Currently I am creating a RESTful API for a mobile application. The RESTful API has a number of end points that allow users to exchange personal information between each other. I was testing how secure these endpoints were and quickly realized that if a third party managed to gain access to the API they could easily look up other user's information by guessing their user id or using an automated script to collect a wide range of personal information. This was due to the fact that I was using a primary key that was a simple auto-incremented integer which made it predictable and easy to determine other user's ids. I immediately began looking for something that didn't follow a distinct pattern. I came across UUIDs and decided to implement them with my existing rails app.
Was this a wise decision? I definitely see the upside to using UUIDs but upon further research I found that there were a number of negatives to this approach. Many sources claim that using UUIDs will cause performance issues with large tables. Are UUIDs right for my situation?
My second question is about implementing this in an existing Ruby on Rails application. I made the switch to UUIDs by following this article: http://rny.io/rails/postgresql/2013/07/27/use-uuids-in-rails-4-with-postgresql.html. I ran into an issue with enabling the uuid-ossp extension. I created a migration and put enable_extension 'uuid-ossp' inside the change function. I then changed the existing migrations to support UUIDs as their primary key and ran rake db:drop db:create db:migrate to recreate the database with the edited migrations. This failed with the error PG::UndefinedFunction: ERROR: function uuid_generate_v4() does not exist. I quickly realized that this was because I had created the migration that enabled the uuid-ossp extension after the migrations that I had edited to use UUIDs. When I changed the time stamp in the name of the migration to a date that preceded all migrations the db:migrate command completed with no errors. This felt very hack and defeated the purpose of having migrations. What is the correct way of adding this extension via a migration?
Edit in response to comments:
So a number of comments were made that suggested that I should just be properly authenticating users and checking their permissions before allowing them to view certain data. I have user authentication built into my application but will better explain my situation and why I needed something more than auto-incremented primary keys.
I have a number of users on this application and each user has the ability to create private and public contacts. Public contacts are viewable by everyone using the mobile application. Private contacts can only be viewed by the user who created them. However, a user can share their private contacts with other users by showing other users with the mobile application a QR code that has the contacts ID encoded into it. When the user decodes the contact ID a request is sent to the backend to notify the backend that the user is now an owner of that private contact. This allows the second user to now receive updates from that private contact. This is a large feature of my application. The aim here is to force people to have to exchange these contacts in person and to disallow others from seeing these contacts unless this process has happened.
Implementing this concept proved to be fairly tricky as all users could potentially share all private contacts with any other user on the system. I found this extremely hard to implement using permissions as which contacts a user can view is constantly changing.
Originally I implemented this with auto-incremented integers as my primary key for the contact IDs. It worked but forced me to create a very insecure API endpoint that essentially would take a user ID and a private contact ID as parameters and would add that user as an owner of that contact. Because auto-incremented IDs are so predictable a user with access to the API could essentially loop through a sequence of numbers calling the endpoint each time, pass the sequence number in as the contact ID and add themselves as owners to contacts that hadn't been shared with them. This would by pass the whole process of having to share the contact in person and in large defeats the purpose of having my mobile application.
I decided I needed something less predictable, completely random and unique to each private contact. I found UUIDs while doing research to solve this problem and changed the contact ID in my model to be of type UUID. Are UUIDs the best way to solve this? Should I use something else? Have I gone about solving this problem the wrong way?
Are UUIDs the best way to solve this?
You could use them as a solution. If you do, you should build a new contacts table and model instead of trying to migrate the old model. As well as being tricky to implement, any migration would immediately make existing contact/invite emails invalid (since they contain the old id). Briefly support both models, and retire the old auto-incrementing id model once you are happy that traffic using it is no longer important to your application.
There is still a flaw - your contact share links will now be long-lasting, and if anyone gets access to a contact's id for any reason, and know enough to construct the URL for gaining that user as a contact, then they gain the ability to share it to themselves and anyone else completely outside of the control of your application. This because you are relying on knowledge of the id as the only thing preventing access to the contact details.
Should I use something else?
In my opinion, yes. Use a separate nonce or one-off code model (with UUIDs, or an indexed column containing a long random string - you could use SecureRandom for this) that can grant rights to complete the sharing. When someone wants to share a contact, create the nonce object with details about what is being shared - e.g. the contact_id - and use it to generate email link pointing to a route that will find the nonce and allow access to the resource.
The model doesn't need to be called "Nonce" or contain that as a column, this is just a common name for the pattern. Instead you might call the new model "ContactShare" and the secret property "link_code".
This will allow you to resolve access to contacts using your app's permissions model as normal, and block the possible misuse of sharing links. When the controller with the nonce id or code is invoked, create permissions at that point in order to grant access to the contacts. Then expire or delete the nonce, so it cannot be re-used. I prefer expiry, so you can track usage - this can be as simple as a used boolean column that you update once the sharing request has succeeded.
Note I am not referring to Rack::Auth::Digest nonce routine, which is specific to server authentication. I did not find a RoR pre-built nonce model, but it is possible it goes under a different name.
Related
There is a lot of changing with Data Protection and GDPR. I am not sure which is the right method for me to develop it.
The reason I was looking for advice because of the new Apply policy on account of deletion requirements extended https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=i71db0mv
We are using ROR API. and we have mobile App but we don’t have deletion account, only Deactivate Account cos we need to keep a record on booking history.
I was thinking something like that.
Create a new table “old_user_table” with old user_id, first name, second name, email, and booking slug.
It will allow keep all users who did previous booking. And deleted their user ID in the app. We need to keep all records for booking for audit purpose in the last 5-10 years in the app.
The user setup with this app, the user but never booking, then the user will not transfer to “old_user_table” cos the user booking nothing.
Does it make sense? Something like that? Or do you have a better alternative?
(FYI I’m not RoR Developer but I want to make sure I have better knowledge or better case before meeting with Ruby developers & IOS developer).
That approach won't be GDPR compliant since you are keeping PII in the old_ table.
If you want to keep the old bookings I would replace the user_id for some new random generated UUID that has no link with the real user, and then remove the user from the database.
I can restrict entire controller action access with [Authorize(Roles=...)] however, what about if I want to allow a user to for example look at the data of the other users in their own department (only).
Specifically what I mean is when I give a user the details of another user, the URL will be like this:
myapp.com/user/details/45
And they could quite easily just edit the 45 to be whatever they want. I want to restrict the access if the user the requested is not part of their own company (their company is currently in their session but that can be changed)
I can see a few different ways to do this, but I am just wondering what everyone's preference is based on experience. Here are some options:
1.Change the way access is done by editing the routing. myapp.com/Company/4/User/4' where 4 is a psudoID which references an actual ID internally.
2.myapp.com/OurCompany/User/4' < same but with a controller for ourcompany instead of generically companies.
3. Just check it internally by checking the requested user is in the same company: `myapp.com/User/42345'. My issue is that this has to be customized for each kind of request (users, products, related companies). But this is what I'm looking at right now.
EntityFramework actually has the power to reference the company members of the current user because when they log in I get their company entry and store it in the session. This allows easy access to the members of the company like so:
SessionHandler.UserSession.CompanyTable.UserTable.Where(e=> e.UserID == id).FirstOrDefault();
This seems odd to those who don't know about EF, but basically the subtable UserTable is a subset of all users referenced by the Foreign Key of the CompanyTable, which does indeed return the correct set of entities. The issue with this is that updating the entry in this way actually updates the entry in the SESSION but not inside the DATABASE, which is really bazaar to watch because it means the logged in users can seemingly make changes to the database but infact they are just being saved into the session. (staring at the database whist making these changes confirmed it, logging out and logging in nothing was saved, but db.SaveChanges() was correctly being called, just there were no changes to be made)
First, for the love of everything good and holy, stop putting that in the session. The session shouldn't be used for this, regardless, and it's code smell of the worst kind.
What you're talking about is object-level permissions. The correct way to do that is to limit your queries with some identifying factor of the currently logged in user. Your entities need a concept of "ownership" for this work. In other words, they need a foreign key to some other entity that "owns" that particular instance. Since here you want to restrict by department, that means all your users need to be owned by departments. Then, for situations like this you can do something like:
db.Users.Where(m => m.DepartmentId == user.DepartmentId)
Where user here is the instance of the currently logged in user. By querying in this way, the subset of entities available to the user is restricted by the user, itself. Which means attempting to access a URL with id outside of that set will naturally result in a 404. A 404 is actually the best thing for this, because even though it's authorization based, returning a 403 lets you know something is there - you just can't access it. For a hacker, this kind of information is half the battle. A 404 being returned gives you zero information. It might not exist or it might just not be available to you.
I have a built in QR Code scanner in my iOS app. My backend runs on Parse, and I want the user to be able to pick certain objects on the app and encode their id's into a QR Code and share it around so that users can later scan a QR code, receive the object id's, and query them on the database to later fetch and display them somewhere.
However, what is stopping someone from using a QR scanner outside my app, looking at the object id's encoded into the QR, and messing something up? How bad is it to somehow allow users to see the object id of an entry in your Parse database? Will this heavily compromise security?
I thought about encrypting the object id's but am afraid my app will be rejected by Apple because of not following proper standards. What do you guys suggest?
Short answer: No.
There is no major security risk in giving away object IDs. Unless the 3rd parties had access to your app keys, then there is no way for them to access your data, even if they already knew everything about it. As long as you keep your app keys well hidden, there is no way your users can change anything outwith what you've de
Remember that your object ID's are only unique in the scope of your app (perhaps only even in the scope of that particular class), so when they find the object ID, they don't know if it's your app, my app, or anyone else's app - to them, it is as useful as holding a random set of digits.
The bigger issue I would say is that you cannot set the object IDs, so if for whatever reason that line is deleted, you can reinstate every part of it, but they'll all have different object IDs. This would mean your users running around with meaningless QR codes. Sure you can restore from a backup, but you'll lose any other changes since then. This is why I would never recommend indexing using Object IDs, rather that you create a new column "ID" that can then be changed by you, and then scripting a piece of cloud code logic in the side to ensure it is unique.
Sharing the object ID is not an issue, so long as your app has proper security. Hopefully your app's security does not rely on keeping the object ID secret.
Encryption is fine in iOS apps, so long as you file the proper paperwork. One of my apps uses a very high level of encryption and is available in every country, except France. You just need to file the correct paperwork and it's not that hard to do.
In the Simperium documentation/help section there is the following text:
All the data that is created seems like it must be tied to a user - is
that correct? Is it possible to have data that isn't tied to a user -
say a database of locations or beers?
Yes, though this isn't very clear yet. You can create a public user
(i.e., a public namespace) with an access token you share with other
users of your app so anyone can read/write to that namespace.
It's possible to limit this to read-only access as well if you need to
authoritatively publish data from a backend service.
Is there an actual example with this?
The scenario I have is as follows
My app will have a calendar
The primary user can add and remove data from the calendar
They will want to invite other users to add and remove data, my thought is that they can give them a token, the user can use their email address and this token to sign in
Am I on the right track?
You're definitely on the right track, but a little too far ahead on that track. The scenario you described is a great fit for Simperium, but sharing and collaboration features aren't yet released.
The help text you quoted is for authoritatively pushing content, for example from a custom backend to all users of your app. An example of this would be a news stream that updates on all clients as new content is added.
This is quite different than sharing calendar data among a group of users who have different access permissions, which is actually a better use of Simperium's strengths. We have a solution for this that we've tested internally, but we're using what we've learned to build a better version of it that will be more scalable for production use.
There's no timeline for this yet, but you'll see it announced on your dashboard at simperium.com.
I have a rails app that consists of lots of accounts.
Inside these accounts users can create tickets.
What is the best way to give each ticket a Id that is sequential inside their account?
Obviously managing the id's myself seems to be the initial answer, but this seems to be filled with all sort of edge cases that would cause issues (for instance, two tickets writing down to the DB at once...)
I think you'll end up managing them yourself - I've implemented something similar previously, account stored 'current_ticket_id' and then when a ticket (for example) get's created it is still stored with a global PK but then an observer assigns it a friendly_ticket_id and then increments to one on the account model for the next time round. You can use the friendly_ticket_id scoped to the account via your URLs to make sure you get the right ticket back.