I've looked at a few places, Including this post and the firebase panel
Is there no way to use these api's to secure these endpoints using an api key you create per client who uses your cloud functions?
I'm able to block every one putting a restriction on the Browser key, but I would like to create a new api key, and use that as a way to authenticate my endpoint for various clients.
Creating a new api key, and using that as a parameter in my query doesn't work (don't now if I'm doing anything wrong)
Is there a way to do this?
Option 1: handle authentication within the function
https://github.com/firebase/functions-samples/tree/master/authorized-https-endpoint
Adapt above to use clients/keys stored in firestore
Option 2: Use an an API Gateway
Google Cloud Endpoints (no direct support for functions yet, need to implement a proxy)
Apigee (higher cost, perhaps more than you need)
Azure API Management (lower entry cost + easy to implement as a facade for services hosted outside Azure)
there are more..
The above gateways are probably best for your use case in that the first two would let you keep everything within Google, albeit with more complexity/cost -- hopefully Endpoints will get support for functions soon. Azure would mean having part of your architecture outside Google, but looks like an easy way to achieve what your after (api key per client for your google cloud / firebase functions)
Here's a good walkthrough of implementing Azure API Management:
https://koukia.ca/a-microservices-implementation-journey-part-4-9c19a16385e9
Not to achieve what you are after, as far as firebase and GCP is concerned your clients is your specific business problem.
One way you could tackle this (with the little information that is provided);
You need somewhere to store a list of clients + their API key (I would use firestore)
For the endpoints you want to secure with a client-specific API key you can include a check to confirm the header exists and also exists in your firestore client record.
Considerations:
Depending on your expected traffic loads and the the number of firestore reads you'll be adding, you might want to double check this kind of solution will work for your budget.
Is the API-key type solution the only option you must go for? You Could probably get pretty far using the https://github.com/firebase/firebaseui-web and doing user checks in your function with no extra DB read required. If you go down this path most of the user signup/ emails / account creation logic is ready to go.
https://firebase.google.com/docs/auth/web/password-auth#before_you_begin
Curious to see what some other firebase users suggest.
Related
As the title states, I've gotten this email for both projects I've made public on Github. One is a landing page for a local business and the other is a CRUD app I have on the App Store; both of which are using Firebase as the backend.
Is the API key being visible on Github such a security risk?
I've done some research after following the instructions in the email to restrict my API and have heard that you cannot make web service requests with a restricted API key.
I just want to show my repos for the projects for the application process and obviously don't want anything bad to happen with them by doing so.
Aren't Firebase APIs meant to be public?
If so, is it just my database rules that need to be stronger/more verbose?
If any more context is needed, please let me know!
Cheers!
NOTE: I'm still very new to programming so a lot of this is over my head
For Firebase apiKey in a web app you are intended to make this key public, so you should ignore this email -- see: https://stackoverflow.com/a/37484053/771768
Hopefully Best practices for securely using API keys helps.
I'm uncertain as to what you're doing specifically that's resulting in the email but it is warranted.
Please be very careful with API keys.
As the name suggests, these are like keys in that they unlock access to stuff. With digital keys, the additional challenge is that, once obtained, infinite copies of the key may be distributed (and these are usable until the API key is revoked).
There are (often) other (complementary|alternative) ways to authenticate APIs but, as I think you've discovered, sometimes you are required to use API keys.
In the case where they're required, you should endeavor to use complementary authentication mechanisms too in order to try to mitigate overuse and you should continue to be very judicious in your publication of these keys.
I suspect you should not be including (any) keys (ever) in your GitHub repos.
One rule of thumb is that vendors (like Google) use API keys as a way to limit access to (often paid) resources. If the vendor is giving you a key, they're often (not always) using the key as a way to determine how to charge you for an API too. If you're giving the key to others, you're giving other people the possibility of potentially incurring charges on your behalf.
I don't wish to scare you but I would like you to leave this question being very cautious when using keys even if only this causes you to read up more on the consequences of using them.
We're currently working on our API based on Google Cloud Functions together with Google's API Gateway.
As every customer who buys access to our API should get their own API key, I'm wondering if there's a ways to create those API keys using and API. What I want to achieve is that a customer is able to request an API key in their own settings, so klick a button, this triggers a function, generates a key and shows it to the customer in front end.
After searching for quite some time, I didn't find anything about how this could be built. It could also be that my approach to this is totally wrong - if that's the case, please roast me and give me some advice with it!
Thanks in advance for your answers!
Google credentials can not be created programmttlcy they must be created manually.
In fact, there is something. A while in beta (more than 1 years ago) and quickly back in alpha, and undocumented (or pretty bad)
As you can see in the gcloud alpha command, you can use API Keys with CLI and API. Use this command to test and discover more how you can use API keys.
gcloud alpha services api-keys create --display-name="created by API" --log-http
USE WITH CAUTION
Firstly, I have no update on this API, will it survive or not? The lifecycle and the "no news" from Google is strange and keep in mind that the API can be removed at any time.
Secondly, API Keys is a long lived token and it's not recommended for security reason. But sometime, it's better than nothing, so to use it when no others solution are possible, it's acceptable. Else, prefer OAuth .
Eventually, API Keys authenticate a project, not a customer/user. You won't have it in header data after the API Gateway request forward. Only the Project ID (or Number, I don't remember). Thus, if you want to differentiate each customer/user, you need to create different projects, and generate a keys in each project. Same thing if you implement rate limit on API Gateway: Quotas are per project and not per API Keys.
I have an API that is hosted on GCP (no matter if its Compute Eninge, App Engine or any other) and I want to give access to it for selected applications that run outside of my company. I do not need such sophisticated service like Apigee (it is too expensive also), I just want to distinguish applications that call my API and do some individual restrictions for each (like which endpoint they can call).
As I have done some research I think that Cloud Endpoints + API Keys fits my requirements. I could create API Key for each client (API Key is sent in query, so I suppose I can get it in my backend?), but I am a bit confused if it is "the right/recommended" way. As stated here https://cloud.google.com/endpoints/docs/openapi/when-why-api-key#api_keys_provide_project_authorization it should help me to identify project, or rather for my case application, which is communicating with my API, but it feels like its more dedicated for apps that run within my organizations because it can have access to Google services Apis (like I should not give API Key to someone else outside, although I can even restrict IP addresess which can use it).
Would be glad to hear if someone had a smiliar goal and if solved it this way.
Let's say I'm developing app like Instagram: for iOS, Android and Web. I decided to use Google Firebase as it really seems to simplify the work.
The features user needs in the app are:
Authorization/Registration
Uploading photos
Searching for other people, following them and see their photos
I come from traditional "own-backend" development where I do need to setup a server, create database and finally write the API to let the frontend retrieve the data from the server. That's the reason why it's unclear to me how it all works in Firebase.
So the question is how can I create such app:
Should I create my own API with cloud functions? Or it's ok to work with the database directly from the client-side?
If I work with the database directly why do I need cloud functions? Should I use them?
Sorry for such silly questions, but it is really hard to get from scratch.
The main difference between Firebase and the traditional setup you describe is that with Firebase, as far as the app developer is concerned, the client has direct access to the database, without the need for an intermediate custom API layer. Firebase provides SDKs in various languages that you would typically use to fetch the data you need / commit data updates.
You also have admin SDKs that you can use server-side, but these are meant for you to run some custom business logic - such as analytics, caching in an external service, for exemple - not for you to implement a data fetching API layer.
This has 2 important consequences:
You must define security rules to control who is allowed to read/write at what paths in your database. These security rules are defined at the project level, and rely on the authenticated user (using Firebase Authentication). Typically, if you store the user profile at the path users/$userId, you would define a rule saying that this node can be written to only if the authenticated user has an id of $userId.
You must structure your data in a way that makes it easily readable - without the need for complex database operations such as JOINs that are not supported by Firebase (you do have some limited querying options tough).
These 2 points allow you to skip the 2 main roles of traditional APIs: validating access and fetching/formatting the data.
Cloud functions allow you to react to data changes. Let's say everytime a new user is created, you want to send him a Welcome email: you could define a cloud function sending this email everytime a new node is appended to the users path. They allow you to run the code you would typically run server-side when writes happen, so they can have a very broad range of use-cases: side-effects (such as sending an email), caching data in an external service, caching data within Firebase for easier reads, analytics, etc..
You don't really need a server, you can access the database directly from the client, as long as your users are authenticated and you have defined reasonable security rules on Firebase.
In your use case you could, for example, use cloud functions to create a thumbnail when someone uploads a photo (Firebase Cloud Functions has ImageMagick included for that), or to denormalize your data so your application is faster, or to generate logs. So, basically you can use them whenever you need to do some server side processing when something changes on your database or storage. But I find cloud functions hard to develop and debug, and there are alternatives such as creating a Node application that subscribes to real time changes in your data and processes it. The downside is that you need to host it outside Firebase.
My answer is definitely NOT complete or professional, but here are the reasons why I choose Cloud Functions
Performance
You mentioned that you're writing an instagram-like mobile device app, then I assume that people can comment on others' pictures, as well as view those comments. How would you like to download comments from database and display them on users' devices? I mean, there could be hundreds, maybe thousands of comments on 1 post, you'll need to paginate your results. Why not let the server do all the hard work, free up users' devices and wait for the results? This doesn't seem like a lot better, but let's face it, if your app is incredibly successful, you'll have millions of users, millions of comments that you need to deal with, server will do those hard jobs way better than a mobile phone.
Security
If your project is small, then it's true that you won't worry about performance, but what about security? If you do everything on client side, you're basically allowing every device to connect to your database, meaning that every device can read from/write into your database. Once a malicious user have found out your database url, all he has to do is to
firebase.database().ref(...).remove();
With 1 line of code, you'll lose all your data. Okay, if you say, then I'll just come up with some good security rules like the one below:
This means that for each post, only the owner of that post can make any changes to it or read from it, other people are forbidden to do anything. It's good, but not realistic. People are supposed to be able to comment on the post, that's modifying the post, this rule will not apply to the situation. But again, if you let everybody read/write, it's not safe again. Then, why not just make .read and .write false, like this:
It's 100% safe, because nobody can do anything about anything in your database. Then, you write an API to do all the operations to your database. API limits the operations that can be done to your database. And you have experience in writing APIs, I'm sure you can do something to make your API strong in terms of security, for example, if a user wants to delete a post that he created, in your deletePost API, you're supposed to authenticate the user first. This way, 'nobody' can cause any damage to your database.
Google offers Datastore for the GCP which is the "C" in CQRS. But, where is the "Q" (Query)?
Datastore has, maybe justifiably, two very big limitations to making it a viable query system:
No subtext searching
No sorting on fields unless they've been filtered on
Google Cloud offers an "App Engine Search API", but this is not an endpoint API. It is a library API. Meaning, one must manage the infrastructure around it.
With Datastore, one of the advantages is that I can manage access via rules in a "server-less" way, so that my client app can directly deal with the Datastore (I.e "server-less").
With search API, I must write an application to index my documents using one of four supported languages, expose end points, manage scalability... Defeating the purpose of using server-less services like Datastore if I have to do all this manually anyway.
Does Google Cloud offer something more of a compliment to Datastore in the way of searching, filtering, ordering in a server-less way? Will they?
With Datastore, one of the advantages is that I can manage access via rules in a "server-less" way, so that my client app can directly deal with the Datastore (I.e "server-less").
I do not think Datastore's security model is powerful enough for direct remote client (e.g. web browser) access. Specifically even with IAM for Datastore it is missing record-level permissions. The Firebase Realtime Database with its security rules would seem more appropriate.
With search API, I must write an application to index my documents using one of four supported languages, expose end points, manage scalability
Similarly you can't do direct remote client access to the search API. However the Search API is designed to work with AppEngine, which manage individual machines/instances for you and implements autoscaling based on request rate and response latencies.
Perhaps to get a truely 'serverless' setup you could combine Firebase and Algolia as described here?