I have to change the table(Retail media resource) data to company specific, Is that any other way to stop sharing the data to other legal entities? Thanks in advance
Tried to change the property(SaveDataPerCompany) but it is not possible through extension.
As it is noted in the question, the SaveDataPerCompany property of tables from sealed standard modules cannot be modified with an extension. This means that data of tables where this property is set to "No" will always be shared between all legal entities.
Instead of preventing the sharing, access to the data can be restricted.
Either the security privileges can be removed from users that should not be able to access the data. This will prevent them from accessing any data of that table. See Role-based security for more information.
Or if only access to some of the data should be allowed, a data security policy can be implemented. See Extensible data security policies for more information.
Related
I am creating accounting/invoicing software and my database is in postgreSQL. Should I create a separate database for each user since the data is sensitive financial data? Or is having a user foreign key secure enough? If I am hosting the database on aws I understand that I could have a few db servers across multiple availability zones and regions so that if one is compromised it wouldn't effect everyone even if many users have info stored in a single database. Is this safe enough? Thanks!
In general no. Encrypt the data so that if someone exfiltrates a dump they can't actually use it without the decryption key. If you're worried that someone with admin access can see the user's information then you might want to consider a user-level encryption for all fields related to personally identifiable information.
There are few ways you could go about it but I wouldn’t create a new DB for every customers. It will be too expensive and a pain to maintain and evolve.
To me, this sounds like you are creating a multi-tenant application.
I’d personally use the row-level security feature in Postgres (see this article) or create a separate Schema for each Customer.
You can add an extra layer of protection with encryption at rest. AWS support it (link)
I'm having a bunch of apis which return several types of data.
All users can query all data by using a GET rest api.
A few users can also change data. What is a common approach when designing REST API, to query only the data that can be changed by the current user but still allow the api to return all data (for display mode).
To explain it further:
The software manages projects. All projects are accessible for all users (also anonymous) via an api (let's call it GET api/projects).
A user has the ability to see a list of all projects he is involved in and which he can edit.
The api should return exactly the same data but limited to the projects he is involed in.
Should I create an additonal parameter, or maybe pass an http header, or what else?
There's no one-size-fits-all answer to this, so I will give you one recommendation that works for some people.
I don't really like creating resources that have 'complex access control'. Instead, I would prefer to create distinct resources for different access levels.
If you want to return limit results for people that have partial access, it might be better to create new resources that reflect this.
I think this might also help a bit thinking about the abstract role of a person who is not allowed to do everything. The abstraction probably doesn't exist per-property, but it exists somewhere as a business rule.
I am working on an application where I need to setup identity server 4. I have an api as resource. and a web forms application as client.I have few roles like teachers, students, parents in my database. How can I use this custom database and perform authentication and authorization without using identity?
Please suggest.
From your other question here I get a better idea of what you want.
I think one solution for what you want would be to setup identityserver4 in a seperate project with its own seperate database. I noticed the tag identityserver3, but I think it is quite safe to go for identityserver4. It shouldn't make a difference for the client/user since they are conceptually compatible.
1) Give your application a client/secret (which you configure in identityserver) in order to identify your application and grant access to the resource api. Here is some information: http://docs.identityserver.io/en/dev/quickstarts/1_client_credentials.html
You'll only need to configure one client to protect your resource from the outside. The only way to access the resource api is through your application, since your application is making the actual calls. This is also the drawback, you cannot expose the token to the outside world.
Since your client isn't the actual user, you'll need to identify the user. You can use any mechanism based on your current model as you like. A simple user/pass (with or without asp.net identity) could be enough to determine the roles. But please keep in mind that your application has full access to the resource api.
2) However, since identityserver is available, why not use it? Why don't you want to use the identitymodel? I think you should consider to seperate the identity information and your datamodel. Your datamodel shouldn't be aware of the security. And the security has nothing to do with your datamodel.
When you create a seperate database for identityserver you have one place to configure the identity users. All you need is a reference (sub) to the user in the datamodel. http://docs.identityserver.io/en/dev/quickstarts/2_resource_owner_passwords.html
Add claims or roles and everything is in place and you'll see there is no need to keep identity data in your custom database. The structure of your custom database stays intact, including the user table but without the identity data.
I think this is a safer solution and considering the good documentation and sample projects it may even turn out to be a quicker solution.
So I'm in the middle of planning a little web app that will require quite large amounts of data stored on a user level, in one case, the system would take a large object from a system level and make a "user specific" version, a user can have multiple ones of these. Simplest would be to compare it to a form stored in a google spreadsheet, where the user is expected to use the template spreadsheet, then change not only the answers but also the question.
Security wise I am quite OK
In the second case there is requirement to store multiple objects, size about 250k to maybe 3mb, once again on a user specific level, with a potential to move it to a system level so additional users can access it. As an example, say the user can upload pictures, but may not want to share all of them. However, a user may choose to "publish" a small number of them because they are happy with those specific pictures.
What design patterns should I consider using specifically around web apps where the user have decent amounts of data? For example, would it make most sense to use a single large database and have a table that keeps track of resources or create separate tables per user?
I have considered putting it all in a mongo database.
Your approach may be wrong.
If you want to store user based binary data and make it accessible for the user itself or the community, you would need a hierarchic structure like so:
userid1
pic1,pic2,pic3
userid2
pic4,pic5,pic6
community
pic7,pic8
You could then grant read permissions to "community" for all users, and permission for each user to its own directory.
Usually there is nothing wrong using a database to store binary files if you consider partitioning, role permissions and an applicable interface to access the data.
My suggestion is to use a binary repository like Artifactory.
It provides hierarchic structures, simple search queries using HTTP requests and has caching abilities for frequently queried objects.
I also think that http requests are a lot easier to use and also there is an abstraction layer to the data which is more secure.
Artifactory is free.
I need some opinions.
I'm going to develop a POS and inventory software for a friend. This is a one man small scale project so I want to make the architecture as simple as possible.
I'm using Winform to develop the GUI (web interface doesn't make sense for POS software). For the database, I am using Postgresql.
The program will control access based on user roles, so either I have to develop a middle tier, using a web server, to control user access or I can just set user priveleges directly in Postgresql.
Developing a middle tier will be time consuming, and the maintenance will be more complex. So I prefer to set access control directly in the database.
Now it appears that using database to control user access is troublesome. I have to set priveleges for each role. Not to mention that for some tables, the priveleges are at column level. This makes reasoning about the security very hard.
So what I'm doing now is to set all the tables to be inaccessible except by superusers. The program will connect to the database using public role. Because the tables are inaccessible by public, I'm going to make publicly accessible stored functions with SECURITY DEFINER (with superuser role). The only way to access the tables is by using these functions.
I'll put the user roles and passwords in a table. Because the user table itself is inaccessible by non-superuser, I'll make a login function, let's call it fn_login(username, password). fn_login will return a session key if login is successful.
To call other functions, we need to supply session key for the user, e.g.: fn_purchase_list(session_key), fn_purchase_new(session_key, purchase_id, ...).
That way, I'm treating the stored functions as APIs. Adding new user will be easier as I only need to add new rows in the user table rather than adding new Postgresql roles. I won't need to set priveleges at column level. All controls will be done programmatically.
So what do you think? Is this approach feasible and scalable? Is there a better way to do it?
Thanks!
I believe there is a better way to do it. But since you haven't discussed what type of security you need, I cannot elaborate on specifics.
Since you are developing the application code in .NET, that code needs to be trusted (unlike a web application). Therefore, why don't you simply implement your roles and permissions in the application code, rather than the database?
My concern with your stated approach is the human overhead of stored procedures. Would much rather see you write the stated functions in C#, rather than in PostgreSQL. Then, standard version control and software development techniques could apply.
If you wait until somebody has at your database to check security, I think you'll be too late. That's a client/server mentality that went out at the end of the 90s. It's part of the reason why n-tier architectures came into vogue. Client/server can't scale horizontally as well as an n-tier solution.
I'd advise that you take better advantage of the middle tier. Security should be a cross-cutting concern that's further up the stack than your persistence layer.
If the MANAGEMENT of the database security is the issue, then you should add the task of automating that management. That means that you can store higher level data with the database tables, and then your application can convert that data in to the appropriate details and artifacts that the database requires.
It sounds like the database has the detail that you need, you just need to facilitate the management of that detail, and roll that in to your app.
My honest advice: Do not invent POS and inventory software. Take one of existing projects and make it better.