I am planning to use Django's comment system (with the threadedcomments app).
Since I only allow registered users to post, the mandatory user/url/email fields are not needed (just want a ForeignKey(User)).
I have a feeling I am not the first (nor the 1000th) to do this, can anyone point me to any implementations ?
I think this is what you need.
http://api.rst2a.com/1.0/rst2/html?uri=http%3A//django-threadedcomments.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/docs/api.txt&style=zope
FreeThreadedCommentFreeThreadedComment is better suited for allowing just about anyone to post comments on an item. Instead of being associated with a particular user, instead it asks for some additional information like name and e-mail.
ThreadedComment
ThreadedComment is useful for allowing registered users to comment. It is for this reason that there is a required foreign key to User.
Related
If I display user_id that represents each unique user in the db as an atrribute in an HTML element, is that good practice? Because I need the reference to the user if I want to perform an action on that particular user such as adding him to be my friend.
Example in HTML:
<div data-user-id='12' onclick=addFriend(12)>
Click to add John as your friend
</div>
Where 12 is John's actual user id in the db. From a security perspective, is it secure to do this?
it's never a problem to display the user id, actually, it's more secure than showing the username which could be used for logins, but a better solution is to display an id that could be set or changed by the user himself, look for facebook design for reference.
In this case, you want the user to be able to set his public id, and you use this public id to identify the user externally, then you map it to the actual user id internally in the back end.
anyway, all of this is not relevant for an abstract case, to decide how secure it's you need to consider the other security design elements of your application, the main question is always what can a malicious user do by knowing the actual user id?
As usual....it's complicated.
It all depends on how attractive your site is to hackers (and therefore how much effort they're going to invest), and how secure the rest of your solution is.
The first step in an organized attack is to find out as much as possible about your website. Your current solution leaks information. Knowing that users are identified by an integer may be useful (some database engines are more likely to use integers rather than GUIDs). It may help attackers guess other keys. By guessing sequential user IDs, they can find out how many users you have.
Once the attacker has found out all this information, they will use it to try and penetrate your application. The more information they have, the easier it is to create a plan. An individual piece of information may not be useful, but when you put it together with other snippets, it may reveal something useful.
So, no, there's no obvious major risk in this design by itself. It may be part of a wider attack, though, and it could be the bit of information that exposes some other flaw.
In an ideal RESTful API that supports multiple accounts, should each resource have it's unique identifier across the entire system, or it is OK if that identifier is unique for the specific account that it belongs to.
Are there any pros and cons for each scenario?
To give an example.
Would this be fine from the REST principles?
http://api.example.com/account/1/users/1
...
http://api.example.com/account/50/users/1
or would this approach be recommended?
http://api.example.com/account/1/users/{UNIQUE_IDENTIFIER}
...
http://api.example.com/account/50/users/{ANOTHER_UNIQUE_IDENTIFIER}
You reveal valid user numbers by always having the first user as 1. Someone then knows that any account will also have a user 1. I'm not saying that you should hide user IDs just through obscurity but why make it easy for someone to find the user IDs in another account?
All that really matters is that each resource has a unique identifier. Both of your examples accomplish that, so you seem to be okay (RESTfully speaking)
I don't see any compelling reason to use one over the other. I'd choose whatever makes more sense for your implementation.
Since, from the perspective of an external system using your REST API, the entire address should be considered to be the "identifier" for that resource object, so your first example is fine.
Currently I am developing an API and within that API I want the signed in users to be able to like/unlike or favorite/unfavorite two resources.
My "Like" model (it's a Ruby on Rails 3 application) is polymorphic and belongs to two different resources:
/api/v1/resource-a/:id/likes
and
/api/v1/resource-a/:resource_a_id/resource-b/:id/likes
The thing is: I am in doubt what way to choose to make my resources as RESTful as possible. I already tried the next two ways to implement like/unlike structure in my URL's:
Case A: (like/unlike being the member of the "resource")
PUT /api/v1/resource/:id/like maps to Api::V1::ResourceController#like
PUT /api/v1/resource/:id/unlike maps to Api::V1::ResourceController#unlike
and case B: ("likes" is a resource on it's own)
POST /api/v1/resource/:id/likes maps to Api::V1::LikesController#create
DELETE /api/v1/resource/:id/likes maps to Api::V1::LikesController#destroy
In both cases I already have a user session, so I don't have to mention the id of the corresponding "like"-record when deleting/"unliking".
I would like to know how you guys have implemented such cases!
Update April 15th, 2011: With "session" I mean HTTP Basic Authentication header being sent with each request and providing encrypted username:password combination.
I think the fact that you're maintaining application state on the server (user session that contains the user id) is one of the problems here. It's making this a lot more difficult than it needs to be and it's breaking a REST's statelessness constraint.
In Case A, you've given URIs to operations, which again is not RESTful. URIs identify resources and state transitions should be performed using a uniform interface that is common to all resources. I think Case B is a lot better in this respect.
So, with these two things in mind, I'd propose something like:
PUT /api/v1/resource/:id/likes/:userid
DELETE /api/v1/resource/:id/likes/:userid
We also have the added benefit that a user can only register one 'Like' (they can repeat that 'Like' as many times as they like, and since the PUT is idempotent it has the same result no matter how many times it's performed). DELETE is also idempotent, so if an 'Unlike' operation is repeated many times for some reason then the system remains in a consistent state. Of course you can implement POST in this way, but if we use PUT and DELETE we can see that the rules associated with these verbs seem to fit our use-case really well.
I can also imagine another useful request:
GET /api/v1/resource/:id/likes/:userid
That would return details of a 'Like', such as the date it was made or the ordinal (i.e. 'This was the 50th like!').
case B is better, and here have a good sample from GitHub API.
Star a repo
PUT /user/starred/:owner/:repo
Unstar a repo
DELETE /user/starred/:owner/:repo
You are in effect defining a "like" resource, a fact that a user resource likes some other resource in your system. So in REST, you'll need to pick a resource name scheme that uniquely identifies this fact. I'd suggest (using songs as the example):
/like/user/{user-id}/song/{song-id}
Then PUT establishes a liking, and DELETE removes it. GET of course finds out if someone likes a particular song. And you could define GET /like/user/{user-id} to see a list of the songs a particular user likes, and GET /like/song/{song-id} to see a list of the users who like a particular song.
If you assume the user name is established by the existing session, as #joelittlejohn points out, and is not part of the like resource name, then you're violating REST's statelessness constraint and you lose some very important advantages. For instance, a user can only get their own likes, not their friends' likes. Also, it breaks HTTP caching, because one user's likes are indistinguishable from another's.
I want to track unique referrals, something that is not easily cheated.. I'll present a use case to better present my problem:
If I put a link on twitter, and someone clicked the link. I have no way to know that the clicker is unique. Maybe he clicked the link before or maybe he changed his ip by using something like proxy or he's using a wifi that have dynamic ip.
I need a way to find unique users to my system. That is not easily cheated..
There is no way to 100% guarantee the user is unique. Checking for a cookie can be used but it is super easy for a user to delete. Checking IP address is slightly better but as you have already mentioned, it is also fairly easy to get around.
Requiring a user to register before it counts is currently the best way to ensure unique visitors. How solid it is depends on what you require of the user in order to register. Requiring user to validate registration through a code sent in an email greatly helps. Requiring personal information like credit card, ss#, etc.. helps even more, though it depends on your site as to whether you can realistically expect that sort of information from them.
Other than that...sorry, there is no other way. As Brad said, "welcome to the internet" :)
Struggling with a decision on how best to handle Client-level authentication with the following model hierarchy:
Client -> Store -> Product (Staff, EquipmentItem, etc.)
...where Client hasMany Stores, Store hasMany Products(hasMany Staff, hasMany EquipmentItem, etc.)
I've set up a HABTM relationship between User and Client, which is straightforward and accessible through the Auth session or a static method on the User model if necessary (see afterFind description below).
Right now, I'm waffling between evaluating the results in each model's afterFind callback, checking for relationship to Client based on the model I'm querying against the Clients that the current User is a member of. i.e. if the current model is Client, check the id; if the current model is a Store, check Store.clientid, and finally if Product, get parent Store from Item.storeid and check Store.clientid accordingly.
However, to keep in line with proper MVC, I return true or false from the afterFind, and then have to check the return from the calling action -- this is ok, but I have no way I can think of to determine if the Model->find (or Model->read, etc.) is returning false because of invalid id in the find or because of Client permissions in the afterFind; it also means I'd have to modify every action as well.
The other method I've been playing with is to evaluate the request in app_controller.beforeFilter and by breaking down the request into controller/action/id, I can then query the appropriate model(s) and eval the fields against the Auth.User.clients array to determine whether User has access to the requested Client. This seems ok, but doesn't leave me any way (afaik) to handle /controller/index -- it seems logical that the index results would reflect Client membership.
Flaws in both include a lengthy list of conditional "rules" I need to break down to determine where the current model/action/id is in the context of the client. All in all, both feel a little brittle and convoluted to me.
Is there a 3rd option I'm not looking at?
This sounds like a job for Cake ACL. It is a bit of a learning curve, but once you figure it out, this method is very powerful and flexible.
Cake's ACLs (Access Control Lists) allow you to match users to controllers down to the CRUD (Create Read Update Delete) level. Why use it?
1) The code is already there for you to use. The AuthComponent already has it built in.
2) It is powerful and integrated to allow you to control permissions every action in your site.
3) You will be able to find help from other cake developers who have already used it.
4) Once you get it setup the first time, it will be much easier and faster to implement full site permissions on any other application.
Here are a few links:
http://bakery.cakephp.org/articles/view/how-to-use-acl-in-1-2-x
http://book.cakephp.org/view/171/Access-Control-Lists
http://blog.jails.fr/cakephp/index.php?post/2007/08/15/AuthComponent-and-ACL
Or you could just google for CakePHP ACL