So I read through the example which Apple gave us (CloudKit catalog) and I noticed that everytime you want to write or read you need to put your API token into the script.
Now Javascript is clientbased which means every user can read the API token and can read and write into my containers?!
This code would be in one of the Javascript files
CloudKit.configure({
locale: 'en-us',
containers: [{
// Change this to a container identifier you own.
containerIdentifier: 'com.example.apple-samplecode.cloudkit-catalog',
apiTokenAuth: {
// And generate a web token through CloudKit Dashboard.
apiToken: '<insert your token here>',
persist: true, // Sets a cookie.
signInButton: {
id: 'apple-sign-in-button',
theme: 'black' // Other options: 'white', 'white-with-outline'.
},
signOutButton: {
id: 'apple-sign-out-button',
theme: 'black'
}
},
environment: 'development'
}]
});
Now the question is: am I missing something or is the solution to user a server-to-server communication over Node?
Here's my understanding:
API Tokens are not really meant to be private, and can't be since they're designed to be used in client-side JavaScript. Even if you tried to obfuscate the token in your code, it would be easily discovered by examining the URLs that are called during the sign in process.
The important thing to understand is that they can't do much by themselves. They allow a user to sign in to your container, and then the signed in user can read and write their own data—the same things they'd have access to if they signed in to iCloud on their iPhone or Mac and used your app there.
There's not much of a security concern because even if they take your token and write their own JavaScript, they're only messing with their own data. That said, you can use the "Allowed Origins" option to make this harder to do. (I put it that way because they could conceivably use a browser extension or something to alter the JS on your site. In general it seems wise to treat a user's CloudKit data as untrusted, even when it's coming from the API.)
Server to Server Keys are very different, and have a private key that is of course meant to be private. In that scenario anyone with the private key has read and write access to your public database. As the name implies, this is not something you'd use directly from JavaScript—you'd write your own server-side code that contacts the CloudKit API directly.
Unfortunately, while Apple has a nice red warning when you create a private Server to Server key, they don't seem to offer any security guidance on API Tokens. I'm 99% confident that this is because it's not a concern, and working on getting confirmation for that last 1%.
The init.js runs at client side, in the browser, you can easily notice that from the code:
<script>
window.addEventListener('cloudkitloaded',CKCatalog.init);
</script>
This will disclose the API token to the user ...
But you can always mitigate the risk of dangerous usage on the API token by:
Set "Allowed Origins" of the API token to only the domain of your site;
Set "Sign In Callback" to your URL only;
etc
In short, running in client side will disclose your API token, while it is still OK if you take actions to prevent dangerous usage of your token.
Related
Not sure if the title summarises my question well.
Basically, I am trying to authenticate routes such as checking if user exists etc. I only want to allow
requests coming from my frontend application to be approved, but, since no user is signed in there is no token to send.
Api request -
mywebiste/checkUser/email
This route is unprotected on my backend because no user is logged in.
BUT I want to protect this route, in such a way that it's accessible only from the frontend.
Some ideas I came up with were adding specific headers tag from the frontend and check them on the backend, but that could be easily replicated, is there something more secure like using tokens etc.
I am using React and Node.js
Same origin policy is going to give you some basic protection, but basically if an API endpoint is exposed publicly, it's exposed publicly. If you don't want that route to be publicly accessible you need to add access control.
If you use that route to check if a user is already registered, you could, for example, merge it with the user registration route and send a different error code if the user already exists (which is not a great idea because it leaks which emails are registered on your system).
You can verify that a request was originated by a user (by authenticating him) but you cannot verify that a request comes from a particular client because of these two reasons :
If you include some API key in your client (web page or other), it's easily retrievable by everyone (the best thing you could do is offuscate it which makes things slightly harder but still possible)
If you send an API key over the network it's easily retrievable as well
The only thing you could do is prevent other web pages from calling your backend on behalf of the user, by using CORS (which is actually active by default if you dont specify an Access-Control-Allow-Origin header)
I ended up creating a kind of working solution, so basically, I create a new base64 string on my frontend and attach that to the header while making a request to the backend. The base64 string is different every minute, so even if the header is copied, it differs every minute and is combined with your secret key.
I have made a package so that people can use it if they want - https://github.com/dhiraj1site/ncrypter
You can use it like so
var ncrypter = require('ncrypter');
//use encode on your frontend with number of seconds and secret key
var encodedString = ncrypter.encrypt(2, 'mysecret1')
//use decode on your backend with same seconds and secret
var decodedString = ncrypter.decrypt(encodedString, 2, 'mysecret1');
console.log('permission granted -->', decodedString);
this is my first post so please go easy on me!
I am a beginning developer working with javascript and node.js. I am trying to make a basic request from a node js file to facebook's graph API. I have signed up for their developer service using my facebook account, and I have installed the node package for FB found here (https://www.npmjs.com/package/fb). It looks official enough.
Everything seems to be working, except I am getting a response to my GET request with a message saying my appsecret_proof is invalid.
Here is the code I am using (be advised the sensitive info is just keyboard mashing).
let https = require("https");
var FB = require('fb');
FB.options({
version: 'v2.11',
appId: 484592542348233,
appSecret: '389fa3ha3fukzf83a3r8a3f3aa3a3'
});
FB.setAccessToken('f8af89a3f98a3f89a3f87af8afnafmdasfasedfaskjefzev8zv9z390fz39fznabacbkcbalanaa3fla398fa3lfa3flka3flina3fk3anflka3fnalifn3laifnka3fnaelfafi3eifafnaifla3nfia3nfa3ifla');
console.log(FB.options());
FB.api('/me',
'GET',
{
"fields": "id,name"
},
function (res) {
if(!res || res.error) {
console.log(!res ? 'error occurred' : res.error);
return;
}
console.log(res);
console.log(res.id);
console.log(res.name);
}
);
The error I am getting reads:
{ message: 'Invalid appsecret_proof provided in the API argument',
type: 'GraphMethodException',
code: 100,
fbtrace_id: 'H3pDC0OPZdK' }
I have reset my appSecret and accessToken on the developer page and tried them immediately after resetting them. I get the same error, so I don't think that stale credentials are the issue. My
console.log(FB.options())
returns an appropriate looking object that also contains a long hash for appSecretProof as expected. I have also tried this code with a number of version numbers in the options (v2.4, v2.5, v2.11, and without any version key). Facebook's documentation on this strikes me as somewhat unclear. I think I should be using v2.5 of the SDK (which the node package is meant to mimic) and making requests to v2.11 of the graph API, but ??? In any case, that wouldn't seem to explain the issue I'm having. I get a perfectly good response that says my appSecretProof is invalid when I don't specify any version number at all.
The node package for fb should be generating this appSecretProof for me, and it looks like it is doing that. My other info and syntax all seem correct according to the package documentation. What am I missing here? Thank you all so much in advance.
looks like you have required the appsecret_proof for 2 factor authorization in the advance setting in your app.
Access tokens are portable. It's possible to take an access token generated on a client by Facebook's SDK, send it to a server and then make calls from that server on behalf of the client. An access token can also be stolen by malicious software on a person's computer or a man in the middle attack. Then that access token can be used from an entirely different system that's not the client and not your server, generating spam or stealing data.
You can prevent this by adding the appsecret_proof parameter to every API call from a server and enabling the setting to require proof on all calls. This prevents bad guys from making API calls with your access tokens from their servers. If you're using the official PHP SDK, the appsecret_proof parameter is automatically added.
Please refer the below url to generate the valid appsecret_proof,and add it to each api call
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/securing-requests
I had to deal with the same issue while working with passport-facebook-token,
I finally released that the problem had nothing to have with the logic of my codebase or the app configuration.
I had this error just because I was adding intentionally an authorization Header to the request. so if you are using postman or some other http client just make sure that the request does not contain any authorization Header.
I'm building an app and would like some feedback on my approach to building the data sync process and API that supports it. For context, these are the guiding principles for my app/API:
Free: I do not want to charge people at all to use the app/API.
Open source: the source code for both the app and API are available to the public to use as they wish.
Decentralised: the API service that supports the app can be run by anyone on any server, and made available for use to users of the app.
Anonymous: the user should not have to sign up for the service, or submit any personal identifying information that will be stored alongside their data.
Secure: the user's data should be encrypted before being sent to the server, anyone with access to the server should have no ability to read the user's data.
I will implement an instance of the API on a public server which will be selected in the app by default. That way initial users of the app can sync their data straight away without needing to find or set up an instance of the API service. Over time, if the app is popular then users will hopefully set up other instances of the API service either for themselves or to make available to other users of the app should they wish to use a different instance (or if the primary instance runs out of space, goes down, etc). They may even access the API in their own apps. Essentially, I want them to be able to have the choice to be self sufficient and not have to necessarily rely on other's providing an instance on the service for them, for reasons of privacy, resilience, cost-saving, etc. Note: the data in question is not sensitive (i.e. financial, etc), but it is personal.
The user's sync journey works like this:
User downloads the app, and creates their data in the process of using the app.
When the user is ready to initially sync, they enter a "password" in the password field, which is used to create a complex key with which to encrypt their data. Their password is stored locally in plain text but is never sent to the server.
User clicks the "Sync" button, their data is encrypted (using their password) and sent to the specified (or default) API instance and responds by giving them a unique ID which is saved by the app.
For future syncs, their data is encrypted locally using their saved password before being sent to the API along with their unique ID which updates their synced data on the server.
When retrieving synced data, their unique ID is sent to the API which responds with their encrypted data. Their locally stored password is then used to decrypt the data for use by the app.
I've implemented the app in javascript, and the API in Node.js (restify) with MongoDB as a backend, so in practice a sync requests to the server looks like this:
1. Initial sync
POST /api/data
Post body:
{
"data":"DWCx6wR9ggPqPRrhU4O4oLN5P09onApoAULX4Xt+ckxswtFNH/QQ+Y/RgxdU+8+8/muo4jo/jKnHssSezvjq6aPvYK+EAzAoRmXenAgUwHOjbiAXFqF8gScbbuLRlF0MsTKn/puIyFnvJd..."
}
Response:
{
"id":"507f191e810c19729de860ea",
"lastUpdated":"2016-07-06T12:43:16.866Z"
}
2. Get sync data
GET /api/data/507f191e810c19729de860ea
Response:
{
"data":"DWCx6wR9ggPqPRrhU4O4oLN5P09onApoAULX4Xt+ckxswtFNH/QQ+Y/RgxdU+8+8/muo4jo/jKnHssSezvjq6aPvYK+EAzAoRmXenAgUwHOjbiAXFqF8gScbbuLRlF0MsTKn/puIyFnvJd...",
"lastUpdated":"2016-07-06T12:43:16.866Z"
}
3. Update synced data
POST /api/data/507f191e810c19729de860ea
Post body:
{
"data":"DWCx6wR9ggPqPRrhU4O4oLN5P09onApoAULX4Xt+ckxswtFNH/QQ+Y/RgxdU+8+8/muo4jo/jKnHssSezvjq6aPvYK+EAzAoRmXenAgUwHOjbiAXFqF8gScbbuLRlF0MsTKn/puIyFnvJd..."
}
Response:
{
"lastUpdated":"2016-07-06T13:21:23.837Z"
}
Their data in MongoDB will look like this:
{
"id":"507f191e810c19729de860ea",
"data":"DWCx6wR9ggPqPRrhU4O4oLN5P09onApoAULX4Xt+ckxswtFNH/QQ+Y/RgxdU+8+8/muo4jo/jKnHssSezvjq6aPvYK+EAzAoRmXenAgUwHOjbiAXFqF8gScbbuLRlF0MsTKn/puIyFnvJd...",
"lastUpdated":"2016-07-06T13:21:23.837Z"
}
Encryption is currently implemented using CryptoJS's AES implementation. As the app provides the user's password as a passphrase to the AES "encrypt" function, it generates a 256-bit key which which to encrypt the user's data, before being sent to the API.
That about sums up the sync process, it's fairly simple but obviously it needs to be secure and reliable. My concerns are:
As the MongoDB ObjectID is fairly easy to guess, it is possible that a malicious user could request someone else's data (as per step 2. Get sync data) by guessing their ID. However, if they are successful they will only retrieve encrypted data and will not have the key with which to decrypt it. The same applies for anyone who has access to the database on the server.
Given the above, is the CryptoJS AES implementation secure enough so that in the real possibility that a user's encrypted data is retrieved by a malicious user, they will not realistically be able to decrypt the data?
Since the API is open to anyone and doesn't audit or check the submitted data, anyone could potentially submit any data they wish to be stored in the service, for example:
Post body:
{
"data":"This is my anyold data..."
}
Is there anything practical I can do to guard against this whilst adhering to the guiding principles above?
General abuse of the service such as users spamming initial syncs (step 1 above) over and over to fill up the space on the server; or some user's using disproportionately large amounts of server space. I've implemented some features to guard against this, such as logging IPs for initial syncs for one day (not kept any longer than that) in order to limit a single IP to a set number of initial syncs per day. Also I'm limiting the post body size for syncs. These options are configurable in the API however, so if a user doesn't like these limitations on a public API instance, they can host their own instance and tweak the settings to their liking.
So that's it, I would appreciate anyone who has any thoughts or feedback regarding this approach given my guiding principles. I couldn't find any examples where other apps have attempted a similar approach, so if anyone knows of any and can link to them I'd be grateful.
I can't really comment on whether specific AES algorithms/keys are secure or not, but assuming they are (and the keys are generated properly), it should not be a problem if other users can access the encrypted data.
You can maybe protect against abuse, without requiring other accounts, by using captchas or similar guards against automatic usage. If you require a catcha on new accounts, and set limits to all accounts on data volume and call frequency, you should be ok.
To guard against accidental clear-text data, you might generate a secondary key for each account, and then check on the server with the public secondary key whether the messages can be decrypted. Something like this:
data = secondary_key(user_private_key(cleartext))
This way the data will always be encrypted, and in worst case the server will be able to read it, but others wouldn't.
A few comments to your API :) If you're already using HTTP and POST, you don't really need an id. The POST usually returns a URI that points to the created data. You can then GET that URI, or PUT it to change:
POST /api/data
{"data": "..."}
Response:
Location: /api/data/12345
{"data": "...", "lastmodified": "..." }
To change it:
PUT /api/data/12345
{"data": "..."}
You don't have to do it this way, but it might be easier to implement on the client side, and maybe even help with caching and cache invalidation.
I need to retrieve a facebook page's list of posts (feed) using their javascript SDK, just like they explain in their docs: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.4/page/feed
/* make the API call */
FB.api(
"/{page-id}/posts",
function (response) {
if (response && !response.error) {
/* handle the result */
}
}
);
I need it to be my website's "news section", so users should see it even if they are not connected to facebook.
The problem
Cool, but there is a problem... It returns: An access token is required to request this resource.
Holy cow... I'd like to get some access token for you #facebook, but my app doesn't make use of your authentication tools/plugins.
ANYWAY, I tried with FB.getLoginStatus(); but doesn't work, because the only way it can return an access_token is if the user is actually connected to the application. My users may not even be logged to facebook!
So, ¿How can I get an access_token to be stored into a variable, and later be used to get /{my-page}/posts?
I've already payed a look to this SO question, but it doesn't solves my problem, simply because there are no such "generic tokens".
I've also read https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens/ and that also relies on tokens generated through facebook login methods... So, can't I display a list of fb page's posts in my website, without being connected into facebook, hence an application?
ADD: My app is build with angularJS, I'm not dealing with server-side code. I shall rely purely on javascript methods.
You could either use an page or an app access token, but as you'd be using them on the client-side, neither of them are an option.
See
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#apptokens
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/facebook-login/access-tokens#pagetokens
Note that because this request uses your app secret, it must never be made in client-side code or in an app binary that could be decompiled. It is important that your app secret is never shared with anyone. Therefore, this API call should only be made using server-side code.
I'd strongly recommend to build a simple server-side script (PHP for example) to proxy the request to the Graph API. You could then call this via AJAX for example and load the posts asynchronously (and alse get rid of the FB JS SDK!). There is NO way to handle this in a secure manner if you don't want to use FB Login for all of your users (which also doesn't make much sense IMHO).
I think it's straightforward :)
Since pages' posts are always public, it only needs a valid access token to retrieve page posts.
Quoting what you've written:
So, ¿How can I get an access_token to be stored into a variable, and later be used to get /{my-page}/posts?
You only require an access token.
My suggestion would be;
- Generate an access token for yourself (no extra permission needed)
- request page-id/posts
This way you don't require other users to be connected to facebook, you can simply requests page-id/posts to retrieve posts with access token you generated for yourself.
I hope it solves your problem :D
TIP: As long as posts are public, you only require a valid access token, it doesn't need to be user or page specific.
I am starting to build/design a new single page web application and really wanted to primarily use client-side technology (HTML, CSS, JavaScript/CoffeScript) for the front-end while having a thin REST API back-end to serve data to the front-end. An issue that has come up is about the security of JavaScript. For example, there are going to be certain links and UI elements that will only be displayed depending on the roles and resources the user has attached to them. When the user logs in, it will make a REST call that will validate the credentials and then return back a json object that has all the permissions for that user which will be stored in a JavaScript object.
Lets take this piece of javascript:
// Generated by CoffeeScript 1.3.3
(function() {
var acl, permissions, root;
root = typeof exports !== "undefined" && exports !== null ? exports : this;
permissions = {
//data…
};
acl = {
hasPermission: function(resource, permission, instanceId) {
//code….
}
};
root.acl = acl;
}).call(this);
Now this code setup make sure even through the console, no one can modify the variable permissions. The issue here is that since this is a single page application, I might want to update the permissions without having to refresh the page (maybe they add a record that then needs to be added to thier permissions). The only way I can think of doing this is by adding something like
setPermission: function(resource, permission, instanceId){
//code…
}
to the acl object however if I do that, that mean someone in the browser console could also use that to add permissions to themself that they should not have. Is there any way to add code that can not be accessed from the browser console however can be accessed from code in the JavaScript files?
Now even if I could prevent the issue described above, I still have a bigger one. No matter what I am going to need to have the hasPermission functionality however when it is declared this way, I can in the browser console overwrite that method by just doing:
acl.hasPermission(resource, permission, instanceId){return true;}
and now I would be able to see everything. Is there anyway to define this method is such a way that a user can not override it (like marking it as final or something)?
Something to note is that every REST API call is also going to check the permissions too so even if they were to see something they should not, they would still not be able to do anything and the REST API would regret the request because of permissions issue. One suggestion has been made to generate the template on the server side however I really don't like that idea as it is creating a very strong coupling between the front-end and back-end technology stacks. If for example for whatever reason we need to move form PHP to Python or Ruby, if the templates are built on the client-side in JavaScript, I only have to re-build the REST API and all the front-end code can stay the same but that is not the case if I am generating templates on the server side.
Whatever you do: you have to check all the permissions on the server-side as well (in your REST backend, as you noted). No matter what hoops you jump through, someone will be able to make a REST call that they are not supposed to make.
This effectively makes your client-side security system an optimization: you try to display only allowed operations to the user and you try to avoid round-trips to the server to fetch what is allowed.
As such you don't really need to care if a user can "hack" it: if they break your application, they can keep both parts. Nothing wrong can happen, because the server won't let them execute an action that they are not authorized to.
However, I'd still write the client-side code in a way that it expect an "access denied" as a valid answer (and not necessary an exception). There are many reasons why that response might come: If the permissions of the logged-in user are changed while he has a browser open, then the security descriptions of the client no longer match the server and that situation should be handled gracefully (display "Sorry, this operation is not permitted" and reload the security descriptions, for example).
Don't ever trust Javascript code or the front-end in general. People can even modify the code before it reaches your browser (sniffers etc) and most variables are accessible and modifiable anyways... Trust me: you are never going to be safe on the front-end :)
Always check credentials on the server-side, never only on the front-end!
In modern browsers, you can use Object.freeze or Object.defineProperty to make sure the hasPermission method cannot be redefined.
I don't know yet how to overcome the problem with setPermission. Maybe it's best to just rely on the server-side security there, which as you said you have anyway.