For example, I have a field that give user to type their domain, the user can type any domain on this, but I don't valid this domain is belong that user. Of course, I can generate a random number text file for user to upload, and when I get the random number text file, if it is match, I can just treat it as a valid domain holder. But, except from this method, is that anyway to do so? Thanks.
Options I have seen:
Have user Create a Text file in document root, check for it
Send Email to contacts listed in whois (Or other ROLE type accounts (postmaster, hostmaster, etc...), with token they need to
return
Have them create an 'A' record in their DNS that is unique and you can query for.
There really isn't any other way of telling if they have control over the domain. Using whois information isn't 100% accurate as people don't update it, or their info isn't registered to them, or is hidden behind something like domains by proxy. There is no standard information in DNS, that can tell you ownership. Since google uses the DNS method and the text file method (I think), you can probably safely assume that is a good way to verify it.
Related
I need to call CreateProcessWithLogonW, for which I need to pass builtin account name (say Administrator). The problem is that builtin account names are localized. For example in French its "Administrateur" and when I pass "Administrator" to the function, it returns ERROR_LOGON_FAILURE.
In order to get a builtin account name, I can pass its SID to LookupAccountBySid. Pretty easy. The problem is that, according to this, the SID I need to pass is following:
S-1-5-21domain-500
How do I get the domain part?
I found this code, but in order to get current user's SID (from where I could get the domain part), it calls chain of functions including OpenProcessToken, GetTokenInformation, HeapAlloc, GetSidIdentifierAuthority, GetSidSubAuthorityCount, GetSidSubAuthority...
This would be rather insane for getting simple domain string. Is there a shorter way to do this?
The document https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/add-ins/inside-the-identity-token, it introduces the content in the outlook AddIn id token, and i found there are two different keys "ISS" and "APPCTXSender", i want to know what's the different usage between them. Also I want to know which part of them i can used to identity one domain/org/tenant.
To uniquely identify a user via identity token, we recommend that you combine the msexchuid and amurl properties in the response (see "Generating a unique ID"
on this page.) As for the other half of your question, could you tell us more about your scenario and why you are looking for tenant/domain?
JSON API REST endpoint with permissions-restricted fields
I am working on a JSON API-compliant REST api. Some endpoints contain fields that should be restricted (read-only or not available) for certain users.
What is the best way to architect the api to allow that certain users have access to certain fields, while others do not? By "best", I mean:
Most compliant with REST standards, ideally JSON API standards
Most clarity in terms of preventing bugs and confusion on behalf of clients consuming the API
I am considering the following options, each with their set of concerns/ questions. I would be more than grateful for any other solutions!
Option 1: Return null on restricted fields for users without permissions
Different data values would be returned per-user. Is this strictly anti-REST?
Lack of distinction between null meaning "null value" and null meaning "You don't have access to this"
In REST/ JSON API architecture, is it okay for an endpoint to return different data per user, based on permissions? I have the impression that this would be contrary to the spirit of resource-based REST architecture, but I could not find anything specific to point to in any doc or standard (e.g. JSON API). Also applies to Option 2.
Is there any paradigm for adding some sort of "You don't have access" flag in the resource's metadata?
Option 2: Exclude restricted fields entirely for users without permissions
Different data values would be returned per-user. Is this strictly anti-REST?
Possibility of "undefined" errors in client, when trying to retrieve field value
Option 3: Move restricted field(s) onto another endpoint, available as an ?include='field_name' relation for those with permission
Example: /api/entity includes attribute field "cost" which is only available to Admin users. Admin users can request cost data via GET /api/entity?include=cost. For all users, "cost" is exposed as a relation in the resource object, with a "type" and "id".
This is the option I am leaning toward. The main con here is endpoint clutter. I have a lot of relations that would need to be made into separate endpoints, simply to support a permissions-quarantined data on an already-existing endpoint.
In the JSON API specs, I am having trouble determining if it's ok for an endpoint to exist as a relation only, e.g. can we have /api/entity/1/cost, but NOT have a top-level api endpoint, /api/cost. My assumption is that if a resource has a "type" (in this case, the relation type being 'cost'), it also has to live on a top-level endpoint.
In this scenario, the client could get a 401: Unauthorized error response if a non-admin user tries to GET /api/entity?include=cost or GET /api/cost/:id
Note: I have already built a separate permissions schema so that the client can determine which CRUD privileges the user has, per top-level endpoint, before making any requests. Permission sets are indexed by resource type.
Any help on the matter would be very much appreciated! And if anything needs to be clarified, feel free to ask.
I would definitely not use undefined or null to indicate fields that the user is not allowed to see. To me, that feels like a lie and represents that the data is really not there. They would have to really know your API in order to get a grasp of what is really going on.
I would recommend something more like your 3rd option, except I would make it a different endpoint altogether. So in your example, the endpoints would be:
/api/entity/1/cost
and for admins
/api/admin/entity/1/cost
or something like that.
This way your server code for the admin endpoint could just be focused on authenticating this admin user and getting them back all the fields that they have visibility on. If a non admin user tries to hit that route, reject them with an unauthorized status code.
I'm not saying that you should not implement the GET param to be able to specify fields as well. You can if you want to, but I don't think it just won't be necessary in this case.
I'm just getting started with Apiary and I can't tell if this is a limitation of the product or just me not understanding what to do.
I'm documenting an API which authenticates the user as part of every request. Sometimes the authentication is part of the path (a request for the user's profile would have the user id in the path), other times just as parameters (?user_id=1&auth=secret), and for POST requests, part of the incoming body as JSON.
Also, there are 3 methods of authentication in the app. You can log in with a Facebook UID, email address, or using the unique id of the device you're using. The result is something that looks like this:
##User [/user/{facebook_uid}{?access_token}, /user/{email}{?device_id}, /users/{device_auth_id}{?device_id}]
This works fine, and displays in the API as I'd expect:
But this introduces 2 issues:
1) If I wanted to add a set of parameters shared by all authentication methods, I would need to add it to all 3 like this:
## User [/user/{facebook_uid}{?access_token, extra_thing, this_too},
/user/{email}{?device_id, extra_thing, this_too},
/users/{device_auth_id}{?device_id, extra_thing, this_too}]
This seems a bit messy, it'd be much nicer to apply shared parameters at the end of the path array so they apply to all, something like this:
## User [/user/{facebook_uid}{?access_token}, /user/{email}{?device_id}, /users/{device_auth_id}{?device_id}]{&extra_thing, this_too}
But this doesn't work. Is there a way to do this? The documentation wasn't very helpful with more complicated stuff like this.
Also, would there be a way to create some kind of template which I could apply to all my methods? In the case where the authentication is part of the path its a bit unavoidable, but for other requests it would be nice to just do something like include: authentication and have it pull the unique_id/auth combo from a defined template somewhere.
Thanks!
First, there isn't really support for having a single model with multiple resource representations. It is an unusual thing to do and is actually good food for thought.
Second, using multiple URIs in [path segment] is probably going to confuse Apiary's mock server and make it unusable.
In my opinion, I'd split this into three models: Facebook User, E-mail User and Device User, with slightly different documentation (how are they created? Can you really create all of them through api? etc. etc.)
It also depends on how you want to document this. As path segments are not validated (it would be strange to have different resources based on the type of the arguments), you can just have (and I'd personally do just that)
## User [/user/{id}{?access_token, extra_thing, this_too}]
+ Parameters
+ id (required, string, `test#example.com`)...id of the user. Can be either user's e-mail, facebook id or device id from where user was created.
As for reusable parts, this is currently being implemented with authentication being part of that.
When working with the Blogger API the user ID is expected to be numeric. I found out my numeric ID by looking at the URL for my Blogger profile page. However, I want my users to be able to use their usual Blogger user name. So:
Is there a way to convert Blogger
user names to numeric user IDs?
Is there a way to pass in user names
instead of IDs to the Blogger API?
Thanks!
It depends on what you are trying to do, but in most use cases you don't need to explicitly know this information because the authToken will take care of resolving these issues for you if you use the default URLs with the API. But, in the interest of providing an answer in case you really do need to know this:
After the user authenticates, just request some information, like the list of blogs, and you'll be able to extract the ID number from your choice of several places in the response.
Not really, except that during login you use the username. Otherwise you need to use either default, assuming an active authToken, or the ID to reference a particular user's Blogger content.