I recently received an email from firebase telling me that the rules of my database (Firestore) are insecure so I changed them to the following:
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match / databases / {database} / documents {
match / {document = **} {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
}
}
Before I had these rules:
allow read, write: if true;
After making the change, the emails keep coming back and I don't know what else to do.
I already tried several of the following options given in this link but none of them works for what I need.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/rules/insecure-rules#firestore
I need authenified users to be able to read and create content. So use the rules that I put above.
I saw that in the email they send me it says that people can modify my database, is this referring to from the app, or does it mean that they can hack me or something?
Because the end of my app is that users can create content.
But I don't want someone to hack into my database and delete everything, is that possible?
Thanks
The emails are because the rules aren't really stringent. You should probably be using the following rule, that:
Allows unauthenticate users to read data
Allows authenticated users to create entries
Allows to update & delete entries that are only owned by themselves and not of others.
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Allow public read access, but only content owners can write
match /some_collection/{document} {
allow read: if true
allow create: if request.auth.uid == request.resource.data.author_uid;
allow update, delete: if request.auth.uid == resource.data.author_uid;
}
}
}
Read this article for better understanding. You can also check when firestore flags rules as insecure over here. More importantly, this is the point to be emphasized.
Remember that Firebase allows clients direct access to your data, and
Firebase Security Rules are the only safeguard blocking access for
malicious users. Defining rules separately from product logic has a
number of advantages: clients aren't responsible for enforcing
security, buggy implementations will not compromise your data, and
most importantly, you're not relying on an intermediary server to
protect data from the world.
Sample rules:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /users/{userDoc} {
allow read: if true
allow create: if request.auth.uid == request.resource.data.id;
allow update, delete: if request.auth.uid == resource.data.id;
}
match /posts/{postDoc} {
allow read: if true
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow update, delete: if request.auth.uid == resource.data.user_id;
}
match /comments/{commentDoc} {
allow read: if true
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow update, delete: if request.auth.uid == resource.data.user_id;
}
}
}
This case is mentioned in the documentation. Any authenticated user can write to your database and that also involves deleting data. You are using a recursive wildcard which gives them access to complete database.
Instead try rules that allow users to write their own documents only or something similar.
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match / databases / {database} / documents {
match /collectionName/{docId} {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth != null && request.auth.uid == docId;
}
}
}
Above example will allow users to edit documents where document ID is equal to their UID only.
If you wish to allow selected users to write (such as admin) then you can add a field namely admin and set it to true in user's document in users collection. Then you can read the document data as shown:
match /collection/{document} {
allow write: if get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.admin == true;
allow read: true;
}
Related
I'm developing an app that doesn't require logging in because there isn't any user-specific data. My original plan was to just make my entire database be read only. However, upon doing some research, I found that those security rules would leave my database very vulnerable. My new plan is to implement anonymous authentication for each new user that opens my app and then delete that user once they exit my app. The security rule would be just to allow reading if the user is authenticated. Is this enough to prevent someone from using abusing queries to my database?
Generally, No.
Solely using anonymous authentication adds a hurdle to accessing your database and will protect it from simple read queries as if your database was fully open, but you should combine that with security rules that limit the queries that can be performed.
Assuming we are starting with these barebone rules:
// Allow read access on all documents to any user signed in to the application,
// and write access to only administrators
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /{document=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.token.isAdmin === true;
}
}
}
To tighten up your rules, you should first remove the wildcard entry and replace them with fixed document paths.
// Allow read access on all documents at /posts/{postId} to any user signed in to the application,
// and write access to only administrators
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /posts/{postId} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.token.isAdmin === true;
}
}
}
or even
// Allow read access on all documents at /posts/{postId} to any user signed in to the application,
// and write access to only administrators
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /posts/{postId} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.token.isAdmin === true;
// allow same permissions on subcollections of /posts/{postId}
match /{document=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.token.isAdmin === true;
}
}
}
}
Next you should consider adding rules that limit the size of queries performed against your database using the granular security rule list as described in Securely query data of the Firebase Documentation.
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /posts/{postid} {
// Deny any query not limited to 10 or fewer documents
allow list: if request.auth != null
&& request.query.limit <= 10;
// Anyone can retrieve an individual post
allow get: if request.auth != null;
// Only an admin can write to posts
allow write: if request.auth.token.isAdmin === true;
}
}
}
Depending on how frequently the data is updated, you may also consider storing data bundles on Firebase Storage or you could even serve the data from Firebase Hosting where they can be served by a CDN instead of your application.
I finished making my app and I'm implementing the security rules.
I am currently trying to validate whether or not a user exists in the bank, if he exists, he will be able to read and write to a specific path. I'm using Firestore:
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents{
match /Usuarios/{documentID} {
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid != null && request.auth.uid == documentID;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
match /Manejo/{manejoID} {
allow write, read: if exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/$(request.auth.uid)); // The id is never exist... even when it does exist in my database, this operation simply DOES NOT WORK despite the document with the Uid existing in the database
}
}
}
Edit1:
match /Manejo/{manejoID} {
allow write, read: if true;
}
This condition not work too...
You need to declare in which collection you want to check the existence of the doc with docId == userId
With
allow write, read: if exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/$(request.auth.uid));
you don't declare the collection.
Look at the following example in the doc, which checks for the existence of the doc with docId == userId in the users collection. See how /users/ is added right after $(database)/documents.
allow create: if request.auth != null && exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid))
I understand that want to check the existence of the doc in the Usuarios collection. If this assumption is correct, do as follows:
allow write, read: if exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/Usuarios/$(request.auth.uid));
Note that you may be interested by this Firebase blog post.
I'm trying to use a wildcard in my firebase security rules but it's not working like the online documentation describes.
I want to return the entire itineraryList collection but the security rules aren't working.
match /itinerary/{userId=**}/itineraryList/{doc} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid == userId;
allow write: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
What is the correct syntax here to give authenticated users access to the entire list?
Update following your comments:
If you want to give read access to any authenticated user to all documents under the itinerary collection (including sub-collections), do as follows:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /itinerary/{docId=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
//possibly add another rule for write
}
}
Initial answer:
This is because by doing {userId=**} you are using the "recursive wildcard syntax", see https://firebase.google.com/docs/firestore/security/rules-structure#recursive_wildcards. It will correspond to the "entire matching path segment".
You should do:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /itinerary/{userId}/itineraryList/{doc} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid == userId;
allow write: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
}
}
You may also watch this official Firebase video about Firestore security rules, it explains this point, among others: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW5MdE3ZcAw
This documentation page: Writing conditions for Cloud Firestore Security Rules, says the following:
Another common pattern is to make sure users can only read and write their own data
And provides this example:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Make sure the uid of the requesting user matches name of the user
// document. The wildcard expression {userId} makes the userId variable
// available in rules.
match /users/{userId} {
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid == userId;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
}
}
I don't understand why the create rule is not defined with the same condition as the rest, if request.auth.uid == userId, but instead is defined with if request.auth.uid != null. As I understand it, with this rule any user can create any document inside users, but cannot do anything with it unless it matches his uid. So why allow it at all?
Let's talk about the very basic security rule that could be implemented (with user authentication):
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
where any user can delete the documents of another people creation. So to restrict/control it, we implement as shown in the code snippet provided.
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Make sure the uid of the requesting user matches name of the user
// document. The wildcard expression {userId} makes the userId variable
// available in rules.
match /users/{userId} {
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid == userId;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
}
}
The code snippet is just an example use case that uses different conditions for reference purposes as this is a tutorial/guide, so the Firebase team try to fit as many possible conditions to the code snippet.
You can, of course, do allow create: if request.auth.uid == userId; to strictly restricted to that particular user.
I hope it gives you some idea!
I want to write a rule like this:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /users/{userId}/{document=**} {
allow read, write: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
}
}
That is, I want to allow all read and write operations to all of a user's data if that user is the authenticated user.
Unfortunately that does not work. I get an error specifying that I don't have permission to access the data.
This code solved the problem:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /users/{userId} {
allow read, write: if request.auth.uid == userId;
match /{document=**} {
allow read, write: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
}
}
}
I think it's because you need to grant access to /users/{userId}, as well as /users/{userId}/{anyDoc=**}.
From the official documentation:
Another common pattern is to make sure users can only read and write
their own data:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Make sure the uid of the requesting user matches name of the user
// document. The wildcard expression {userId} makes the userId variable
// available in rules.
match /users/{userId} {
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid == userId;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
}
}
If your app uses Firebase Authentication, the request.auth variable
contains the authentication information for the client requesting
data.
Please note that this only works if you have made a 'users' table in your database and populated it with users that are known to your application (possibly copied from FireBase's users section Authentication/users in the webconsole).
AfaIcs you cannot refer to the Firestore authenticated users table this way. I found this lack of information very confusing since all examples and Firestore documentation make you believe that you can access the users created through the webconsole this way, invariably resulting in an 'access denied' messages when trying to read from a users table...