I'm building a JS client for a set of REST WebServices. The client will be delivered as an embeddable iframe, which should load JS scripts based on user options (license profile, user admin options, etc.)
I wonder what's the most effective and efficient pattern to do that.
At now I have a single "bootstrap" script, which includes the other scripts. I could create the bootstrap script code dynamically (server side), to make it load only the set of scripts required by the user configuration. Anyway those scripts would be publicly available, even if the services are not enabled for certain users... IMHO that's not a good solution.
On the other hand, how to control the access to static javascipt files on a public folder?
I want to avoid to serve javascript code though my code. It would be an expensive overload for the application!
Mmm... I'm a bit confused...
Giovanni
In general, if you wish to control access to a resource based on a business requirement (licenses, user profiles etc) you have no choice but to route all requests for that resource through your application.
However, since you are you are sending the files to the client there is no guarantee that anyone in possession of the scripts is currently authorized or authenticated (license may have expired, etc). As such, you cannot infer that a request to your web services is valid based on the fact that a consumer knows how to call your web service.
There should be very little to lose in making the scripts publicly accessible (since there should be nothing that you wish to kept secret in them). So, in answer to your question, I would suggest authenticating and authorizing any requests at the web service level and allowing the javascript files to be publicly accessible.
Related
I have a static website developed through 11ty (Node based SSG), which contains a Contact form that sends a request to a nodemailer API with the data. Both are hosted on Render, as a Static Website and Web Service respectively, and they share a basic auth password which I've stored in each project as an environmental variable.
The Web Service accesses the variables just fine. However, the static website's event presents me with the error in the title "process" isn't defined, as in "process.env.VARIABLE_NAME" which is how I'm accessing them. I tried including a secret .env file in the project with the same key and including dotenv in the project, but no change.
I assume the nature of the static site is making it so the environmental variable isn't being processed/applied somehow. What possible steps could I be missing here?
EDIT: Although it seems it might be possible for me to do this through methods such as command line arguments (which then get injected into the code during the build process), that wouldn't work for my case since the password had to be secret in the generated source files. The dotenv package didn't work in my case. Finally, I've opted to discard this password-based authentication instead and simply use honeypot fields to prevent spam and CORS Origin headers in the API to control request source.
Your static site is running in a different context than your web service (which acts like a server). Since your static site is run from a users browser, it does not understand node-specific functionality like loading files or accessing your process environment.
Adding your password to your static site would also create a security risk, because a user could just see your password, take it, and run their own requests without any security your site may have.
A usual approach to this would be to create an API of your own that takes in a request from your static site and talks to the API directly or a technology stack that takes the page rendering to a server (like ServerSideRendering). This way, YOUR system takes care of calling the API while your users requests are restricted.
Would there be any mechanism (at least theortical) which would allow to control which scripts are provided to a client? I have splited code into dynamically loadable parts using import('dynamically_loadable_file') but whenever is it called on a client, the file is served. I'd like to perform some security check whether does a user have permission to load the file. I thought of middlewares but those are only for HTTP and executable scripts are served through WebSockets.
Also, if it would be possible I would like to control content of the provided scripts. E.g. I'd like to add or "hide" some functions or variables to the script based on a user loading them. I guess something like dynamic compilation using AST would be required, or maybe there is/would be available something else. I guess that's another level but if there would be some content available on such ideas I'd be thankful.
Maybe it is not possible with meteor at all, so if this is possible wherever in JavaScript (node.js) world, it'd help too.
Thanks for ideas and explanations.
Most client-side protection mechanism can be surrounded with enough knowledge and the right tools.
The most viable solution to your problem would be to use a server side rendering (ssr) library for your current front-end engine.
With ssr your would solve to
allow to control which scripts are provided to a client?
perform some security check whether does a user have permission to load the file
scripts are served through WebSockets
control content of the provided scripts
add or "hide" some functions or variables to the script based on a user loading them
Because all your templates are rendered on the server and only the resulting data is returned to the client.
Some ssr packages for Meteor:
Generic: https://docs.meteor.com/packages/server-render.html
React: https://www.chrisvisser.io/meteor/how-to-set-up-meteor-react-with-ssr (guide with link to a boilerplate repo)
Vue: https://github.com/meteor-vue/vue-meteor/tree/master/packages/vue-ssr
The native Meteor Way
Besides this I would like to emphasize, that you can achieve most data handling through Publications and Methods.
Showing / hiding HTML elements on the client does not add any security if your data and logic are not secured on the server.
If you only publish the right data to the right user (for example using alanning:roles) then it does not matter which scripts you load.
Same goes for Methods: If you are very strict in who (use again alanning:roles) can call a Method then it does not matter, if a user can disable the Router and see all of the "hidden" areas on the client because all invalid actions are rejected server-side.
I want to create a Javascript widget that my users can put on their websites.
The widget is capable of creating audio, which in turn costs my users' money.
For the sake of illustration, let's say that every time a widget, placed on my user's site, is loaded by anyone on the internet (i.e. my users' users), I bill my user $1.
The widget is a Javascript code wrapped around an HTML audio player. The JS code makes a request to my backend API every time it is loaded, and upon receiving the response from my backend API, the player is constructed.
Diagram:
My concern is malicious usage by people who are not my users.
Let's say someone takes the widget's source code they found on a website that belongs to one of my users, and they put it on their site. They will, therefore, use my service but not pay for it. Instead, my actual user will pay for it (assuming I use a public API key as a way of distinguishing my users).
Usually, this is prevented by having a server-side library be responsible for any usages that might spend money. For example, I use Pusher as my WebSockets IaaS, and whenever I want to publish messages, I have to do it server-side, using their PHP SDK, with both private and public API keys.
In my use case, it's mandatory not to have a server-side library.
Question: how do I make sure that API requests I receive are legitimate?
I considered using the hostname where the widget is placed as a legitimacy measure. During the widget set-up, I could ask my users to whitelist certain (sub)domains and reject all requests that don't match the criteria, but this could be easily spoofed by, for example, a custom local domain or a CURL-crafted request.
I understand this may not be possible.
It seems like what you're asking is closely related to the topic of client side encryption. In most cases, the answer would be no, its not possible. However, in this case, it may be possible to implement something along the lines of the following. If you can get your clients to install a plugin (which you would build), you could encrypt your JS code after finishing it, and have your server serve this encrypted file. Normally, where this falls short, is that if you're sending an encrypted file, there needs to be a way for the client to decrypt it. This would require you to also serve an unecrypted JS file which would do the decoding, but by serving the unencrypted decoder you undo any security gained by encrypting your main JS file (the decryption file could be easily used to reverse engineer your encryption method/ just straight up run for people other than your intended users). Now, this is where having those API users (and the ability to communicate with them through means outside of server-client connections) comes in handy. If you build a decryption plugin, and give it to the API users (you could issue a unique decryption key for each user, but without server access implementing unique user keys would be very difficult/impossible), the plugin could then decrypt your served file in their browser, essentially guaranteeing that only users you have given the 'key' to can access your software. However, this approach has a few caveats. It implies that you trust your users enough that they wouldn't distribute the plugin (it would be against their intrest to distribute it anyway, as it could lead to higher chargers if people impersonate them). There are also probably a couple of other security concerns with this approach, however, I can't think of them right now. If any come to mind, I'll edit this post and add them.
apparently, I don't have enough reputation to comment yet, hence the post...
But in response to your post, I think that method seems much better than the one I suggested; I didn't realize you could control the API's response to the server.
I don't quite understand which of the following you mean:
a) Send a JS file to the user, with the sole purpose of determining if the player should also be sent (ie upon arriving, it pings the server with the client's API key/ url) and then the server would serve the file (in which case your approach seems safe to me, but others may find security problems with it).
or
b) Send a file with the JS and the audio player, which upon arriving, determines if the URL and API key are correct, and then allows the audio player to function normally (sending the API key to the server to track usage, not as a security feature).
If using option b, this would not improve security. If your code relies on security that runs on the client-side, and the security system was sent by the same means as the code, then almost without exception, the system designed is flawed and inherently unsafe.
I hope this makes helps, and if you disagree / have more questions, feel free to comment!
How about sending the following parameters from JavaScript widget to API backend:
Public API key (e.g. bbbe3b259f881cfc796f468619eb9d)
Current URL (e.g. https://example.com/articles/chiang-mai-thailand-january-2016-june-2016)
I will use the API key as a way of distinguishing my user and the current URL as a way of knowing which audio file to create (my widget will create an audio file based on the URL).
Furthermore, and this is crucial, I will have a user whitelist their domains and subdomains on my central site, where my users will get their widget code.
This is the same as what FB does for their integrations:
So if for example, my backend API receives the aforementioned sample URL, and the user has set up the widget to only allow URLs that belong to foo.com and bar.baz.com, I will reject the audio creation process and display an error.
Do you see any issues with this approach?
In HTML5, is it possible to create a localstorage that is accessible only to a single webpage?
I am currently experimenting with possibilities of writing self-contained single-page applications, and whether it is possible for users to host them themselves, e.g. on their Dropbox (which has some basic webhosting capabilities for public files) or by running a minimal webserver on localhost.
A user may then start such HTML Applications from various sources in his local server / Dropbox, or be asked to open one from another users Dropbox.
Since all these pages would be served from the same origin (currently https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com), they would all share a single localStorage, which may both interfere with the functionality if names clash, and leak data; E.g. such a page may want to store the authentication token for accessing the users Dropbox account in localStorage, but then any other such "App" would be able to steal the token.
I have to say here, that I am new to HTML5, and may very well be stretching the intended scope of usage here, as I keep running into limitations due to basic websecurity concepts like the same-origin policy – especially when opening a HTML file from a local drive through a file:// uri.
The core intent is allowing users to host their own custom apps in a manner that works across their mobile and desktop devices, by utilizing their existing webservice subscriptions for both hosting and data synchronization rather than moving their data to yet another service.
As stated here, localStorage is scoped by protocol, domain and port, nothing else.
And with this, even by prefixing each localStorage key by a unique page token (i.e. localStorage.set('page1.' + key)), it wouldn't avoid another page from getting those info, so no simple way to avoid information leak.
You can use unique page identifier (or even url) as a key for encryption of stored data. In theory.
We're talking to a 3rd party to include some of their data on a website of ours, they want to do it either through an iframe which I don't prefer because of responsiveness reasons.
The other options they offer is the inclusion of a javscript file which will take a parameter to know what DOM element to put the results in.
Basically this gives them access to the javascript scope of our website in which if they wanted can do stuff like hide dom objects etc.
My question is, are there any security things I have to think off? Can they in their javascript for example write malacious code that in the end reads .php files from our server and get passwords from config files etc? Or is the only thing they can do DOM related?
They could:
Take control of users' cookies, including reading and modifying
them.
Redirect the user to any site they would like.
Embed any code they would like into the page.
They can't:
Access php files directly.
Access any server files directly.
Javascript runs in the browser and not on the server.
You're essentially giving them trusted XSS privileges.
If you can do something in a web browser (make posts, "browse" a page, etc), you can automate it using JavaScript. They won't be able to upload/modify your PHP files unless you (or your users) can.
To the user, you're giving them to capability to impersonate you.
To you, you're giving them the capability to impersonate users.
Can they in their javascript for example write malacious code that in the end reads .php files from our server and get passwords from config files etc?
They can do anything in the JavaScript code you're including on your page for them that you can do in JavaScript code on that page. So that could be just about anything you can do client-side. It includes (for instance) grabbing session information that's exposed to your page and being able to send that information elsewhere.
If you don't trust them not to do that, don't include their JavaScript in your page.
We're talking to a 3rd party to include some of their data on a website of ours
Have them make that information available as data, not code, you request via ajax, and have them enable Cross-Origin Resource Sharing for the URL in question for requests from your origin. Then, you know you're just getting their data, not letting them run code.
Note that using JSONP instead of CORS will enable them to run code again, so it would have to be true ajax with CORS if you don't trust them.
You shouldn't have to worry about PHP files, or config files but stealing session cookies or other XSS-style attacks could definitely be an issue.
Why can't/won't they provide data in the form of an API?