Starting completely from scratch with a new server. Do we need to specify a filekey? If so, does it has to be something specific when I use AWS storage or not?
In parse-server you dont have to put this keys
this is from parse-server wiki
Parse Server does not require the use of client-side keys. This includes the client key, JavaScript key, .NET key, and REST API key.
The Application ID is sufficient to secure your app.
However, you have the option to specify any of these four keys upon
initialization. Upon doing so, Parse Server will enforce that any
clients passing a key matches. The behavior is consistent with hosted
Parse.
The problem with this keys that they publish with you app and all of them (javascript key file key...) are not private. So their is no security benefit to use them.
Related
I am working with Google Firestore in native mode and CRUD'ing data within it using the "cloud.google.com/go/firestore" api in Go. Access to the data is wide open as long as you know the project id and using the Firestore API on a server. I don't want to try the rules until I figure out how to secure the data from server attacks that. Again, all the API requires is the project id to access the data so I need to lock that down firstly before I move any further. Rules are only for mobile/web clients from what I read and Server side clients completely bypass the rules. Please help. I do not want to use the Firebase API because attackers can still use the Firestore api to access the data.
It's unclear from the limited information in your question but, your Firestore database is not open to anyone with the Project ID.
The service is only accessible to any thing (human|machine) that has valid credentials. Either humans with e.g. Gmail accounts or Service Account key holders.
In either case, only identities that you've explicitly added to the project will be able to access its resources and then only those with the appropriate IAM roles|permissions.
Google provides an elegant facility called Application Default Credentials (ADCs) that simplifies authenticating clients.
I suspect that your code is using ADCs to authenticate you to the project|service.
Access to the data is wide open as long as you know the project id and using the Firestore API on a server.
If that is a concern, consider disallowing all access in the Firebase security rules for your Firestore database.
Also have a look at my answer here to understand why sharing your project ID is not a security concern, and in fact is necessary if you want to allow direct access from client-side devices: Is it safe to expose Firebase apiKey to the public?. If you don't want to allow direct client-side access, closing down the security rules (as they are by default, unless you choose test mode when creating the database) is the way to go.
I am currently developing a backend application with spring-boot which has access to a database. The login credentials for the database are stored in a file called application.properties which is just an example for spring-boot but this has to be similar to other technologies I presume.
I was wondering whether this is the state of the art to store sensitive credentials or if there is another (better, safer) way to store this kind of information? What kind of techniques exist for such challenges?
Surely you do not want to push these config files to any versioning repositories and such but is it "safe" enough to store it this way?
One could argue that if someone has access to the code of your backend application you have other problems but I am still curious.
The argument that you use is correct. Let's say that one option is encryption. Even if you encrypt your credentials, the application will use the private key to decrypt, right? And if the server is compromised, the attacker could read the source code, find the private key and decrypt the credentials.
One way of making it more secure is using a request to collect the credentials. It could be done by an REST request (An API that could provide you the credentials to the application through a request).
And the most secure way is using a Password Vault. This post has good content about it.
I want to use the Direct Mail SDK(Java) directly within client application which is distributed across. The way to authenticate users within the application, I need to provide access keys as below,
IClientProfile profile = DefaultProfile.getProfile("cn-hangzhou", "<your accessKey>", "<your accessSecret>");
How can I prevent user to know the Access Keys and still prevent the need of third-party API? Is it possible?
First, it is bad practice to code an application that requires secrets that runs on the client. You should manage everything on the server and provide an API that the client software interfaces with.
Second, there is no way to hide those credentials once passed to the client. You could encrypt the credentials but at some point the client application will need to decrypt them. Even amateur programmers can figure out how you are processing your credentials.
Ignoring the above advice, Alibaba Cloud supports STS which provides temporary access keys. Using your Alibaba credentials, you would call AssumeRole which creates temporary access keys giving the user permission call DirectMail. You can limit the time that the credentials are valid. The range is 900 to 3600 seconds. After that duration the keys become invalid.
Keep in mind that 900 seconds is a long time. A bad actor getting access to those keys could send thousands of emails using your account. Therefore implement strong user authentication, STS and temporary access keys.
If you think that just keeping your interface secret is enough, don't. There are millions of script kiddies on the Internet poking at every IP address. Launch a new ECS instance and you will see attacks within hours.
As you said since it is a Java Web Application(assuming), currently I think of something using similar to JBOSS Vault to store the access keys securely.
If it is some standalone client application still you can use some encryption methodologies to store the data. But this will only prevent easy access to the data/keys. But it is not impossible. The best bet would be creating another third-party API
Normally I would add the secret key as an environment variable, but what is the best way to do it in Parse?
The Parse config functionality doesn't solve my problem because the secret key would be available on the client side. There are not security mechanisms to prevent access to specific config variables.
The only solution I can think of, is creating a class to store this really sensitive information and add security so it can not be accessed from a client application (or by certain users).
I don't love this solution because it adds extra requests each time the secret key is needed, which is bad in terms of response time and request usage limits/cost.
In AWS ..
You can use role based authentication using AWS SDK, where it get the role of you resource (ECS, EC2) and retrieve access and secret key from resource registry.
which is a similar implementation you mentioned in your post. That is quite helpful to provide security for your access key and secret, where you don't have to parse or get it from ENV as that can be compromise any time.
Also resource registry based key keep on changing over time so if anybody gets that also can't use it.
You can try to check the implementation how AWS resource / role based authentication works for AWS SDK.
We are working on a service that will have website access for stats and other tasks, but the majority of use will be through a client gem and rake tasks. What is the best way to handle authentication for both pieces.
It looks like fiveruns_tuneup, getexceptional, New Relic and others have websites with username and pass, but use API keys stored in ./config/serviceName.yml Any reasons it is better to have API keys opposed to user/pass in the config (do they use keys because often the key is checked into SCM and used across the project, where ours would not be checked in and would be a per user setting)
GitHub has you put your public key on the github servers and uses that, but I think git supports public/private key by default.
Would it be preferred to keep a ./config/serviceName.yml or since we have to create a subdirectory with other information have ./serviceName/config.yml? (does the per user, not stored in SCM mean it is better to keep it all in one excluded directory?)
Just looking for some thoughts and ideas on best practices before starting implementation.
I recommend that you use username/password combos for website accounts, and API keys for any web services. Here are the advantages of this technique:
By linking API keys to an account, you could have many API keys for the same user. Perhaps this could be used for many remote web servers that consume this data service, or to perform unique tracking.
Attaching API keys to an account also lets you keep the user's username and password uncompromised since an API key will not contain them. Many users use the same username and password on many services, so you are helping to protect them.
You could limit access to portions of functionality for each API key, but give their username access to everything their account should have access to. Additionally, you can even give them the ability to limit how much access an API key might have.
Most of the major services (Yahoo! API, Flickr, Google API, etc) use accounts with a username and password to login to the web account, and API keys for integration points.
Never use user/pass when you can help it. The security issues are horrible. If the user/pass leaks out, you have to change your password or they get access to your whole account.
API keys are better because they're easier to change and can be limited to only the part you need access to with the APIs (ie, if someone has your password they can change your password. They can't if they just have an API key).
Different API key per client or secure token exchange (such as OAuth) is the best solution if you'll have more than just your client on the API.
The github approach is bootstrapping on top of existing git practices, however it's not a bad idea since presumably each user will have their own private key to match a published public one in the central authority. Since key-agent's already furnish a means of safe authentication this seems like a very safe approach. Public/private keys are a well thought out authentication scheme, which has unfortunately been reinvented many times to limited success.
The problem with the API key is that anyone who gets a copy of the API key can do whatever that authorizes. Storing the API key somewhere in the project begs the users to share a key. If you are associating public keys with a user, it is possible to grant rights to the client on a per user basis, and a proper key-agent approach suggests that those will not be stored in an SCM anywhere.
I'm not sure I follow what the distinction between config/serviceName.yml, or serviceName/config.yml is. It doesn't seem as if it would be pertinent if you have public/private keys as an authentication method for the client.