google Groups specified there, but they simply do not answer us, apparently considering our questions too elementary and not worthy of attention (however, these same questions in Google Groups are moderated) (for example, the previous question). And we are no longer able to contact any other support. Once again, we apologize for having to ask about this here.
It is true that if your app is a single use app then you do not need to be verified.
However if you don't get your app verified then there will be some restrictions.
you will see the unverified app screen
your refresh tokens will probably only be good for two weeks.
In the case of the YouTube api uploaded videos will be suck private.
If you can live with those points then you don't need to verify your app and you can continue as is.
If on the other hand you don't want to see the unverified app screen and you want a refresh token that will last longer then two weeks. You will need to verify your app. Yes, Even if your app is a console application running as a job some where you still show the consent screen. This is the YouTube video you will need to show Google. Show the consent screen popping up show the URL bar and then show your script running. You also need to set up the homepage and privacy policy screens. Yes i 100% agree with you that this is silly.
When you go though the process. Explain to google that this is a single use script running as a job some where.
Unfortunately when Google changed it so that Refresh tokens expire for unverified apps they pretty much tied the hands of all developers who are running such single user scripts. We now have to get our apps verified if we don't want to have to request a new refresh token every two weeks.
If your program needs to access the requested scopes of the Google account privacy, even though the user is yourself, you also need to provide a youtube video to demonstrate how you use this program. The auditor cannot guarantee whether you will make this program public.
I am wanting to pull all users in my company dropbox and then check to see if their accounts have MFA enabled. I read over the documentation for Dropbox api but did not see anything stand out where this was possible.
It's very sad to realize that a popular platform such as Dropbox doesn't expose A LOT of basic features through its API (and the SDK itself is far from being OK, compared to G-Suite). Anyway, there are two hacky methods you can use in order to pull out that information (with some limitations).
First method:
By analyzing the team events using team_members_list() you can filter out tfa_change_status_details events. When new_value=TfaConfiguration('[sms|other]', None) is specified - 2FA is enabled.
The information I found out that can be retrieved using this method is:
has_2fa - whether 2FA was ever configured.
is_tfa_enabled - whether 2FA is currently enabled.
tfa_type - whether 2FA is by SMS or by app.
However, keep in mind that you have to track changes constantly and also keep in mind that Dropbox saves team events for only two years.
Second method:
Using the front-end dashboard API this information can be retrieved (I can't remember the API name, I think that it is /2/get_multifactor and inside you'd find some information about its status and the organizational policy regarding 2FA). However, to use the front-end dashboard API (which is totally undocumented) you'd need to simulate a successful login (and correctly use the lid and jar cookies) and you'd also need to bypass the random captcha that appears when you abuse the service with too many requests.
To be honest, Dropbox's API is weak, neglected, and ugly. I wish I never had to use it. Anyway, I would recommend using the first method and pray for a significant update to the API
No, unfortunately the Dropbox API doesn't expose this. We'll consider it a feature request.
There's a feature request open for this one (https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Dropbox-API-Support-Feedback/MFA-status-for-users/m-p/468564#M23886). But I wouldn't hold your breath, as #Aviv mentioned the Dropbox API seems surprisingly neglected at the moment.
My app is a Personal Assistant who's main job is to redirect the user to something that complies with his/her wishes. I realize, for example that AllRecipies.com has no API. My question is that can I, say open the browser app with the url as
http://allrecipes.com/search/results/?wt=QUERY>&sort=re.
Is this considered as using their API? Not just AllRecipies, but numerous other such services. If I am using this method, then do I have to request API key, etc? I am not retrieving anything. I am simply redirecting the user to their page with the query pre-written. Does this require all the licensing fees, API Key, etc?
Do I have to agree to this fees(If they ask), Request API Key, etc?
With the particular URL in question, it is simply an HTML web server URL, rather than a web API, as such. You can still get data out of it, but you'd have to parse the HTML yourself to extract what you want from the HTML response.
They may have an API that you can use to access data more directly as JSON, XML, etc, but you'll have to look into that yourself. And you will possibly require an API key to access it. But perhaps not, if it's publicly available and they don't care how many calls they get to it by anonymous users.
You may find this resource useful. It contains a lot of open APIs and code snippets to access them: http://www.programmableweb.com/
If you are simply trying to hit a URL or directing a user to this particular URL which you already know and is static meaning you always hit the same url without change in parameters, then this is not considered an API call and will not be requiring any API key.
However, if they have some APIs exposed, you will need to go through their documentation and using this API most likely requires the use of an API key(alhough this might not be true always). Usually, most platforms have a bunch of APIs available for different scenarios and these are called based on user specific parameters and requirements.
I have a website that revolves around transactions between two users. Each user needs to agree to the same terms. If I want an API so other websites can implement this into their own website, then I want to make sure that the other websites cannot mess with the process by including more fields in between or things that are irrelevant to my application. Is this possible?
If I was to implement such a thing, I would allow other websites to use tokens/URLs/widgets that would link them to my website. So, for example, website X wants to use my service to agree user A and B on the same terms. Their page will have an embedded form/frame which would be generated from my website and user B will also receive an email with link to my website's page (or a page of website X with a form/frame generated from my server).
Consider how different sites use eBay to enable users to pay. You buy everything on the site but when you are paying, either you are taken to ebay page and come back after payment, or the website has a small form/frame that is directly linked to ebay.
But this is my solution, one way of doing it. Hope this helps.
It depends on how your API is implemented. It takes considerably more work, thought, and engineering to build an API that can literally take any kind of data or to build an API that can take additional, named, key/value pairs as fields.
If you have implemented your API in this manner, then it's quite possible that users of this API could use it to extend functionality or build something slightly different by passing in additional data.
However, if your API is built to where specific values must be passed and these fields are required, then it becomes much more difficult for your API to be used in a manner that differs from what you originally intended.
For example, Google has many different API's for different purposes, and each API has a very specific number of required parameters that a developer must use in order to make a successful HTTP request. While the goal of these API's are to allow developers to extend functionality, they do allow access to only very specific pieces of data.
Lastly, you can use authentication to prevent unauthorized access to your API. The specific implementation details depend largely on the platform you're working with as well as how the API will be used. For instance, if users must login to use services provided by your API, then a form of OAuth may suffice. However, if other servers will consume your API, then the authorization will have to take place in the HTTP headers.
For more information on API best practices, see 7 Rules of Thumb When You Build an API, and a slideshow from a Google Engineer titled How to Design a Good API and Why That Matters.