The Firebase Web-App guide states I should put the given apiKey in my Html to initialize Firebase:
// TODO: Replace with your project's customized code snippet
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/firebasejs/3.0.2/firebase.js"></script>
<script>
// Initialize Firebase
var config = {
apiKey: '<your-api-key>',
authDomain: '<your-auth-domain>',
databaseURL: '<your-database-url>',
storageBucket: '<your-storage-bucket>'
};
firebase.initializeApp(config);
</script>
By doing so, the apiKey is exposed to every visitor.
What is the purpose of that key and is it really meant to be public?
The apiKey in this configuration snippet just identifies your Firebase project on the Google servers. It is not a security risk for someone to know it. In fact, it is necessary for them to know it, in order for them to interact with your Firebase project. This same configuration data is also included in every iOS and Android app that uses Firebase as its backend.
In that sense it is very similar to the database URL that identifies the back-end database associated with your project in the same snippet: https://<app-id>.firebaseio.com. See this question on why this is not a security risk: How to restrict Firebase data modification?, including the use of Firebase's server side security rules to ensure only authorized users can access the backend services.
If you want to learn how to secure all data access to your Firebase backend services is authorized, read up on the documentation on Firebase security rules. These rules control access to file storage and database access, and are enforced on the Firebase servers. So no matter if it's your code, or somebody else's code that uses you configuration data, it can only do what the security rules allow it to do.
For another explanation of what Firebase uses these values for, and for which of them you can set quotas, see the Firebase documentation on using and managing API keys.
If you'd like to reduce the risk of committing this configuration data to version control, consider using the SDK auto-configuration of Firebase Hosting. While the keys will still end up in the browser in the same format, they won't be hard-coded into your code anymore with that.
Update (May 2021): Thanks to the new feature called Firebase App Check, it is now actually possible to limit access to the backend services in your Firebase project to only those coming from iOS, Android and Web apps that are registered in that specific project.
You'll typically want to combine this with the user authentication based security described above, so that you have another shield against abusive users that do use your app.
By combining App Check with security rules you have both broad protection against abuse, and fine gained control over what data each user can access, while still allowing direct access to the database from your client-side application code.
Building on the answers of prufrofro and Frank van Puffelen here, I put together this setup that doesn't prevent scraping, but can make it slightly harder to use your API key.
Warning: To get your data, even with this method, one can for example simply open the JS console in Chrome and type:
firebase.database().ref("/get/all/the/data").once("value", function (data) {
console.log(data.val());
});
Only the database security rules can protect your data.
Nevertheless, I restricted my production API key use to my domain name like this:
https://console.developers.google.com/apis
Select your Firebase project
Credentials
Under API keys, pick your Browser key. It should look like this: "Browser key (auto created by Google Service)"
In "Accept requests from these
HTTP referrers (web sites)", add the URL of your app (exemple: projectname.firebaseapp.com/* )
Now the app will only work on this specific domain name. So I created another API Key that will be private for localhost developement.
Click Create credentials > API Key
By default, as mentioned by Emmanuel Campos, Firebase only whitelists localhost and your Firebase hosting domain.
In order to make sure I don't publish the wrong API key by mistake, I use one of the following methods to automatically use the more restricted one in production.
Setup for Create-React-App
In /env.development:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###dev-key###
In /env.production:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###public-key###
In /src/index.js
const firebaseConfig = {
apiKey: process.env.REACT_APP_API_KEY,
// ...
};
I am not convinced to expose security/config keys to client. I would not call it secure, not because some one can steal all private information from first day, because someone can make excessive request, and drain your quota and make you owe to Google a lot of money.
You need to think about many concepts from restricting people not to access where they are not supposed to be, DOS attacks etc.
I would more prefer the client first will hit to your web server, there you put what ever first hand firewall, captcha , cloudflare, custom security in between the client and server, or between server and firebase and you are good to go. At least you can first stop suspect activity before it reaches to firebase. You will have much more flexibility.
I only see one good usage scenario for using client based config for internal usages. For example, you have internal domain, and you are pretty sure outsiders cannot access there, so you can setup environment like browser -> firebase type.
The API key exposure creates a vulnerability when user/password sign up is enabled. There is an open API endpoint that takes the API key and allows anyone to create a new user account. They then can use this new account to log in to your Firebase Auth protected app or use the SDK to auth with user/pass and run queries.
I've reported this to Google but they say it's working as intended.
If you can't disable user/password accounts you should do the following:
Create a cloud function to auto disable new users onCreate and create a new DB entry to manage their access.
Ex: MyUsers/{userId}/Access: 0
exports.addUser = functions.auth.user().onCreate(onAddUser);
exports.deleteUser = functions.auth.user().onDelete(onDeleteUser);
Update your rules to only allow reads for users with access > 1.
On the off chance the listener function doesn't disable the account fast enough then the read rules will prevent them from reading any data.
I believe once database rules are written accurately, it will be enough to protect your data. Moreover, there are guidelines that one can follow to structure your database accordingly. For example, making a UID node under users, and putting all under information under it. After that, you will need to implement a simple database rule as below
"rules": {
"users": {
"$uid": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid"
}
}
}
}
No other user will be able to read other users' data, moreover, domain policy will restrict requests coming from other domains.
One can read more about it on
Firebase Security rules
While the original question was answered (that the api key can be exposed - the protection of the data must be set from the DB rulles), I was also looking for a solution to restrict the access to specific parts of the DB.
So after reading this and some personal research about the possibilities, I came up with a slightly different approach to restrict data usage for unauthorised users:
I save my users in my DB too, under the same uid (and save the profile data in there). So i just set the db rules like this:
".read": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()",
".write": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()"
This way only a previous saved user can add new users in the DB so there is no way anyone without an account can do operations on DB.
Also adding new users is posible only if the user has a special role and edit only by admin or by that user itself (something like this):
"userdata": {
"$userId": {
".write": "$userId === auth.uid || root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').val() === 'superadmin'",
...
EXPOSURE OF API KEYS ISN'T A SECURITY RISK BUT ANYONE CAN PUT YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THEIR SITE.
Open api keys leads to attacks that can use a lot resources at firebase that will definitely cost your hard money.
You can always restrict you firebase project keys to domains / IP's.
https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/key
select your project Id and key and restrict it to Your Android/iOs/web App.
It is oky to include them, and special care is required only for Firebase ML or when using Firebase Authentication
API keys for Firebase are different from typical API keys:
Unlike how API keys are typically used, API keys for Firebase services are not used to control access to backend resources; that can only be done with Firebase Security Rules. Usually, you need to fastidiously guard API keys (for example, by using a vault service or setting the keys as environment variables); however, API keys for Firebase services are ok to include in code or checked-in config files.
Although API keys for Firebase services are safe to include in code, there are a few specific cases when you should enforce limits for your API key; for example, if you're using Firebase ML or using Firebase Authentication with the email/password sign-in method. Learn more about these cases later on this page.
For more informations, check the offical docs
I am making a blog website on github pages. I got an idea to embbed comments in the end of every blog page. I understand how firebase get and gives you data.
I have tested many times with project and even using console. I am totally disagree the saying vlit is vulnerable.
Believe me there is no issue of showing your api key publically if you have followed privacy steps recommend by firebase.
Go to https://console.developers.google.com/apis
and perfrom a security steup.
You should not expose this info. in public, specially api keys.
It may lead to a privacy leak.
Before making the website public you should hide it. You can do it in 2 or more ways
Complex coding/hiding
Simply put firebase SDK codes at bottom of your website or app thus firebase automatically does all works. you don't need to put API keys anywhere
I have API backend and it will be consumed by different consumers like our own company website and even other website can use our API with certain quota/limitation and for this scope management we will be using express-gateway(eg), however this is not the only reason I am using express-gateway(eg). Now coming to my problem/miss-understanding, for our own website we can create api-key and user credentials using eg command. But for the other user who wishes to use our api, I don’t want them to contact me for this integration, rather they should be able to create a user credentials and API key themselves using some facility (let us call it key management) provided by us. Here I am stuck how to give a web platform or any other mechanism where a user can create account and then create api-key for their own website. I was thinking to extend the express-gateway app itself and create page where a website owner can fill the form with various input field that will serve as parameter for eg command and I can trigger eg command in node console and create credentials and save it in redis database and then fetch those information to show it to user as their use rid and api-key. But I want to know the best way how others are doing, like how google, twitter and many more are allowing to create api-key, delete key and regenerate the api-key on compromise. Some suggestion would be to use third party tool to manage user-credentials, I will have little inertia to accept that, even if I do so how will I hook those third-party solution to my express-gateway.
In general, API gateways and authentication servers are independent, or at least loosely-coupled. The typical workflow is:
A user browses to the Create Account page for a service.
The user creates an account with the authentication server
The user makes a request through the API gateway
The API gateway checks with the authentication server whether the operation is allowed, discarding it if the user is not authorized to perform the requested action
The API gateway dispatches the request to the appropriate server
The receiving server checks whether the user is permitted to perform the action (in case the API gateway has been compromised)
Express Gateway includes its own authentication server for convenience, but the steps are basically the same. The difference is that one uses the Express Gateway Admin API to create the user and credentials rather than going to a different server.
Note that Express Gateway and its default account database (reddis) are not persistent out of the box.
For a custom integration, we are looking an a scenario where we want to save some access keys in private variables during transaction. Currently we are planning on using heroku as platform and node.js as the framework. Now we don't want to store these variables inside either node.js or heroku, as it would still be accessible from outside slack. Do we have any mechanism where we can store such values inside the slack framework and then access them? Using slack user datatable or something similar?
Slack does not have a mechanism to store credentials.
As a workaround you can post the credentials to some private channel and can retrieve it from there. But it is not recommended.
Ideally you should store these credentials to a secure encrypted place.
May be you should use some kind of secure database/cache/cloud vault.
I am looking to pull a list of Azure resources such as VMs, AppServices, etc and possibly interact (create, delete, scale, etc.) via the Azure SDK for NodeJS. The examples seem to demonstrate/push the use of an interactive login.
The reason I don't want to use the interactive logon is so I can schedule these tasks instead of requiring interaction.
Example, I looked at the authentication module and it is focused on interactive logon as well. Is there another means to authenticate instead of interactive as the previous SDK seemed to allow to authentication via secrets and subscription ID:
//Environment Setup
_validateEnvironmentVariables();
var clientId = process.env['CLIENT_ID'];
var domain = process.env['DOMAIN'];
var secret = process.env['APPLICATION_SECRET'];
var subscriptionId = process.env['AZURE_SUBSCRIPTION_ID'];
var credentials = new msRestAzure.ApplicationTokenCredentials(clientId, domain, secret, { 'tokenCache': tokenCache });
After assistance with the SDK team, there are options for auth for node, but better to get these from the node site and use the #azure ones as those are the most up to date. Ex: https://www.npmjs.com/package/#azure/ms-rest-nodeauth
Has anyone used delegates with exchnage web services? I would like one user to be able to control other users' calendars in Exchange. I'm finding this problem to be a little tricky, and I'd like to see how others have been able to get it to work properly.
I'm just getting started here, but i managed to get access to Resource calendars via a delegate account.
I used the recommendations from this article about delegate account and resource accounts. (Resource accounts are tricky because they are disabled in the AD, and you have to use a delegate account to get access to them)
After setting up the delegate account on the server, I set up the ExchangeServerBinding using the credentials of the delegate account:
ExchangeServiceBinding binding = new ExchangeServiceBinding();
binding.Url = #"https://dc1.litwareinc.com/ews/exchange.asmx";
// Setup binding with username and password of the delegate account
binding.Credentials =
new NetworkCredential(delegateuserName, delegatepassword, "litwareinc.com");
(I'm using Microsofts prepared virtual server image for testing)
Then when accessing the mailbox, I set up a FindItemType request and use the smtp address of the account i want to access:
// Prepare request
var findItemRequest = new FindItemType();
// Setup the mailbox using the smtp address of the account wanted
var mailbox = new EmailAddressType {EmailAddress = mailboxId};
findItemRequest.ParentFolderIds =
new[] {new DistinguishedFolderIdType {Mailbox = mailbox}};
((DistinguishedFolderIdType) findItemRequest.ParentFolderIds[0]).Id =
DistinguishedFolderIdNameType.calendar;
findItemRequest.Traversal = ItemQueryTraversalType.Shallow;
// Add ItemResponseShapeType and Calendarview to request here ...
// The create a FindItemResponseType using the binding and the request
var response = binding.FindItem(findItemRequest);
So in short:
Setup an account with delegate access on the Exchange server, this can be done via owa or with a Exchange Shell script
Use the account with delegate access on the ExchangeServiceBinding object
Access target account using a FindItemType with the target account smtp-addres as EmailAddressType
Regards
Jesper Hauge