I am trying to make a RESTful api and have some function which needs credentials. For example say I'm writing a function which finds all nearby places within a certain radius, but only authorised users can use it.
One way to do it is to send it all using GET like so:
http://myapi.heroku.com/getNearbyPlaces?lon=12.343523&lat=56.123533&radius=30&username=john&password=blabla123
but obviously that's the worst possible way to do it.
Is it possible to instead move the username and password fields and embed them as POST variables over SSL, so the URL will only look like so:
https://myapi.heroku.com/getNearbyPlaces?lon=12.343523&lat=56.123533&radius=30
and the credentials will be sent encrypted.
How would I then in Sinatra and Ruby properly get at the GET and POST variables? Is this The Right Way To Do It? If not why not?
If you are really trying to create a restful API instead if some URL endpoints which happen to speak some HTTP dialect, you should stick to GET. It's even again in your path, so you seem to be pretty sure it's a get.
Instead of trying to hide the username and password in GET or POST parameters, you should instead use Basic authentication, which was invented especially for that purpose and is universally available in clients (and is available using convenience methods in Sinatra).
Also, if you are trying to use REST, you should embrace the concept of resources and resoiurce collections (which is implied by the R and E of REST). So you have a single URL like http://myapi.heroku.com/NearbyPlaces. If you GET there, you gather information about that resource, if you POST, you create a new resource, if you PUT yopu update n existing resource and if you DELETE, well, you delete it. What you should do before is th structure your object space into these resources and design your API around it.
Possibly, you could have a resource collection at http://myapi.heroku.com/places. Each place as a resource has a unique URL like http://myapi.heroku.com/places/123. New polaces can be created by POSTing to http://myapi.heroku.com/places. And nearby places could be gathered by GETing http://myapi.heroku.com/places/nearby?lon=12.343523&lat=56.123533&radius=30. hat call could return an Array or URLs to nearby places, e.g.
[
"http://myapi.heroku.com/places/123",
"http://myapi.heroku.com/places/17",
"http://myapi.heroku.com/places/42"
]
If you want to be truly discoverable, you might also embrace HATEOAS which constraints REST smentics in a way to allows API clients to "browse" through the API as a user with a browser would do. To allow this, you use Hyperlink inside your API which point to other resources, kind of like in the example above.
The params that are part of the url (namely lon, lat and radius) are known as query parameters, the user and password information that you want to send in your form are known as form parameters. In Sinatra both of these type of parameters are made available in the params hash of a controller.
So in Sinatra you would be able to access your lon parameter as params[:lon] and the user parameter as params[:user].
I suggest using basic or digest authentication and a plain GET request. In other words, your request should be "GET /places?lat=x&lon=x&radius=x" and you should let HTTP handle the authentication. If I understand your situation correctly, this is the ideal approach and will certainly be the most RESTful solution.
As an aside, your URI could be improved. Having verbs ("get") and query-like adjectives ("nearby") in your resource names is not really appropriate. In general, resources should be nouns (ie. "places", "person", "books"). See the example request I wrote above; "get" is redundant because you are using a GET request and "nearby" is redundant because you are already querying by location.
Related
When you want to delete an item from the db, I know that you can use /resource/{id} and use the contrller#destroy action.
What is the advantage of passing a parameter in the URL as oppose to send a DELETE request and pass the parameter $id via an Input?
You can certainly do both, but the first method (using the dedicated /resource/{id} URL) is following the RESTFUL design pattern. Here is a very good video on that.
To highlight some important points:
We avoid verbs in URLs, unless they're used for very specific actions. We should try to use nouns instead if it's possible, so a url like /resource/deleteis not advisable.
When someone used to the REST way of communicating with an API uses 'DELETE' on the /resource url, he/she expects to delete ALL resources. If he/she uses it on /resource/{id}, then only that specific item should be removed.
Hope this made sense =)
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.
I want to build a typical mvc app for CRUD of simple items, the api s should be RESTful. The catch here is, that i have a large pallete of items that needs to be initialized. On the server side those items are defined as java beans and the corresponding create form for the item is dynamically created from the field information(data type, validation constraints etc) harvested from the bean.
I am new to REST and just read up about how the urls should be nouns defining the resource and action specified by HTTP verb. In that perspective how to model something like
.../client/showForm?type=xyz from non RESTful way to RESTful one ?? My intention here is to tell the server to dynamically construct and send back a CREATE form for client of type xyz. The obvious problem with url i mentioned above is that it specifies action in the url which, from what i have read, makes it non RESTful.
When I think of REST, I think of resources. I think of data. In other words, I don't think of REST as being something that I would typically use to retrieve a form, which is a user interface component.
REST is an architectural style that is used to identify a resource on a server using a uniform resource identifier, or URI. Additionally, actions performed on those resources identified by the URI are determined based on the specific HTTP Method used in the request: GET, POST, PUT, DELETE, etc.
Thus, let's say you have a Client object. That client object might have the following properties:
Name
Location
AccountNumber
If I wanted to retrieve the data for a single client, I might use the following URI:
GET /client/xyz/ # xyx is the accountnumber used to identify the client.
I would use a GET method, since REST describes GET as being the method to use when retrieving data from the server.
The data could theoretically be returned in HTML, since REST is not a standard but more like a series of flexible guidelines; however, to really decouple my data from my user interface, I would choose to use something platform independent like JSON or XML to represent the data.
Next, when adding a client to the collection on the server, I would use the /client/ URI pattern, but I would use the HTTP Method POST, which is used when adding a resource to a collection on the server.
# Pass the data as JSON to the server and tell the server to add the client to the
# collection
POST /client/ {"accountnumber":"abc" , "Name" : "Jones" , "Location" : "Florida"}
If I were to modify an existing record on the server or replace it, I would most likely use the HTTP Method PUT, since REST guidelines say that PUT should be used if repeating the same operation repeatedly would not change the state of the server.
# Replace the client abc with a new resource
PUT /client/abc/ {"accountnumber":"abc" , "Name" : "Bob Jones" , "Location" : "Florida"}
The general idea behind REST is that it is used to identify a resource and then take action on that resource based on what HTTP Method is used.
If you insist on coupling your data with your view, one way accomplish this and retrieve the actual form, with the client data, could be to represent the form as a resource itself:
GET /client/abc/htmlform/
This URL would of course return your client data for client abc, but in an HTML form that would be rendered by the browser.
While my style of coding utilizes data transports such as JSON or XML to abstract and separate my data from my view, you could very well transport that data as HTML. However, the advantage of using JSON or XML is that your RESTful API becomes platform independent. If you ever expand your API to where other developers wish to consume it, they can do so, regardless of what specific platform or programming language they are using. In other words, the API could be used my PHP, Java, C#, Python, Ruby, or Perl developers.
In other words, any language or platform that can make HTTP requests and can send GET, POST, PUT, DELETE requests can be used to extend or build upon your API. This is the true advantage of REST.
For more information on setting up your controllers to use REST with Spring MVC, see this question. Additionally, check out the Spring MVC Documentation for more information.
Also, if you haven't checked out the Wikipedia article on REST, I strongly encourage you to do so. Finally, another good, classic read on REST is How I Explained REST To My Wife. Enjoy.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 10 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Why do people put code like “throw 1; <dont be evil>” and “for(;;);” in front of json responses?
I found this kind of syntax being used on Facebook for Ajax calls. I'm confused on the for (;;); part in the beginning of response. What is it used for?
This is the call and response:
GET http://0.131.channel.facebook.com/x/1476579705/51033089/false/p_1524926084=0
Response:
for (;;);{"t":"continue"}
I suspect the primary reason it's there is control. It forces you to retrieve the data via Ajax, not via JSON-P or similar (which uses script tags, and so would fail because that for loop is infinite), and thus ensures that the Same Origin Policy kicks in. This lets them control what documents can issue calls to the API — specifically, only documents that have the same origin as that API call, or ones that Facebook specifically grants access to via CORS (on browsers that support CORS). So you have to request the data via a mechanism where the browser will enforce the SOP, and you have to know about that preface and remove it before deserializing the data.
So yeah, it's about controlling (useful) access to that data.
Facebook has a ton of developers working internally on a lot of projects, and it is very common for someone to make a minor mistake; whether it be something as simple and serious as failing to escape data inserted into an HTML or SQL template or something as intricate and subtle as using eval (sometimes inefficient and arguably insecure) or JSON.parse (a compliant but not universally implemented extension) instead of a "known good" JSON decoder, it is important to figure out ways to easily enforce best practices on this developer population.
To face this challenge, Facebook has recently been going "all out" with internal projects designed to gracefully enforce these best practices, and to be honest the only explanation that truly makes sense for this specific case is just that: someone internally decided that all JSON parsing should go through a single implementation in their core library, and the best way to enforce that is for every single API response to get for(;;); automatically tacked on the front.
In so doing, a developer can't be "lazy": they will notice immediately if they use eval(), wonder what is up, and then realize their mistake and use the approved JSON API.
The other answers being provided seem to all fall into one of two categories:
misunderstanding JSONP, or
misunderstanding "JSON hijacking".
Those in the first category rely on the idea that an attacker can somehow make a request "using JSONP" to an API that doesn't support it. JSONP is a protocol that must be supported on both the server and the client: it requires the server to return something akin to myFunction({"t":"continue"}) such that the result is passed to a local function. You can't just "use JSONP" by accident.
Those in the second category are citing a very real vulnerability that has been described allowing a cross-site request forgery via tags to APIs that do not use JSONP (such as this one), allowing a form of "JSON hijacking". This is done by changing the Array/Object constructor, which allows one to access the information being returned from the server without a wrapping function.
However, that is simply not possible in this case: the reason it works at all is that a bare array (one possible result of many JSON APIs, such as the famous Gmail example) is a valid expression statement, which is not true of a bare object.
In fact, the syntax for objects defined by JSON (which includes quotation marks around the field names, as seen in this example) conflicts with the syntax for blocks, and therefore cannot be used at the top-level of a script.
js> {"t":"continue"}
typein:2: SyntaxError: invalid label:
typein:2: {"t":"continue"}
typein:2: ....^
For this example to be exploitable by way of Object() constructor remapping, it would require the API to have instead returned the object inside of a set of parentheses, making it valid JavaScript (but then not valid JSON).
js> ({"t":"continue"})
[object Object]
Now, it could be that this for(;;); prefix trick is only "accidentally" showing up in this example, and is in fact being returned by other internal Facebook APIs that are returning arrays; but in this case that should really be noted, as that would then be the "real" cause for why for(;;); is appearing in this specific snippet.
Well the for(;;); is an infinite loop (you can use Chrome's JavaScript console to run that code in a tab if you want, and then watch the CPU-usage in the task manager go through the roof until the browser kills the tab).
So I suspect that maybe it is being put there to frustrate anyone attempting to parse the response using eval or any other technique that executes the returned data.
To explain further, it used to be fairly commonplace to parse a bit of JSON-formatted data using JavaScript's eval() function, by doing something like:
var parsedJson = eval('(' + jsonString + ')');
...this is considered unsafe, however, as if for some reason your JSON-formatted data contains executable JavaScript code instead of (or in addition to) JSON-formatted data then that code will be executed by the eval(). This means that if you are talking with an untrusted server, or if someone compromises a trusted server, then they can run arbitrary code on your page.
Because of this, using things like eval() to parse JSON-formatted data is generally frowned upon, and the for(;;); statement in the Facebook JSON will prevent people from parsing the data that way. Anyone that tries will get an infinite loop. So essentially, it's like Facebook is trying to enforce that people work with its API in a way that doesn't leave them vulnerable to future exploits that try to hijack the Facebook API to use as a vector.
I'm a bit late and T.J. has basically solved the mystery, but I thought I'd share a great paper on this particular topic that has good examples and provides deeper insight into this mechanism.
These infinite loops are a countermeasure against "Javascript hijacking", a type of attack that gained public attention with an attack on Gmail that was published by Jeremiah Grossman.
The idea is as simple as beautiful: A lot of users tend to be logged in permanently in Gmail or Facebook. So what you do is you set up a site and in your malicious site's Javascript you override the object or array constructor:
function Object() {
//Make an Ajax request to your malicious site exposing the object data
}
then you include a <script> tag in that site such as
<script src="http://www.example.com/object.json"></script>
And finally you can read all about the JSON objects in your malicious server's logs.
As promised, the link to the paper.
This looks like a hack to prevent a CSRF attack. There are browser-specific ways to hook into object creation, so a malicious website could use do that first, and then have the following:
<script src="http://0.131.channel.facebook.com/x/1476579705/51033089/false/p_1524926084=0" />
If there weren't an infinite loop before the JSON, an object would be created, since JSON can be eval()ed as javascript, and the hooks would detect it and sniff the object members.
Now if you visit that site from a browser, while logged into Facebook, it can get at your data as if it were you, and then send it back to its own server via e.g., an AJAX or javascript post.
What is the difference between GET and POST for Ajax requests?
I don't see any difference between those two, except that when I use GET, the parameters are send in URL, which for me don't really make any difference, since all requests are made on background and user doesn't find any difference.
edit:
What are PUT and DELETE methods used for?
GET is designed for getting data from the server. POST (and lesser-known friends PUT and DELETE) are designed for modifying data on the server.
A GET request should never cause data to be removed from an application. If you have a link you can click on with a GET to remove data, then Google spidering your site could click on all your "Delete" links.
The canonical answer can be found here, which quotes the HTML 2.0 spec:
If the processing of a form is idempotent (i.e. it has no lasting
observable effect on the state of the
world), then the form method should be
GET. Many database searches have no
visible side-effects and make ideal
applications of query forms.
If the service associated with the processing of a form has side effects
(for example, modification of a
database or subscription to a
service), the method should be POST.
In your AJAX call, you need to use whatever method your server supports. You should always design your server so that operations that modify data are called by POST/PUT/DELETE. Other comments have links to REST, which generally maps C/R/U/D to "POST or PUT"(Create)/GET(Read)/PUT(Update)/DELETE(Delete).
If you're sending large amounts of data, or sensitive data over HTTPS, you will want to use POST. If it's just a simple parameter, I would use GET.
GET requests have a limit to the amount of data that can be sent. I forget the exact number, but this can cause issues if you're sending anything substantial.
Basically the difference between GET and POST is that in a GET request, the parameters are passed in the URL where as in a POST, the parameters are included in the message body.
Whether its AJAX or not is irrelevant. Its about the action that you're taking. I'd recommend following the principles of REST. Which have further provisions for updating, deleting, etc...
GET requests are easier to exploit in CSRF (cross site request forgery) attacks. Namely fake POST requests require Javascript to be enabled on the user side, while fake GET requests are still possible just with img, script tags.
Many web servers limit the length of the data that can be passed as part of the URL, so the GET request may break in odd ways that are hard to debug.
Also, most server software logs URLs in the access logs, so if you pass sensitive information (such as passwords) in a GET request, this will in all likelihood be written to disk in plaintext.
From a REST perspective, GET requests should have no side-effects -- they shouldn't modify data. So, if you're just GETting a resource by ID, this makes sense, but if you're committing changes to a resource, you should be using PUT, POST, or UPDATE for the http verb.
Both are used to send some data and receive some response using that data.
GET: Get information store in server. Ie. Search, tweet, Person Information. If you want to send information then get request send request using process.php?name=subroto
So it basically send information through url. Url cannot handle more than 2083 char. So for blog post can you remember it is not possible?
POST: Post do same thing as get. User registration, User login, Big data send, Blog Post.
If you need to send secure information then use post or for big data as it not go through url.
AJAX: $.get() and $.post() contain features that are subsets of $.ajax(). It has much configuration.
$.get () method, which is a kind of shorthand for $.Ajax (). When using $.get (), instead of passing in an object, you pass in arguments. At minimum, you’ll need the first two arguments, which are the URL of the file you want to retrieve (i.e. ‘test.txt’) and a success callback.
Summary:
$.get( url [, data ] [, success ] [, dataType ] )
$.post( url [, data ] [, success ] [, dataType ] ) // for sending secure or Large information
$.ajax( url [, settings ] ) // More Configaration
First, general information. Use GET if you only read data, use POST if you change something on database, txt files etc.
But the problem is, some browsers cache GET results. I had problems with AJAX requests in IE7, but at last I found out that browser caches GET results. I rethought the flow and changes my request to POST.
So, don't use GET if you don't want caching.
(Of course you can disable caching in GET operations. But I didn't prefer it)
About me, i prefer POST. I reserve get to the events i know the sent value is limited to data i have the "control", for example, to retreive an item with an id. Example, "getitem?id=123", "deleteImtem?id=123", ... For the other cases, when i have a form fillable by a user, i prefer POST.
Like Ryan Smith have said, it's better to use POST to send a large amount of data, and less wories in cases of the use in others language/special chars (generally all majors javascript framework should'nt have any problems to deal with that but i think is less wories to use POST).
For the REST perspective, in my opinion, you can use this with a new project (to keep a consistency with the entire project).
Finally, maybee some programs used in a network (URL loguers (ie.: to see if the employees lost their time on non-autorised sites, ...) proxys, ... ) or any other kind of tool can intercept the query. Somes will show in the reports the params you have sent with GET, considering it like a different web page. But in this situation, is could be not your problem it's changes from a project to an other! ;)
The difference is the same between GET and POST whether you're using Ajax, HTML forms, or curl. Here are the relevant definitions:
GET
POST
If you are passing on any arguments with characters that can get messed up in the URL (such as spaces), you use POST. Otherwise you can use GET.
Generally, if you're just passing on a few tiny arguments you would use GET. But for passing on user submitted information such as blog entries, text, etc, its a good practice to use POST.
There are also certain frameworks that rely completely on segment based urls (such as site.com/products/133 rather than site.com/products.php?id=333 and these frameworks unset the GET variables for security. In such cases you would use POST allt the time.