The Firebase Web-App guide states I should put the given apiKey in my Html to initialize Firebase:
// TODO: Replace with your project's customized code snippet
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/firebasejs/3.0.2/firebase.js"></script>
<script>
// Initialize Firebase
var config = {
apiKey: '<your-api-key>',
authDomain: '<your-auth-domain>',
databaseURL: '<your-database-url>',
storageBucket: '<your-storage-bucket>'
};
firebase.initializeApp(config);
</script>
By doing so, the apiKey is exposed to every visitor.
What is the purpose of that key and is it really meant to be public?
The apiKey in this configuration snippet just identifies your Firebase project on the Google servers. It is not a security risk for someone to know it. In fact, it is necessary for them to know it, in order for them to interact with your Firebase project. This same configuration data is also included in every iOS and Android app that uses Firebase as its backend.
In that sense it is very similar to the database URL that identifies the back-end database associated with your project in the same snippet: https://<app-id>.firebaseio.com. See this question on why this is not a security risk: How to restrict Firebase data modification?, including the use of Firebase's server side security rules to ensure only authorized users can access the backend services.
If you want to learn how to secure all data access to your Firebase backend services is authorized, read up on the documentation on Firebase security rules. These rules control access to file storage and database access, and are enforced on the Firebase servers. So no matter if it's your code, or somebody else's code that uses you configuration data, it can only do what the security rules allow it to do.
For another explanation of what Firebase uses these values for, and for which of them you can set quotas, see the Firebase documentation on using and managing API keys.
If you'd like to reduce the risk of committing this configuration data to version control, consider using the SDK auto-configuration of Firebase Hosting. While the keys will still end up in the browser in the same format, they won't be hard-coded into your code anymore with that.
Update (May 2021): Thanks to the new feature called Firebase App Check, it is now actually possible to limit access to the backend services in your Firebase project to only those coming from iOS, Android and Web apps that are registered in that specific project.
You'll typically want to combine this with the user authentication based security described above, so that you have another shield against abusive users that do use your app.
By combining App Check with security rules you have both broad protection against abuse, and fine gained control over what data each user can access, while still allowing direct access to the database from your client-side application code.
Building on the answers of prufrofro and Frank van Puffelen here, I put together this setup that doesn't prevent scraping, but can make it slightly harder to use your API key.
Warning: To get your data, even with this method, one can for example simply open the JS console in Chrome and type:
firebase.database().ref("/get/all/the/data").once("value", function (data) {
console.log(data.val());
});
Only the database security rules can protect your data.
Nevertheless, I restricted my production API key use to my domain name like this:
https://console.developers.google.com/apis
Select your Firebase project
Credentials
Under API keys, pick your Browser key. It should look like this: "Browser key (auto created by Google Service)"
In "Accept requests from these
HTTP referrers (web sites)", add the URL of your app (exemple: projectname.firebaseapp.com/* )
Now the app will only work on this specific domain name. So I created another API Key that will be private for localhost developement.
Click Create credentials > API Key
By default, as mentioned by Emmanuel Campos, Firebase only whitelists localhost and your Firebase hosting domain.
In order to make sure I don't publish the wrong API key by mistake, I use one of the following methods to automatically use the more restricted one in production.
Setup for Create-React-App
In /env.development:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###dev-key###
In /env.production:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###public-key###
In /src/index.js
const firebaseConfig = {
apiKey: process.env.REACT_APP_API_KEY,
// ...
};
I am not convinced to expose security/config keys to client. I would not call it secure, not because some one can steal all private information from first day, because someone can make excessive request, and drain your quota and make you owe to Google a lot of money.
You need to think about many concepts from restricting people not to access where they are not supposed to be, DOS attacks etc.
I would more prefer the client first will hit to your web server, there you put what ever first hand firewall, captcha , cloudflare, custom security in between the client and server, or between server and firebase and you are good to go. At least you can first stop suspect activity before it reaches to firebase. You will have much more flexibility.
I only see one good usage scenario for using client based config for internal usages. For example, you have internal domain, and you are pretty sure outsiders cannot access there, so you can setup environment like browser -> firebase type.
The API key exposure creates a vulnerability when user/password sign up is enabled. There is an open API endpoint that takes the API key and allows anyone to create a new user account. They then can use this new account to log in to your Firebase Auth protected app or use the SDK to auth with user/pass and run queries.
I've reported this to Google but they say it's working as intended.
If you can't disable user/password accounts you should do the following:
Create a cloud function to auto disable new users onCreate and create a new DB entry to manage their access.
Ex: MyUsers/{userId}/Access: 0
exports.addUser = functions.auth.user().onCreate(onAddUser);
exports.deleteUser = functions.auth.user().onDelete(onDeleteUser);
Update your rules to only allow reads for users with access > 1.
On the off chance the listener function doesn't disable the account fast enough then the read rules will prevent them from reading any data.
I believe once database rules are written accurately, it will be enough to protect your data. Moreover, there are guidelines that one can follow to structure your database accordingly. For example, making a UID node under users, and putting all under information under it. After that, you will need to implement a simple database rule as below
"rules": {
"users": {
"$uid": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid"
}
}
}
}
No other user will be able to read other users' data, moreover, domain policy will restrict requests coming from other domains.
One can read more about it on
Firebase Security rules
While the original question was answered (that the api key can be exposed - the protection of the data must be set from the DB rulles), I was also looking for a solution to restrict the access to specific parts of the DB.
So after reading this and some personal research about the possibilities, I came up with a slightly different approach to restrict data usage for unauthorised users:
I save my users in my DB too, under the same uid (and save the profile data in there). So i just set the db rules like this:
".read": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()",
".write": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()"
This way only a previous saved user can add new users in the DB so there is no way anyone without an account can do operations on DB.
Also adding new users is posible only if the user has a special role and edit only by admin or by that user itself (something like this):
"userdata": {
"$userId": {
".write": "$userId === auth.uid || root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').val() === 'superadmin'",
...
EXPOSURE OF API KEYS ISN'T A SECURITY RISK BUT ANYONE CAN PUT YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THEIR SITE.
Open api keys leads to attacks that can use a lot resources at firebase that will definitely cost your hard money.
You can always restrict you firebase project keys to domains / IP's.
https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/key
select your project Id and key and restrict it to Your Android/iOs/web App.
It is oky to include them, and special care is required only for Firebase ML or when using Firebase Authentication
API keys for Firebase are different from typical API keys:
Unlike how API keys are typically used, API keys for Firebase services are not used to control access to backend resources; that can only be done with Firebase Security Rules. Usually, you need to fastidiously guard API keys (for example, by using a vault service or setting the keys as environment variables); however, API keys for Firebase services are ok to include in code or checked-in config files.
Although API keys for Firebase services are safe to include in code, there are a few specific cases when you should enforce limits for your API key; for example, if you're using Firebase ML or using Firebase Authentication with the email/password sign-in method. Learn more about these cases later on this page.
For more informations, check the offical docs
I am making a blog website on github pages. I got an idea to embbed comments in the end of every blog page. I understand how firebase get and gives you data.
I have tested many times with project and even using console. I am totally disagree the saying vlit is vulnerable.
Believe me there is no issue of showing your api key publically if you have followed privacy steps recommend by firebase.
Go to https://console.developers.google.com/apis
and perfrom a security steup.
You should not expose this info. in public, specially api keys.
It may lead to a privacy leak.
Before making the website public you should hide it. You can do it in 2 or more ways
Complex coding/hiding
Simply put firebase SDK codes at bottom of your website or app thus firebase automatically does all works. you don't need to put API keys anywhere
Related
I'm designing the architecture for a college project and I don't know how to deal with the user authentication and authorization part of it. The project is a desktop Electron app which would need two types (hence the roles) of users. They both need to be authenticated in order to use the app, and depending on their identity, they will have different authorizations. Since the project is meant to be used by teachers and students as part of a laboratory class after it is done, I don't think more than 30 people will be using it at the same time.
My first thought was using a PostrgeSQL database in AWS for this and implementing the authentication myself, but this means that users will have to sign up and create a new profile, which means remembering yet another <username/email, password>. Trying to avoid this, I read a bit about OAuth 2.0 and OIDC, and how it can be used to authenticate and authorize users without implementing either of those tasks oneself, but rather delegating the task to OIDC. I created a free account with Auth0 and thought about using it for the OIDC integration but after reading about 40 pages of an "OIDC integration handbook" they offer for free, I could not know if I would be able to distinguish my user base through these roles or tags as I mentioned. I just followed the steps in the tutorial handbook and tried to understand how the auth flow worked, but that didn't give me any information on my question.
So all in all what I want to know is: is it possible to implement this with Auth0 (free account) without having to use a third-party database solution (such as PostgreSQL with AWS)? If not, what would you recommend me to look into? Preferrably a solution that will let me discriminate between the two types of users BUT at the same time taking advantage of the OIDC implementation of Google for example.
There are 2 separate solutions here:
DESKTOP AUTHENTICATION
The 2 standard requirements are:
Use Authorization Code Flow (PKCE)
Login via System Browser
You listen for a login response via one of these mechanisms (I prefer the latter):
Loopback web server
Private URI scheme OS notification
My blog has some tutorials + code samples that use Electron. You can run both of the above listening options and see what you prefer.
API AUTHORIZATION WITH ROLES
You need to make roles available to the API via claims. This can be done by either of these mechanisms (I prefer the latter):
Including roles in access tokens via Auth0
Get the API to read user roles from its own database
My Authorization blog post discusses building up a claims object in an easy to extend way. The main objective is usually for API OAuth processing to result in an object something like this:
class UserPrincipal {
// The technical user id from the access token
string sub;
// The user id from your own database
string userId;
// The user's roles
string[] roles;
}
Given that object you can do things like this:
Use role based authorization when needed
Serve up user resources after login from your application data
TO SUMMARISE
Auth0 will meet some of your requirements and may be all you need in the early days. You will probably need to manage non OAuth user data in your API at some point though.
Happy to answer any follow up questions ..
I could not find such answer. Is it possible to keep analytics enabled for all but disable it for one person? Assuming there are no toggles in an app which user can use directly and I want to do that from a back end only when a specif user requests it.
Well, yes, but it's entirely up to you. If your app loads Google Analytics without it being provided by the back-end, you could provide it in a response, say when the user logs in. The response to your auth endpoint could provide some optional data, something like:
{
"success": true,
"token": "abc123xyz",
"useanalytics": false
}
and then your app logic could use that to disable analytics from the client side, without needing an in-app toggle.
One thing to bear in mind – Google Analytics is not strictly necessary for the operation of an app, and is currently illegal to use in the EU (because it ships data to the USA), so I would recommend that if you want to use it, it would have to be enabled explicitly by the user after appropriate warnings. This probably applies to Firebase too.
I'm using Firebase to authenticate the users on my application but, since the app is very early stage, I would like to restrict the login (or registration) to only users that have a specific code.
It looks like there's no option like this and I was wondering if there's any solution that doesn't involve a back-end.
Right now I'm using a specific code in the database that the user has to enter while logging in. If that code is not correct you can't login. The problem is the function (obviously) is executed on the front-end so a person with the right knowledge could easily modify the code and still access without token.
Is there a more robust solution?
if you truly want no back end, you can see my answer at the bottom here How to protect firebase Cloud Function HTTP endpoint to allow only Firebase authenticated users? , which involves taking advantage of the fact that every firebase project is also a Google cloud platform project and GCP allows for private functions.
however, there is an easier way: just wrap your cloud function logic with an if clause that checks for any of a number of things before actually executing the function
assuming, for instance, you're on the web platform, when someone invokes an HTTPS callable function from the front, it will be sent with data and context objects.
you could check for context.auth.email to restrict to specific users. or you could check for data.mySecretKey and since the check is occurring in your cloud function, no one could inspect your code to find the key.
When store owner installs my app I save access tokens into database for later use. Having access tokens from store is huge security responsibility because anybody with these tokens can modify stores from any domain/address, there is no ip or domain lock.
What method could I use to make this more secure? I was thinking to save tokens offline and then upload it only when needed (in case I need to make some global updates for all stores), then delete it again. In case when merchant access app configuration within admin, I would just save it into session. Is there any better method?
Good question.
I save them in a database as well but I encode them with a separate key from the Shopify App password. That way even if someone have access to the database because of some backdoor entrance he won't be able to use them. That said if someone have access to the code he will be able to figure out how to decrypt it since he will have access to the key.
That said I make sure that each and every request is authenticated before I show any response from the server. Since I'm using NodeJS as the back-end I make sure that there are no global variables that can be accessed or modified from different stores. Everything is neatly scoped in separated functions so that the session is scoped for the current store and no other ones will be able to dirty the other store session.
In addition I make sure that there is a webhook that fires when the client uninstall his app in order to clear my database from any information regrading his store.
I know some people are using sessions for this ( online method ) but they pose other problems that I didn't like so I stuck with a database ( offline ) since that is the quicker way to access the App instead of multiply redirects in order to save the session.
As for proposals I can give you a few tips that I learn on my way while building a few basic Apps. ( I'm not an expert on the subject by any means )
don't rely on any cookies when it comes to sensible information
authenticate every request that comes from the front-end
don't trust the user and validate any input that comes from the front-end
don't over-complicate your setup, while it's good to have high security it's bad if it makes your app slow for the user and you lose customers
look to other ready to use popular solutions that can guide you to the correct path
don't get greedy with the App scopes, only request the scopes that you need for you app
remember to clean up after yourself when it's possible but don't over do it ( too many Apps modify the code of customers and break it only to prevent any way to clean it afterwards ) Example use the ScriptTag API instead of a liquid snippet using the Asset API. If you have to use the Asset API add only the parts that you know that won't break a site. Creating a variable is ok if you are using var if the site supports IE11 creating a variable using const or let is not OK or using vanilla JS is OK but using jQuery without knowing for sure that the site has it installed globally is not OK.
More insights on the matter can be seen here:
https://help.shopify.com/en/api/getting-started/authentication/oauth/api-access-modes
https://community.shopify.com/c/Shopify-APIs-SDKs/Best-way-to-store-shops-that-have-installed-my-app-and-their/m-p/402972
I'm looking to create a game server backend for a game I'm creating. We're currently using Firebase for handling of data and ads, and Firebase has built in authentication. Is it possible to have a user log into our app via Firebase's auth system, then confirm the user's authentication when they connect to the game server to ensure it's who they say they are?
Basically, after someone logs into our firebase, can we use that authentication information for a separate server, and what protocol/method would need to be used (if there's a specific one)
I've figured out the two steps you need to get the information required to auth, one clientside and one serverside. Note: the following examples are for the Java apis, but you can use any of firebase's equivalents.
Clientside: In the Firebase-Auth package, there's the FirebaseUser object. This contains information about their auth state, unique details, etc. There is a method here called getToken(), which will grab your token for the current authentication. Once you have this, you want to send it to the server when you need to auth.
Serverside: On the server, there's a FirebaseAuth object. Once you get the token from the client, you can use verifyIdToken(), which will confirm this is a valid token and give you the details about the user when you get the result. I suggest cross-checking the UUID against one a client sends, to just confirm someone didn't get their hands on a token and send a random ID.
Hope this helps.