I have an integration made for my software. I want to be able to link the user to the transaction in their Square account for easier access. I only have been using the Sandbox which does not provide a way to see the actual test transactions. What does the URL to a transaction in Square look like?
https://squareup.com/dashboard/sales/transactions/bqrErYeG9q3rIAFGAxO4FIveV/by-unit/75MBQ5SS3SKJK
The first id is a transaction_id and the second id my location_id. Keep in mind that what you are looking to do (deep linking into Square Dashboard), is not something that is officially supported, so it might change at anytime without warning.
Related
I am developing an ASP.NET Core web application with user management functionalities. My question is about the email address changing algorithm. Almost every web app I saw before have the following flow:
User authorized
User requested an email address change
User received a message on the new mailbox with the confirmation link
User clicks the link and the email address updates
But I think, this algorithm might be a bit insecure and that is what I want to discuss here.
How about this flow:
User authorized
User requested an email address change
User received a message on the old mailbox with the confirmation link
User received a message on the new mailbox with the second confirmation link
User clicks the link and the email address updates
With this additional step in the middle of the algorithm, things may be much better from the security perspective, but would it be too complex or not? How do you think what algorithm I should implement? And what would you prefer if you will be in my shoes?
The second options might sound great, and it's not too much headache to implement too. But I'll stick with the first approach due to some reason:
Common work flow pattern.
As the backend side can be wrote by many language, by various developers, so common pattern would make things more standard when we need some kind of migration, and even maintaining by new developer. If the project doesn't require ultra-secure authentication flow, the simplicity of first approach was enough.
From user convinient pespertive
Let's just imagine when changing an email address, what case the user likely want to change email address ? I was register my facebook account long ago using yahoo mail, that's no-longer active, and i need to switch to a gmail one. What's the point of sending the email back to the old one ? Cumbersome... and i can do nothing in this case except get some help from the staff.
I totally aggree with the second approach on security angle. But that's not suitable for most of the case, only implement if the project have some requirement. And even in that case, I suggest don't even do that too, build some thing like sub-admin account role and grant permission to someone have responsible. Like Google enterprise email organize some account called admin if anything wrong happen to user account. As long as it has this kind of security level requirement, it's not gonna serve massively user.
The intension of all the flow
The User got authorized first, right, that's mean we Identified what the user are, and what she capable to do. Imagine when we hide a hotel room then request to change to another due to some reason. What's the point of proving that's I booked my own room, since we all know that's the fact ? Kinda weird... right ?
To conclusion, I think we shouldn't mess with something that's become common pattern that widely acknowledged, except we have some special requirements and the project have something uniquely to satisfy, and we consider ourself, as developer that's reasonable.
The main problem with this approach is: what happens if the user no longer has access to their original email account? Perhaps it was a work/school/uni account that they no longer have, or perhaps they've just forgotten their password or otherwise lost access to it.
With your second approach, they are not going to be able to update to the new account, because they'll never receive the first confirmation link.
How about the following approach instead:
User requests an email change.
Require the user to re-authenticate with their current password (just like when they change their password).
Send a confirmation link to their new email.
Send a notification to their old email, with the details of the change, and instructions of what to do if they didn't initiate the change.
User clicks the link to update or contacts your support to say their account has been compromised.
This way you still provide them with an alert that someone is trying to change their email (and potentially a means to stop it), but a user who has lost access to their old account will still be able to update their email.
I am trying to make a login and registration page using Laravel, but I came across two concepts in the official Laravel Documentation - Authentication and Authorization. I am unsure as to which one to use to check login details with the ones in the database, since they sound very similar. If I use one of them to login users, then what is the use of the other one. Please explain with some examples and codes.
Authentication is a process of making sure your user is authenticated/logged in to do stuffs in your app.
Authorization is a process of making sure your authenticated user have access to any stuffs in your app.
I will try to explain it as a short story so you can understand better and easier. It going to be a bit longer but you will get the idea.
Imagine those are the guards of a military base, you want to get in to the base. "Mr. Authentication" stops you in front of the gate and said "Hey, who are you? Only registered users are allowed to get in the base. Please fill this form to verify that you have already registered. Otherwise, please register yourself as new user and show me the form you've filled".
You do register yourself and are allowed to get in. Now you are authenticated. Inside the base, you found a room with hazard symbol near the barracks. You are curious and decided to get in but then you met "Mr. Authorization".
He said.. "Good morning sir, I've never seen you yet before. This is our laboratory, only Professor have rights to get in here. Otherwise, I will need to get you out of here. Can I see your authentication pass, please?."
You shows your pass, he looks at it and realize you are a new member of that base and your role were limited to Temporary Member.
He holds your hand and drags you outside the room, and he said "Apologize sir, you have no rights to access this room, please explore the base wherever you like but not this place. If you are keep going back, I might drags you out like this again".
Back to topic
Laravel has built in authentication stuffs you can get by using php artisan:make auth command and you're probably no need to make it your own at some cases. This will do an Authentication stuffs like Logging in the user or Register a new one for you out of the box.
So, if you want to check login details with the ones in the database, this is exactly what you need. After the user can login, you might want to limit their access at some pages. Here is when the Authorization comes for the job.
I have a laravel webapp and I check if the user can perform certain actions or access certain information at every step of the way not just during the login. For example when they wish to view their assets I check for their UAC, after they click on them I check again, even if the edit, delete buttons are not visible, there is still a check in place in the code. And this pattern continues throughout the whole webapp. Is this overkill, will it make my webapp too cluttered with checks all over the place?
Yes, it is. Every time you don't check for access before performing a privileged action, you take the risk that an intruder might find a way to bypass your earlier checks and somehow trigger that action without actually having proper access to it. A few extra checks are a small price to pay for robustness and peace of mind.
In particular, you should always re-check privileges on the server for each new request made by the client, since you should never trust user input, and since everything the client sends to the server is potentially under the user's control. For example, even if you disable the "edit" or "delete" buttons in the client interface, what's to stop a malicious (or even just inquisitive) user from re-enabling them e.g. through their browser's developer tools, or even from simply spoofing the actual edit/delete request that the button would trigger?
If you're lucky, all a missing server-side privileges check will do is let some user see a bunch of deleted garbage. If you're not so lucky, it might give them full admin access on your site.
It is indeed a good practice and middleware can help you achieve this goal more easily.
Check the Laravel documentation for more information
I recently noticed the addition of a "Session" object in Parse dashboard. Now, from what I understand, a session uniquely identifies a user to the server. So why would we need such a Session? For the session token? We already have a currentInstallation... so I don't really see the point. Can someone explain and provide a scenario where I would use the "Session" object. Right now they just annoy me by their presence because they take up potential space on the Parse server and I would like to go delete them all but want to make sure that isn't stupid.
The sessions are used by parse to deal with the users (is the user logged?, on which devices?, etc.), and are available as a class as you may want to manipulate them. By deleting the sessions you would automatically logout all your users, so it's a pretty bad idea.
You don't have to use or touch anything about this class, but here are few examples of why it can be useful:
[...] If a user contacts you about his or her account being compromised in your app, you can use the Data Browser, REST API, or Cloud Code to forcefully revoke user sessions using the Master Key. These new APIs also allow you build a “session manager” UI screen where your app’s users can see a list of all devices they’ve logged in with, and optionally log out of other devices. [...]
You can read more about the Sessions on their blog post.
Ok, so imagine a bank has a call-centre filled with low-trust staff. The staff need to provide basic service to customers over the phone. The call centre staff take calls from a customer, ask them certain security questions, and then service the accounts in some way.
Now, from the customer's point of view, the bank is verifying who they are by asking the security questions. This is subtly different from the bank's point of view: It is verifying that the call centre employee is talking to the customer.
Why is this difference important? The bank wants to restrict these low trust staff, so they cannot view any details of the accounts until the customer calls them. So a call centre employee can't browse account details of customers that haven't just contacted him and asked for service.
So the question is:
Is this sort of setup possible in Dynamics CRM 2011? How would one go about implementing it? Some level of customization would be OK, but a bespoke application driven from the CRM data is not.
I'm thinking that maybe it's possible to create a custom component that temporarily modifies the user's permissions to a record (and all its children) after answering some security questions. However, I'm not even sure that record-based security (beyond Ownership) is supported in CRM...? I guess one could temporarily assign ownership to the user. Is that wise?
Please note: Simply hiding views & find buttons from the GUI isn't the sort of level of security we're looking for here. We're looking to literally restrict the user from accesing the records in question.
I can see a couple of options:
Working within the permissions model. This could work. You could have access restricted by default, and then have another entity where you'd enter in the account details, a plugin would run and verify the details, and then share the record to the current user. I'd be a little concerned, however, on how the unsharing would work. What would trigger it? Would there be a process that just runs outside of CRM and unshares records periodically. What if that process fails? We've also had performance issues in the past with this type of model... CRM seems to do a lot of work under the hood every time an individual record's permissions are changed like this.
Reassigning the owner, as you suggest. Would multiple users ever need to look at the same data? Does the owner of the record need to be maintained for any other reason (e.g. This is Joe's account because he's the owner).
Working exclusively with plugins. You could have a plugin registered on Retrieve and RetrieveMultiple of a record. This plugin could filter out all the details you want to hide from the end user. When the user needs to view the rest of the data, they fill out a form or dialog or something with the data. This data is then included in the Retrieve call for the record. The plugin checks for the hidden data, verifies that it's there and correct, then strips it out and lets the request continue, only this time it retrieves all attributes, and the form populates as expected.
Disclaimer: this answer is based on plenty of CRM 4.0 experience and reading the release notes for 2011.
Short answer: no.
Long answer: yes, but the customisation would be major. The 'easiest' option that springs to mind, is that the authentication process is carried out as a bespoke asp.net page that either a) uses a service account to re-assign an entity to an individual and then returns them to the relevant CRM form, then a plug in that re-assigns it back on saving changes
or
b) has it's own set of forms to that update and retrieve information as a service account, and only do so after answering the security questions.
As an aside, any kind of 'scripted' form is almost impossible in CRM 4.0. I believe 2011 slightly improves on that, but what I've seen is still not encouraging. Using CRM in a contact centre for us has meant investing in a piece of third party form building software and creating bespoke forms that can be launched from CRM and return data via the web services (which are impressively flexible). We only use the CRM interface for viewing historic requests - even most updates trigger one of the bespoke forms.
If I was to implement such a scenario I would create a customer access record (new_custaccess) that is linked to the customer record (new_customer). For this example - keeping it simple - I'm going to assume that the customer has a simple access code they must provide before the bank employee (Operator) can access the record. The access code is stored on new_custaccess in a field (new_secretcode).
Security is that the Operator has no privileges to new_customer and read/update privileges to new_custaccess.
There is a single field (new_secretcodeoperator) on new_custaccess that the operator can update. All other fields are restricted from update (and, if appropriate, read) to the Operator.
When the Customer calls and the Operator searches for the appropriate new_custaccess record. Once they locate the record they enter the Customer provided secret code into the field new_secretcode and do a save.
A Pre-Update query executes on new_custaccess in the context of a user with full privileges (call it MASTER, for fun here.) That plug-in checks to see if the provided code matches the secret code. If it doesn't it throws an error and the Operator can retry. If it does match the plug-in strips the field new_secretcodeoperator from the record, to keep it from saving the value. It also shares appropriate permission on the record new_customer to the appropriate operator.
The Operator now has access to the Customer record (you'll have to decide whether to cascade permissions or share on each record - that decision is beyond this discussion.)
We now need to deal with rescinding permission on the Customer record. I would handle this by having an entity new_customeraccess that is generated by the previous plug-in whenever access is granted to a Customer record. A workflow should be triggered on Create of new_customeraccess that cause new_customeraccess to be updated every 20 minutes (or whatever time the client prefers.)
A plugin is registered on Update of new_customeraccess that fires when the field updated by the workflow is modified. This plug-in will determine - via whatever criteria is decided on by the business - whether to continue sharing or revoke sharing.
I would also create some javascript/html based pop-up from the new_customer ribbon to end sharing by updating a field on new_customeraccess. Provide the Operator with limited Update privs on new_customeraccess via field level security.
This should accomplish what you want without going outside the standard CRM customization model. Not exactly sure of where you draw the line on bespoke but this is probably as close as you'll get to OOTB. A few plug-ins are all the C# you'll need. And the only JavaScript will be for usability, not functionality.
Let me know if you have questions.