Firestore Rules: validate data does not have field - firebase

So I currently have two roles for all users: isAdmin and isReader.
An Admin is allowed to read and write data and an Reader is allowed to read data.
When someone creates an account he has no rights. Not even isReader. Only an Admin can change rules.
This is how I planned to do it:
Once someone creates an account I create an Document in the Users Collection like this:
uid: user.uid,
email: user.email,
role: {
isAdmin: false,
isReader: false,
}
On each login I update 'email' and uid but keep role untouched. To secure this behaviour I have these rules:
match /Users/{userId} {
allow read: if isOwner(userId) || isAdmin();
allow create: if request.resource.data.hasAll(['uid', 'email', 'role']) && request.resource.data.role.isAdmin == false && request.resource.data.role.isReader == false;
allow update: if resource.data.role == null || isAdmin();
}
function isAdmin() {
return getUserData().role.isAdmin == true;
}
I think I have 2 errors:
for some reason the data.hasAll(['uid', 'email', 'role']) does not work. When I remove this part the create rule works as planned.
resource.data.role == null does not work. I intend to check if the data contains any updates for role because I can't allow it is it doesn't come from an Admin. But for some reason it does not work.
Any Ideas what I'm doing wrong? Also is my strategy save or is there a way someone could "hack" himself Reader or Admin rights?

This looks like it may be a good use case for custom auth claims. You can set specific roles on a user within a secured environment, as shown in this codelab. Below is an example of setting a custom claim in your server. You can even use Cloud Functions for this. I recommend you check out the full code of the Codelab so you can see how to ensure not just anyone can request custom claims be added to their user.
admin.auth().setCustomUserClaims(uid, {Admin: true}).then(() => {
// The new custom claims will propagate to the user's ID token the
// next time a new one is issued.
});
Then you can check for those roles on the user in your security rules.
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /Users/{userId} {
allow read: if request.auth.token.Owner == true || request.auth.token.Admin == true;
allow create: request.auth.uid == userId &&
request.resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid &&
request.resource.data.email != null;
allow update: request.auth.uid == userId || request.auth.token.Admin == true;
}
}
}
Notice all the rules about "role" have been removed because they're no longer needed. Let me know if you have questions about implementation because I'm trying to make some more content around this since it's such a common problem.

request.resource.data.hasAll(['uid', 'email', 'role']) does not work, because request.resource.data is a Map and not a List. You should use keys() to create a List from the Map and ensure certain keys exist.
In regards to your second issue, you should just check whether there is a write to roles: allow update: if !('roles' in request.writeFields) || isAdmin();. This will ensure that any updates to roles will fail unless a user is an Admin.
About your security question; I see a couple issues. The first is anyone can create unlimited users which also means that any Admin can create unlimited other Admin accounts. To stop this from happening, I would add another section to the allow create that restricts creation to the user:
allow create: if userId == request.resource.data.uid
&& request.auth.uid == request.resource.data.uid
&& request.resource.data.hasAll(['uid', 'email', 'role'])
&& request.resource.data.role.isAdmin == false
&& request.resource.data.role.isReader == false;`
The second is anyone can change their uid and try to impersonate someone else. Obviously this doesn't change the uid associated to their Auth Token, but depending on how you write the rest of your rules, the backend security, or even the frontend display, someone could use that flaw to exploit your code or another user (potentially an Admin). You can ensure no one changes their uid by checking whether it is in the writeFields (you will also need the previous security solution to also ensure they don't impersonate during creation).
allow update: if !('uid' in request.writeFields)
&& (!('roles' in request.writeFields) || isAdmin());
I hope this helps.

Related

Security rule for an object within a document

I have the following collections
/companies
/users
Within the user document I have a companyUuid to reference its company membership and an object called permissions that has two attributes:
{
admin : true|false
superAdmin: true | false
}
My app logic is as follows:
Superadmins can do anything, including granting superadmin or admin permission to other users
Admins can only grant admin access to other users with the same companyUuid
Non-admins cannot grant any admin permissions
Admins should not remove admin permissions on themselves.
My concern is, given that I store the permissions within the user document, how do I effectively prevent non-Admins from writing to their permissions object while also allowing them to edit the fields within the user document?
I have some code here, it looks way too complicated I think, there has to be a simpler way. I would greatly appreciate if you point me in the right direction:
match /users/{userUuid} {
allow read: if request.auth != null && belongsToSameCompany()
function areAdminPermissionsIntact(){
return request.resource.permissions.admin == resource.permissions.admin
}
function areSuperAdminPermissionsIntact(){
return request.resource.permissions.superAdmin == resource.permissions.superAdmin
}
function isNotTheSameUser(){
return resource.data.uuid != request.auth.uid
}
function belongsToSameCompany(){
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.companyUuid == resource.data.companyUuid
}
allow write: if request.auth != null
&&
(areAdminPermissionsIntact() || areAdminPermissionsIntact() == false && resource.data.permissions.admin == true && isNotTheSameUser() && belongsToSameCompany())
&&
(areSuperAdminPermissionsIntact() || areSuperAdminPermissionsIntact() == false && resource.data.permissions.superAdmin == true && isNotTheSameUser() && belongsToSameCompany())
}
It doesn't really get any simpler than this. You have to check that the fields that should not change are not changing, and that's exactly what you're doing here.
You could express this a bit differently using the MapDiff API to check the list of fields that are unchanged between the request and resource, but honestly, it's not going to make this any less complicated.

Firebase firestore security rules sharing data

I have this data structure in firestore where I'm trying to link user to profile then to event. A profile can be shared by multiple users and should be able to access events for that profile.
user
- id
- email
- name
- profilePicUrl
profile
- id
- name
- dateOfBirth
- owners: [ "user1","user2" ]
- etc.
event
- id
- profileId
- name
- startDate
- endDate
I currently have:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /users/{id} {
allow read, write: if request.auth.uid == id;
}
match /profiles/{id} {
allow read, write: if ("owners" in resource.data && resource.data.owners != null && request.auth.uid in resource.data.owners);
}
match /events/{id} {
allow read, write: if hasAccess(userId, resource) == true;
}
}
}
function hasAccess(userId, resource) {
// Not sure what to put here but basically need
// to get profiles where user is owner
// and get events for these profiles
}
But not sure what to put in the hasAccess function. Appreciate if someone can guide me.
UPDATE 2019/10/11
Somehow I got this to work by using the following rule:
match /events/{id} {
allow read, write: if (exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)) &&
"owners" in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data &&
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data.owners != null &&
request.auth.uid in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data.owners);
}
UPDATE 2019/10/14
I have some permission issues with the write so I had to revise it as shown below:
match /events/{id} {
allow read: if ( exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId))
&& "owners" in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data
&& get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data.owners != null
&& request.auth.uid in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data.owners);
allow write: if ( request.auth.uid in get(/databases/$(database)/documents/profiles/$(resource.data.profileId)).data.owners );
}
What you're trying to do is actually not possible with security rules given the existing structure of your data. This is due to the fact that security rules can't perform queries against collections. The only thing you can do is get() a specific document using its known path in order to read its fields, which isn't going to help you link up documents where you can't build that path.
What you can do instead is duplicate the data required for the rule into each document that needs to be protected. This means each event document needs to have a copy of each list of owners as a field. Yes, that is going to be more hassle to keep all the events up to date if the list of owners for an event has to change.

Firestore Security Rules: Allow User To Create Doc Only If New Doc ID is same as User ID

When users log in for the first time, I need to also call a function that creates a document in my firestore users collection to store their profile data. Using Web SDK.
(I was previously using a new user triggered event with firebase functions, but it was too slow to wait for a cold function to spin up).
Security Rule Requirements
Needs to ensure that the user can only create a document if the document id is the same as their user id (to prevent the user from creating other docs). Needs to ensure that this doc doesn't already exist.
Attempt - Works In Simulator, Not IRL
These tests pass in the simulator, but not IRL.
// Allow users to create a doc if the doc ID == their user id
allow create: if path("/databases/" + database + "/documents/users/" + request.auth.uid) == request.path;
OR
allow create: if /databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid) == request.resource['__name__']
Have also tried this (again, works in simulator, but not IRL)
match /users/{userId} {
// Allow users to read their own profile
allow create: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
Update
I recently had to update my rule set because of some changes to the way firestore rules worked, and changes in how the "getAfter" function works. Specifically, I am now able to use request.resource for data comarisons. Anyways, it appears that I can accomplish my goals with simpler rules now so I thought I'd update this answer and share.
Goals
User can create a document, only if the new document ID matches their user ID.
User cannot declare themselves an "admin", block create / update / write requests if "admin" is a field (unless they are already an admin)
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Allow users to create a document for themselves in the users collection
match /users/{document=**} {
allow create: if request.resource.id == request.auth.uid &&
!("admin" in request.resource.data);
}
// Allow users to read, write, update documents that have the same ID as their user id
match /users/{userId} {
// Allow users to read their own profile (doc id same as user id)
allow read: if request.auth.uid == userId;
// Allow users to write / update their own profile as long as no "admin"
// field is trying to be added or created - unless they are already an admin
allow write, update: if request.auth.uid == userId &&
(
!("admin" in request.resource.data) ||
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.admin == true // allow admin to update their own profile
)
// Allow users to read their own feeds
match /feeds/{document=**} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid == userId;
}
}
}
}
Old Answer
So I figured out how to do this in a workaround way. I also had some additional write / update conditions that prevent the user from changing their permission level. This was for some reason, preventing any "creates" from happening. So I had to mirror the same conditions in create, and the write / update rules. For some reason this was necessary.
This new rule structure accomplishes the following
First Section, for create rule
allows the only authenticated users to create documents only in the "users" collection (during the user setup process, a document is created automatically with the same ID as their user id).
does not allow creation of a document containing the "admin" field, which would suggest they are trying to gain admin access.
it seems that validating the id of the document during creation is not possible, hence additional write / update rules below
Second Section - read, update, write
allows users to read / write / update only documents that have the same ID as their user id (user trying to create a document with an ID other than their user id will fail, also prevents the user from spamming creation of tons of docs by manipulating the client-side JS request.)
does not allow users to write / update their profile to include the "admin" field
Rules
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Allow users to create documents in the user's collection
match /users/{document=**} {
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null &&
!("admin" in getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data);
}
// Allow users to read, write, update documents that have the same ID as their user id
match /users/{userId} {
// Allow users to read their own profile (doc id same as user id)
allow read: if request.auth.uid == userId;
// Allow users to write / update their own profile as long as no "admin" field is trying to be added or created
allow write, update: if request.auth.uid == userId &&
!("admin" in getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data);
}
}
}
PS
This was not intuitive at all, so if someone has a better workaround, please post it. Also, I'm really hoping that once firestore 1.0 is out, it will bring with it some huge improvements to rules and rule documentation.
A little bit late, but I manage to tweak one of your possible solutions and make it work:
allow create: if path("/databases/(default)/documents/users/" + request.auth.uid) == request.path;
Just had to replace the database variable with (default). Yes, not fancy...
The solution i came up with. My tests showed it's not possible to create other user-docs than the own uid and it prevents normal users to change any admin state.
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
function isAdmin() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).isAdmin == true ||
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.isAdmin == true;
}
function signedIn(){
return request.auth.uid != null;
}
match /users/{user} {
// allow updates to own user-doc
allow read, update, delete: if request.auth.uid == user &&
// allow updates to own user-doc if "isAdmin" field is the same as before the update (in case user was already admin)
(request.resource.data.isAdmin == resource.data.isAdmin ||
// or allow updates if "isAdmin" will be set to false
request.resource.data.isAdmin == false ||
// or allow updates if no "isAdmin" field exists after the update
!("isAdmin" in getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data)
);
// allow creation of user-doc with own uid and no others
allow create: if request.auth.uid == user &&
// if no "isAdmin" field is set
!("isAdmin" in getAfter(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data);
// give full access to admins
allow read, write: if isAdmin();
}
}
}

Firestore security rules for specific document

I am trying to apply the following situation :
all authenticated users have read and write access to the database except for admin document.
Admin document is accessible only for him for read and write.
My rules:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
//Functions
function isAuthenticated(){
return request.auth != null;
}
function isAdministrator(){
return request.auth != null && request.auth.token.name == resource.data.oid;
}
//Administrator Identity Check Point
match /admin/identity {
allow read, write: if isAdministrator();
}
//Allow Reads and Writes for All Authenticated Users
match /{document=**}{
allow read, write: if isAuthenticated();
}
}//databases/{database}/documents
}//cloud.firestore
Is there any way i can achieve this, actually when testing these rules, the tests succeed because only isAuthenticated() is being called because of the tag /{document=**}. I also tried /{document!=/admin/identity} but it does not work.
How can I write a security rule that follow this model ?
Maybe on your default user rule you could check if the collection isn't admin, something like this:
//Allow Reads and Writes for All Authenticated Users
match /{collection}/{document=**}{
allow read, write: if (isAuthenticated() && collection != "admin") || isAdministrator();
}
Since June 17, Firebase has provided new improvements to Firestore Security Rules.
Firebase blog - 2020/06 - New Firestore Security Rules features
New Map methods
We'll use Map.get() to get the "roleToEdit" field. If the document doesn't have the field, it will default to the "admin" role. Then we'll compare that to the role that's on the user's custom claims:
allow update, delete: if resource.data.get("roleToEdit", "admin") == request.auth.token.role;
Local variables
Say you're commonly checking that a user meets the same three conditions before granting access: that they're an owner of the product or an admin user.
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
function privilegedAccess(uid, product) {
let adminDatabasePath = /databases/$(database)/documents/admins/$(uid);
let userDatabasePath = /databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(uid);
let ownerDatabasePath = /databases/$(database)/documents/$(product)/owner/$(uid);
let isOwnerOrAdmin = exists(adminDatabasePath) || exists(ownerDatabasePath);
let meetsChallenge = get(userDatabasePath).data.get("passChallenge", false) == true;
let meetsKarmaThreshold = get(userDatabasePath).get("karma", 1) > 5;
return isOwnerOrAdmin && meetsChallenge && meetsKarmaThreshold;
}
match /products/{product} {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if privilegedAccess();
}
match /categories/{category} {
allow read: if true;
allow write: if privilegedAccess();
}
match /brands/{brand} {
allow read, write: if privilegedAccess();
}
}
}
The same conditions grant access to write to documents in the three different collections.
Ternary operator
This is the first time we've introduced an if/else control flow, and we hope it will make rules smoother and more powerful.
Here's an example of using a ternary operator to specify complex conditions for a write.
A user can update a document in two cases: first, if they're an admin user, they need to either set the field overrideReason or approvedBy. Second, if they're not an admin user, then the update must include all the required fields:
allow update: if isAdminUser(request.auth.uid) ?
request.resource.data.keys().toSet().hasAny(["overrideReason", "approvedBy"]) :
request.resource.data.keys().toSet().hasAll(["all", "the", "required", "fields"])
It was possible to express this before the ternary, but this is a much more concise expression. ;)

Restricting access to Firebase Firestore and Storage

I'm using Firebase exclusively in my app - Auth, Firestore, Functions and Storage.
Within Firestore, my data is structured as below:
/users/<user_id>/<user_data>
/listings/<listing_id>/<listing_data>
<listing_data> contains a user_id field.
Within Storage, my data is structured as below:
/images/<user_id>/<image_id>/<images>
I have the following scenario:
A user must only be able to access their listings
A user must only be able to download their files
A user can can share their name from their <user_data> with selected users
A user can share selected images with selected users
I have no ideas how I can go about this. At the moment, anyone can access anything if they're authenticated, so I guess the first step is to lock this down, and then some how assign rights?
I thought about adding an access list object, and then writing middleware to check this, but it doesn't feel like the correct way
You have to modify the rules of firestore as:
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Restaurants:
// - Authenticated user can read
// - Authenticated user can create/update (for demo)
// - Validate updates
// - Deletes are not allowed
match /restaurants/{restaurantId} {
allow read, create: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow update: if request.auth.uid != null
&& request.resource.data.name == resource.data.name
allow delete: if false;
// Ratings:
// - Authenticated user can read
// - Authenticated user can create if userId matches
// - Deletes and updates are not allowed
match /ratings/{ratingId} {
allow read: if request.auth.uid != null;
allow create: if request.auth.uid != null
&& request.resource.data.userId == request.auth.uid;
allow update, delete: if false;
}
}
}
}
The root of my database is restaurants.You have to replace those parameters with that of yours.

Resources