Hello I have rules for the folder /posts/media/{userId}/{media} like the following:
service firebase.storage {
match /b/{bucket}/o {
match /{allPath=**} {
allow read, create, write;
}
match /posts/media {
allow create: if request.auth != null && request.resource.size < 10 * 1024 * 1024
&& request.resource.contentType.matches('(image|video)/.*');
match /{userId}/{allPaths=**} {
allow create, write: if request.auth.uid == userId && request.resource.size < 10 * 1024 * 1024
&& request.resource.contentType.matches('(image|video)/.*');
}
}
}
}
The file size of 10MB is not enforced. Users can easily post videos of several times the limit of 10MB.
Any help?
Thank you,
Michel
This rules is allowing unrestricted read and write access to your entire storage bucket:
match /{allPath=**} {
allow read, create, write;
}
If you don't want that behavior, then remove that rule. Its permissiveness is going to override all other rules. You can't narrow the scope of access granted by another rule. If any rule allows access to a file, that can't be changed by another rule.
Related
Now that firebase has forced using rules scrambling to find the right solution here.
I have all images in the main bucket and every user once logged in has something like
bucket
users/{uid}/uploads
where all there uploaded photos go (would be cool to restrict to images at some point)
these should be public read and write, if write can be only for the authenticated user even better, but auth to read is necessary.
there is a special folder before a user is authenticated and need upload a profile pic
users/uploads
which should be read write to the public here is what i have but the second rule takes precedence
service firebase.storage {
match /b/{bucket}/o {
match /users {
match /uploads {
match /object {
allow read, write
}
}
}
match /{allPaths=**} {
allow read, write: if request.auth != null
}
}
}
I'm thinking it probably needs to be a not /users/uploads forthen then do do this but the documentation is bad for if else statements. any thoughts?
EDIT: this rule set works for reading correctly but still can't write when unauthenticated during sign up
service firebase.storage {
match /b/{bucket}/o {
// Allow only authenticated users to upload
// Any user can read
match /users/uploads {
allow read, write;
}
// Only allow user with auth.uid == uid to read/write
match /users/{uid}/uploads {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth.uid == uid;
}
}
}
You can try the following rules that'll restrict access to user's own directory and also have a public folder:
rules_version="2";
service firebase.storage {
match /b/{bucket}/o {
// Allow only authenticated users to upload
// Any user can read
match /users/uploads {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth != null;
}
// Only allow user with auth.uid == uid to read/write
match /users/{uid}/uploads {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if request.auth.uid == uid;
}
}
}
Do note that if request.auth != null; allows everyone write (including delete) so try using allow create: only.
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;
}
I have a collection structure like this.
products {
123456 : {
stock_qty : (Number)
}
}
I want to validate stock quantity to be positive. I have applied following firebase security rule.
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /{document=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
match /products/{document=**}{
allow write: if request.resource.data.stock_qty > 0;
}
}
}
But Still I am able to add products with negative stock_qty.
what I am doing wrong here?
You need to remove this part of your rules:
match /{document=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow write: if request.auth.uid != null;
}
This allows all authenticated users to read and write your entire database, regardless of any other rules you have defined.
If any rule gives access to a document, another rule cannot revoke that access.
If you have other queries for other collections that must be protected, you will need rules for those other collections as well.
I'm storing images under uid/PropertyPhotos/Property# (where # is incremented as images are uploaded). The uid belongs to the user that posted the image, not the current logged on Firebase user. What I'd like is to allow anyone to view those images. How do I modify the storage rule below to allow that?
service firebase.storage {
match /b/{bucket}/o {
match /{allPaths=**} {
allow read, write: if request.auth != null;
}
// we want anyone to view the property images (no auth, publicy readable)
match /{uid}/PropertyPhotos {
allow read;
}
}
}
In order for me to get Fastly working with firebase storage I had to add the following permissions on each image and the storage bucket: Entity: User, Name: AllUsers, Access: Reader. Is there a way to avoid this tedious and unscalable method, since its all user uploaded media?
My firebase storage security looks like the following:
service firebase.storage {
match /b/myapp.appspot.com/o {
match /proUsers/{userId}/{allPaths=**} {
allow read, write: if request.auth.uid == userId || request.resource.size < 2 * 1024 * 1024 || request.resource.contentType.matches('image/png') || request.resource.contentType.matches('image/jpeg');
}
}
}
the error I receive on fastly is that: Anonymous users does not have storage.objects.list access to bucket and if I try to access image directly I get the error: Anonymous users does not have storage.objects.get access to object
Where do I allow for anonymous users to have read capabilities? I assumed setting allow read did precisely this.
To allow anonymous users to read from your database (but not write) you can change your rules to this:
service firebase.storage {
match /b/myapp.appspot.com/o {
match /proUsers/{userId}/{allPaths=**} {
allow write: if request.auth.uid == userId || request.resource.size < 2 * 1024 * 1024 || request.resource.contentType.matches('image/png') || request.resource.contentType.matches('image/jpeg');
allow read;
}
}
}