I wanna hidden my URL video's hosted on Amazon S3 to prevent people download them.
I saw another strategy (Amazon Bucket Policies) but I think it's too complex for this case.
Is possible hidden that one?
What do you suggest for this problem?
Instead of the video tag in the beginning, you could have a data tag with just an id. You could then reference in this id, compare it in the javascript and inject the appropriate video url. As previously stated, there's no true way to protect it. With my method, people can still use fiddler to see where it's being referenced in. They can also use the browser's dev tools.
Related
At 11:50 in this video the presenter explains how to configure a Cloudfront behaviour to whitelist the CloudFront-Viewer-Country. While I have followed his instructions as closely as I can, this part of the video is the only one where I cannot be sure because he is using AWS's old console and I'm using the new design, which does not have the same terminology - and hence while his example clearly works, mine does not, leading me to suspect that this is the breaking point.
Old console with the CloudFront-Viewer-Country header whitelisted:
My console with what I hope is the same confguration:
How can I know if these show the same setup of behaviour?
When I say that mine does not work, I have 4 different S3 buckets with different images all named the same. These are served via CloudFront with a Lambda#Edge function derived from the example JS function to direct requests to the appropriate bucket content. What I expect is that viewing the image from the European region (via VPN change) I should see one image and when viewing from the US region I should see a different image. I do not.
Implementing a requirement to store images in AWS bucket instead of NetSuite. Since the bucket is private, I have to upload and generate the URL in backend/suitelet.
I tried to include AWS SDK into Suitelet by defining, but that doesn't work.
I want to get to know whether can we use/include SDKs inside Suitelet?
How can I implement a solution for this without using any third party solutions?
How are permissions for the links managed? Can you make them publicly viewable? Remember unless the links you generate are timestamped anyone with the link can get to the image.
In terms of uploading the images check out https://github.com/DeepChannel/netsuite-savedsearch-s3
If you need to keep have each image have a magic link you could use a Heroku app or an AWS lambda. The app would check a hash based on link parameters and proxy the image if the hash is valid. If your images are supposed to be private to a customer this would be the way to go.
If you are using the images generally on a website then just make the bucket publicly readable and use the API to upload.
I'm trying to upload a file using the Dropbox API to Ink Filepicker, but I can't find any documentation on doing things like this.
It's done in the backend using Ruby rather than with the Javascript frontend because it needs to automatically upload new photos (Specifically inside the '/Camera_Uploads' folder) as they're added.
Has anyone had experience with doing something like that? One solution I saw was sharing the file, and then uploading them with the Filepicker REST API, but that seems like a bad way to approach this.
I think that your approach of sending a URL to File Picker is a good one, but I would suggest using a media link instead of a share link. Media links expire after four hours, so they're a good alternative to permanently sharing a file.
In Ruby, the method you want is DropboxClient.media.
I can't seem to find any documentation or reference on upload and sharing images on Google+.
Is this action current supported in google+?
Their moment sharing seems to accept thumbnail url, but I don't want to keep the image hosted on my site once it is created and shared by visitor.
You have a few different options, but I'm not sure any of them are really what you're looking for.
Google+ doesn't really allow outside apps to upload and share something automatically.
As you've observed, the closest you can get is generating a Moment for them to share. And while there are similarities to Instant Upload, it isn't identical. You could probably use a data url to encode and store the image as part of the moment, but I haven't tested this.
Another alternative is to use the Google Drive API to store the image in their Drive space, permit the image to be read publicly, get a link for it, and use this link as the thumbnail URL. Similarly, you might be able to use the Picasa Web Albums Data API to store the image. Both have good, but different, integration with Google+. The former is more modern, while the latter has more features that are tailored for images.
I wrote a script that uses the Google Images JSON API to automatically fetch thumbnails for posts. I'm currently linking directly to the thumbnail (eg. http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTok4m3DWNRv8gxMDTE0bwj8m-jYl2UGdlbc7ig158m0XosD-lcQEIFcg). Does Google allow that?
If not, I should be allowed to download the thumbnails to my server right?
Its all about traffic. If your app will make tons of traffic, they can ban your server.
Anyway, better/best way is to ask them about this subject.
Also this might help you : Google Terms of Service Highlights
I see problems when you download the image thumbnail to your server and render. Images shown in search results might be copyrighted/inappropriate. They are crawled images so the owner can request google to remove at anytime. On contrary, if you cache them locally and render, I see the workflow is broken and you might be rendering image that ideally should have been revoked.
Coming back to hot linking, can you explain bit more on the actual usage context. What API you are using, what are you searching at, do you own the website / posts that you are filtering?
Also image search API is deprecated one. By terms it would be active only for three years since notice.