Firestore per-field security rule - firebase

I have studied the answer to this question (which has an extremely similar title): Per field rules in Firestore Security Rules. The solution in that case was to make a field unmodifiable, I do not think that is what I am after here.
I have a posts collection with a data structure as follows.
{
uid: string, // this is the original poster's UID
title: string,
content: string,
likesCount: number,
likerUIDs: string[]
}
I would like to restrict writes to the title and content fields to users with an auth token UID that matches the post's uid field. However, any authenticated user should be able to increment the likesCount and add their own UID to the likerUIDs field.
It seems like per-field security rules are not really supported. Is the solution here to maintain a separate collection with different rules but the same keys as the posts, for example post-likes, that contains the likesCount and likerUIDs fields? Or is there a firestore security rule trick to achieving this?
EDIT
Thanks to Doug and Frank's comments (extremely helpful video series by the way), I was able to come up with a solution to my initial question. As suggested in the accepted answer, I'm going to do this with a callable function, since it is perfect for this case. For those who stumble upon this question and want to accomplish something similar, I've pasted the rules I ended up with here. These rules accomplish exactly what is described in the question, but a callable function was definitely the way to go here.
function isOwnerCurrent() {
return request.auth.uid == resource.data.uid;
}
function isOwnerIncoming() {
return request.auth.uid == request.resource.data.uid;
}
function isUnmodified(key) {
return request.resource.data[key] == resource.data[key]
}
match /posts/{post} {
function validateNonOwnerPostUpdate() {
return isUnmodified('title') && isUnmodified('content') &&
isUnmodified('created') && isUnmodified('updated');
}
allow read: if true;
allow create: if isOwnerIncoming();
allow update: if (isOwnerCurrent() || validateNonOwnerPostUpdate()) && isUnmodified('uid');
allow delete: if isOwnerCurrent();
}
For updates, I am checking if the user is either the owner of the post, or only updating the so-called "public" fields of likesCount and likerUIDs, and for both they must not be modifying the owner UID of the post. Like mentioned in the accepted answer, this isn't great because anyone will be able to edit these fields and mess up the numbers.

I think it is better to use cloud function to solve this. you can use callable cloud function when that other users (not document owner) like that post. https://firebase.google.com/docs/functions/callable . because cloud function can bypass security rules
I think it is safer you do it through cloud function unless that likesCount is not that important. because if someone can hack your client app than they can modify your code. you will update the document like this
db.doc(`posts/${postID}`).update({
likesCount: admin.firestore.FieldValue.increment(1)
})
if they hack your app, then they can change the increment from 1 to 100 for example. yes you can do the same via security rules but you have to add additional check , and it will be complicated and error prone IMO.

Related

Firebase security rules not working - Can't figure out why

is there some one that knows how security rules for firestore works?
I'm trying to do something like this but it doesn't work (I don't get access to data).
match /contents/{contentID} {
allow read: if get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)/reserved/permissions).data.contents.hasAny([contentID])
allow create, update, delete : if false
}
It seems the problem is contentID since if I do this
match /contents/{contentID} {
allow read: if get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)/reserved/permissions).data.contents.hasAny(["3"])
allow create, update, delete : if false
}
and update the document located in user/reserved/permission adding "3" to contents (that is an array field of the document ) it works. It's like contentID is not converted right.
Can someone explains why?
UPDATE
The client code is just
firestore()
.collection('contents')
.onSnapshot((querySnapshot) => {
console.log(querySnapsho)
})
and it return always null. If I change the rule in
match /contents/{contentID} {
allow read: true
allow create, update, delete : if false
}
it works. So the problem is with the rule
The problem is that security rules are not filters. I strongly suggest reading that documentation to understand how the system work.
Your query attempts to get all documents in the collection. The rules deny that query because it's not certain if the client actually has read access to each any every document. It will not evaluate a get() for each possible document - that simply doesn't scale (and it would be very expensive for you for large collections).
Your client app should be able to get() any individual document where the rule evaluates to true, but you won't be able to perform queries against the collection like this.
The rule is well written. The problem is that the generic query get() on the entire collection "contents" it's not allowed after this kind of rules are activated (and it makes sense since this behaviour is designed to reduce the resources needed for a query)
Read this to understand the logic
https://medium.com/firebase-developers/what-does-it-mean-that-firestore-security-rules-are-not-filters-68ec14f3d003

Firestore: Round-robin access to document in collection

I want to do something very simple, but not sure the best way to do this with Firestore.
I have an ads collection.
Each time an ad is accessed, I want to update the accessed property timestamp so I can just show the ad that hasn't been shown in the longest amount of time.
My security rules only allow users that carry a token with a payload of admin:true to create/modify ads.
So, from within the app, I can't update the timestamp each time an ad is accessed because the users aren't admins.
I looked at creating a function for this but realized that there is no onGet function that would allow me to do this (https://firebase.google.com/docs/functions/firestore-events)
I don't see anyway to allow a single property to be modified by any user.
What would be an appropriate way to do this with Firestore?
You could solve this either by creating a quite comprehensive rules validation where you make a check that all fields except accessed are unchanged. You can implement the admin role concept with custom claims as described in the answer on this post.
Checking that all fields except accessed are unchanged requires you to list and check all fields one by one.
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /ads/{id} {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth.token.admin == true
|| (request.resource.data.someField == resource.data.someField
&& request.resource.data.anotherField == resource.data.anotherField);
}
}
}
Another way, you could do it is to create a callable cloud function that works similar to the Unix touch command. You simply call it from your client for every time your read an ad and you can safely update the accessed field on the post within that function.
export const touchAd = functions.https.onCall((data, context) => {
const adId = data.id;
return admin.firestore().collection('ads').doc(adId).update({
accessed: firebase.firestore.FieldValue.serverTimestamp(),
}));
});

Firestore security rules, restricting child/field

What is the equivalent way of Firebase RTDB's newData.hasChildren(['name', 'age', 'gender']) in Firestore? How to restrict the child/field?
Update:
I have updated my question with Firestore rules and explained my issue in detail.
match /{country} {
allow read: if true;
allow create: if isAdministrator()
&& incomingData().countryCode is string
&& incomingData().dialCode is string;
allow update: if (isAdministrator() || isAdminEditor())
&& incomingData().countryCode is string
&& incomingData().dialCode is string;
allow delete: if isAdministrator();
}
create, read and delete is working as expected. But if I try to update using Hashmap with any unmentioned child, it will update without throwing any exception unlike Firebase Database rules, where we mention all the possible childs in newData.hasChildren([]).
What you're doing right now is just checking if two provided field values are strings. You're not requiring that only those to fields exist in the update data. What you can do is use the keys() method of the data map to verify that only certain fields exist in the update. For example, this may work:
request.resource.data.keys().hasOnly(['countryCode', 'dialCode'])
There are a number of other methods available on List objects to help you determine its contents.

How to make complex Firestore rules work fine with maps and lists?

I am currently having a lot of trouble setting up complex Firestore rules, but nothing worked so far and I would love if someone could help.
This is my root database structure:
groups
user_access
meetings
Where user_access has email address as key, and an object/list/value (more on that later) with the groupId he can access followed by the level of permission.
Every meeting has a groupId (where it belong).
So, I would like a rule to: check if the current groupId value from meetings is in the document at user_access with the current email address as key.
I thought about doing this rule (simplified below):
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /meetings/{meetingId} {
function correctUser() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/access/$(request.auth.token.email)).data.obj[get(/databases/$(database)/documents/meetings/$(meetingId)).data.groupId] == "leader"
}
allow read: if correctUser();
allow write: if correctUser();
}
}
But it doesn't work.. And I'm not sure why.
I tried making a list:
function correctUser() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/meetings/$(meetingId)).data.groupId in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/access/$(request.auth.token.email)).data.list
}
But it also didn't work and I'm not sure why.
The best case scenario would be using a list of objects (a map), key(id),value(permission). Is that possible? Worst case scenario I can use a list for each different permission, or even put all the ids as value (I'll probably never reach the 20k fields limit).
So, I have two questions:
First, how can I make my rule(s) work?
Second, how do I call values from wildcards from inside fields? For example, on the example above with {meetingId}, how would I use this meetingId as a key? (...).data.meetingId? (...).data[$(meetingId)]? I found it very confusing and bad documented. What about on maps? Same thing?
Thanks!
It took me weeks to find out, but what I ultimately wanted and worked was:
function isLeader() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/access/$(request.auth.token.email)).data[request.resource.data.groupId] == "leader"
|| get(/databases/$(database)/documents/access/$(request.auth.token.email)).data[resource.data.groupId] == "leader"
}
There is difference between request.resource.data.groupId and resource.data.groupId which I didn't know and was killing my requests, sometimes read, sometimes write. Glad it works now.

Firestore security rules based on map values

I want to store if a user is permitted to read a document in the document itself, based on the user's email address. Multiple users should have access to the same document.
According to the documentation Firestore does not allow querying array members. That'S why I'm storing the users email addresses in a String-Bool Map with the email address as a key.
For the following example I'm not using emails as map keys, because it already doesn't work with basic strings.
The database structure looks like that:
lists
list_1
id: String
name: String
owner: E-Mail
type: String
shared:
test: true
All security rules are listed here:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /lists/{listId=**} {
allow read: if resource.data.shared.test == true
}
}
}
Edit: It also doesn't work if I use match /lists/{listId} instead of match /lists/{listId=**}
How I understand it, this security rules should allow reading access to everyone if the value in the map shared[test] is true.
For completness sake: This is the query I'm using (Kotlin on Android):
collection.whereEqualTo("shared.test", true).get()
.addOnCompleteListener(activity, { task ->
if (task.isSuccessful) {
Log.i("FIRESTORE", "Query was successful")
} else {
Log.e("FIRESTORE", "Failed to query existing from Firestore. Error ${task.exception}")
}
})
I'm guessing that I cannot access map values from the security rules. So what would be an alternative solution to my problem?
In the Firestore rules reference it's written that maps can be accessed like that resource.data.property == 'property' so, what am I doing wrong?
Edit: This issue should be fixed now. If you're still seeing it (and are sure it's a bug with the rules evaluator), let me know in the comments.
I've chatted with some folks here about the problem you're encountering, and it appears to be an issue with the security rules itself. Essentially, the problem seems to be specific to evaluating nested fields in queries, like what you're doing.
So, basically, what you're doing should work fine, and you'll need to wait for an update from the Firestore team to make this query work. I'll try to remember to update this answer when that happens. Sorry 'bout that!
Whenever you have (optional) nested properties you should make sure the property exists before continuing to check its' value eg.
allow read: if role in request.auth.token && request.auth.token[role] == true
in your case:
allow read: if test in resource.data.shared && resource.data.shared.test == true
, I was struggling a long time with roles until I realized that on non-admin users the admin field is undefined and firestore rules just crashes and doesn't continue checking other possible matches.
For a user without token.admin, this will always crash no matter if you have other matches that are true eg:
function userHasRole(role) {
return isSignedIn() && request.auth.token[role] == true
}

Resources