I'm trying to determine if I can use Realm DB for an app I am building and I am stuck on access control.
In the Realm DB documentation it looks like the only way to do access control is through Realms themselves, by either granting or revoking access to an entire realm. The documentation also says to try and keep the number of concurrently open and syncing realms to about 12. I am trying to build an app with a social feed where users can "follow" each other, and you could potentially follow hundreds of different users. You see very little data, just their activity, so there is not much actual data going back and forth, but you should only have access to view that data if the other user lets you follow them. I am thinking of it being like each user having a "private" realm and a "shareable" realm that they can grant other people access to. Is there any way to do this with Realm DB that doesn't involve syncing hundreds of different realms?
At the moment, there is no other way than syncing hundreds of Realms.
There will be another way in the future where you can use partial
synchronization.
https://realm.io/docs/java/latest/#partial-synchronization
Related
I have seen a firebase api in which you can create firebase projects and it occurred to me for example, when a user wants to counter a SaaS, make it easier for me to create a project and connect it to their SaaS but I have the following questions:
If there are supposed to be limits to creating firebase projects in a google account, will there be a time when databases can no longer be created for new users?
If the above is true, how can this be solved?
I have seen that you can ask for more projects, but how many can I have?
I know that with firestore, I can model data and only in a database have all the information, but for example, each user may have special requirements in their system and also provide security and information saving operations that would be impossible if all information is in a single database.
Thanks for the help.
EDIT
"How many projects can you have as a developer?" Yes, that's what I mean, having all the user bases in a single firebase google account. For example, on a web page, the user wants to pay for the application, with firebase admin and google cloud functions, I can automatically create a project and have all the databases in a google account. And what I want to know is if you can have multiple databases. I have seen that you can ask google to give you permission to host several projects but, for example, can you have more than 100 projects or even 1000? (I may never have reached that number, but in that case, I would like to know the limits that can be reached).
Edit 2
This first structure I have all the documents in a "universal" collection and I identify them with an id to know the user who used it.
But the second structure seems to me more organized and clean, in addition to the fact that users at no time need to share information among others. I have read that having nested collections is not good but over the years and the progress that firestore has had, this is no longer or was a problem only that the limitation is that you can only have up to 100 collections anidades but I never think to reach that quantity.
Inside of list, have all products for that user, because inside of document, only can have 1 mb of data and download 1 mb and is not the best option.
in the firestore documentation I see that it does not reveal other problems, it only says that it is difficult to delete the subcollection, but I do not allow users to do that and if I need to delete the subcollections, with the Google Cloud functions i can do it.
So, the second structure is more intuitive for me, but is the best option for that? or actually firestore is not good for this strcucutre?
I am creating an Unity game where I want to have global top 50 score list with usernames. I use Firebase realtime database. There is no need for user to authenticate. I am not that familiar with database security and pretty beginner with this concept. I am using Rest Api from Unity Asset store because it was pretty easy to send and get data from databse.
How can I be sure that every score sent to database is from my app?
Add a dedicated user with password to your database
Somewhere in you app, add those credentials e.g. in a ScriptableObject / in some component
Always use those credentials to authenticate
Note that your app can still be decompiled and thereby cheated.
You can at least make it more difficult by encrypting the data etc.
The only way really around is to have an account and sessioning server to assure a user is locked in with a valid session.
If you don't use Firebase Authentication, you can't restrict who can access your database. Anyone will be able to issues a query, and they can even do it using the Realtime Database REST API. All they have to know is the name of your project.
Even if you do use Firebase Authentication, anyone may still effectively authenticate and access the database outside of your app using other public APIs.
My experience is that you can't stop dedicated "users" from cheating global at high scores. I made a small handfull of trivial games for windows phone with global top 50. Even if your game is unpopular, and you obfuscate your code, and you are on an unpopular platform, and you encrypt your network traffic: somebody is going to jailbreak their phone, decompile your app, and inject their own high score into your game before high scores are sent to the global list. The only way I ever came up with to combat this was to keep track of play sessions -on the server- to make sure their scores were theoretically possible based on how long they were playing.
Disclaimer: I don't know anything about Firebase
From what I can tell, you will need to set up access for Default and Public sections of your configuration to tell the database who can and cannot access your database. Here's their documentation on Get Started with Database Rules.
In general database access, no one should know the details of your connection to a database, so all calls should only ever come from your app.
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.
Is there a way to protect the database from deletion? I mean it's very easy to click on the "x" next to the root node. This would destroy the whole app and cause an enourmous mess to deal with.
How to deal with this fragility?
EDIT:
Let's assume I have two firebase accounts: one for testing and one for the launched app. I regularly log in and out to use the other one. On the test account I delete whole nodes on a regular basis. An activated password protection would avoid a very expensive confusion of the two accounts.
If you give a user edit access to the Firebase Console of your project, the user is assumed to be an administrator of the database. This means they can perform any write operation to the database they want and are not tied to your security rules.
As a developer you probably often use this fact to make changes to your data structure while developing the app. For application administrators, you should probably create a custom administrative dashboard, where they can only perform the actions that your code allows.
There is no way to remove specific permissions, such as limiting the amount of data they can remove. It could be a useful feature request, so I suggest posting it here. But at the moment: if you don't trust users to be careful enough with your data, you should not give them access to the console.
As Travis said: setting up backups may be a good way to counter some of this anxiety.
My company is building an ASP.NET HR application and we have decided to create one database per client. This ensures that clients cannot accidentally view another client's data, while also allowing for easy scalability (among other benefits, already discussed here).
My question is - what is the best way to handle security and data access in such a scenario? My intent is to use a common login/account database that will direct the user to the correct server/database. This common database would also contain the application features that each user/role has access.
I was not planning to put any user information in each individual client database, but others on my team feel that the lack of security on each database is a huge hole (but they cannot articulate how duplicating the common access logic would be useful).
Am I missing something? Should we add an extra layer of security/authentication at the client database level?
Update:
One of the reasons my team felt dual user management was necessary is due to access control. All users have a default role (e.g. Admin, Minimal Access, Power User, etc.), but client admins will be able to refine permissions for users with access to their database. To me it still seems feasible for this to be in a central database, but my team doesn't agree. Thoughts?
We have a SaaS solution that uses the one DB per client model. We have a common "Security" database too. However, we store all user information in the individual client databases.
When the user logs into the system they tell us three pieces of information, username, password and client-id. The client-id is used to lookup their home database in the "security" database, and then the code connects to their home database to check their username/password. This way a client is totally self-contained within their database. Of course you need some piece of information beyond username to determine their home database. Could be our client-id approach, or could be the domain-name requested if you're using the sub-domain per client approach.
The advantage here is that you can move "client" databases around w/out having to keep them synced up with the security database. Plus you don't need to deal w/cross-db joins when you're trying to lookup user information.
Update: In response to your update... One of the advantages to each customer having their own DB is also the ability to restore a customer if they really need it. If you've split the customer's data into two databases how do you restore it? Also, again, you'll need to worry about cross-db data access if the users are defined in a DB other than the home DB.
I've always been of the opinion that security should be enforced at the application level, not the database level. With that said, I see no problem with your intended approach. Managing accounts and roles through a central database makes the application more maintainable in the long run.
You may want to look into using the ASP.NET membership provider for handling the authentication plumbing. That would work with your stated approach and you can still keep all of the authentication data in a separate database. However, I agree with Chris that keeping one DB will utlimately be more maintainable.