How do I achieve this security logic in Firebase FireStore? - google-cloud-firestore

The illustration below shows the logic of security rules that I need to apply for my firebase firestore.
Description
My app allows user authentication, and I manually activate client accounts. Upon activation, they can add users to their database collection, as well as perform operations on their database. I have illustrated each client as 'Organization' below, and each has multiple users which should only be able to access specific parts of the database collections/documents.
Each organization has an admin user who has full access over the database collection of that particular organization. Each user (from each organization) can access the node 'Elements', as well as their own UID-generated docs and collections only.
It seems like I need custom claim auths to achieve that. I wonder if some alternatives exist, like adding some specific security rules in my fireStore to make this work, or any other alternatives besides the firebase admin sdk tools, as it's time consuming and I'm not an expert backend developer.
Other Details
I use flutter. My app allows clients to authenticate and create their database collection. Clients add users (as team members) with different roles (which affect what collection/document they can access)
This security rules logic is the main thing I'm stuck on right now.
I highly appreciate suggestions and examples that might shed light on my way of achieving that.
illustration
My FireStore security rules right now

One possible solution:
Each organisation should contain a list of strings (userIds), and only users with userId in this list can access the Organisation collection and docs.
Database structure:
organisation_1:
userIds (field containing list of user ids - []<String>):
adminId (field containing admin id - String):
admin (collection):
users (collection):
elements (collection):
premium (collection):
organisation_2:
Security rules
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
function isLoggedIn() {
// only true if user is logged in
return request.auth != null;
}
match /organisation/{organisationId} {
function prefix() {
return /databases/$(database)/documents/organisation/$(organisationId);
}
function isAdmin() {
// only true if admin
return isLoggedIn() && request.auth.uid == get(/$(prefix())).data.adminId;
}
function isUser() {
// only true if user
return isLoggedIn() && request.auth.uid in get(/$(prefix())).data.usersId;
}
function isDataOwner(dataId) {
// only true if user is admin or userId is the document id.
// this rule should allow each user access to their own UID-
// generated docs and collections only
return isLoggedIn() && (isAdmin() || dataId == request.auth.uid);
}
// since userIds list is organisation data, we should prevent any
// user from editing it (or only allow admin to edit it).
// if you are using cloud function to update userIds list, set this
// to false. Cloud function does not need access.
allow write: if isAdmin();
allow read: if true;
match /Elements/{elementsId=**} {
// allow access to the entire Elements collection and
// subcollections if isAdmin or isUser.
allow read, write: if isAdmin() || isUser();
}
match /settings/{userId} {
// allow access only if document id is your userId
allow read, write: if isDataOwner(userId);
}
match /adminDocs/{docId} {
// only allow admin
allow read, write: if isAdmin();
}
}
}
}
Then you can use a cloud function to keep your userIds list up to date. Example:
const functions = require("firebase-functions");
const admin = require("firebase-admin");
const db = admin.firestore();
exports.onCreate = functions.firestore
.document("/organisation/{organisationId}/users/{userId}")
.onCreate((_, context) => {
const params = context.params;
const organisationId = params.organisationId;
const userId = params.userId;
const data = {
userIds: admin.firestore.FieldValue.arrayUnion(userId),
};
return db.doc(`/organisation/${organisationId}`)
.set(data, { merge: true });
});
exports.onDelete = functions.firestore
.document("/organisation/{organisationId}/users/{userId}")
onDelete((_, context) => {
const params = context.params;
const organisationId = params.organisationId;
const userId = params.userId;
const data = {
userIds: admin.firestore.FieldValue.arrayRemove(userId),
};
return db.doc(`/organisation/${organisationId}`)
.set(data, { merge: true });
});
You can avoid this cloud function by simply adding userid to userId list when admin creates new user. But cloud function is cleaner (Use it).
UPDATE
$(database) is the name of your firestore database.
{database} (line 3 in my security rules) tells rules to save the actual name of database into database variable.
prefix() returns the path to the organisation document.
If a user tries to access his document in this path organisation/12345/users/67890, then $(database) is default and prefix() returns /databases/default/documents/organisation/12345/
You can go to firestore docs to see how $(database) and path (prefix()) is being used.

Related

How to make a user read a collection of all documents where documents.uid == user.uid in firebase flutter

Basically I have 2 collections 'Bookings' and 'Users'. The 'Bookings' collection contains all bookings created by every user, and the 'Users' collection displays information about the user.
User: {
name:
uid:
}
Bookings: {
location:
time:
uid:
etc:
}
I have a GetBookings() function that retrieves the 'Bookings' collection and display it for an admin account. However, I am currently stuck on how to approach displaying a user his bookings.
getBookings() {
var bookings = FirebaseFirestore.instance.collection('bookings');
return bookings.get();
}
I thought about creating another 'Bookings' collection under each user but am unsure on how to link this new 'Bookings' collection with the previous collection in order to preserve the same bookings id. I had a go with security rules as mentioned by #Renaud Tarnec, however I might be getting the syntax wrong, or during looping through the bookings collection and receiving a permission denied on our request it preemptively stops my fetchBookings() function, or a user might be able to access the entire 'Bookings' collection regardless of whether each booking has his uid or not.
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Allows users to view their bookings
match /bookings/{booking} {
allow read: if request.auth != null && request.auth.uid == booking.uid;
allow write: if true;
}
}
}
Future<List<BookingModel>> fetchBookings() async {
var bookings = await _bookingRepository.fetchAllBookings();
return bookings.map((snapshot) {
var bookingMap = snapshot.data();
return BookingModel(bookingMap['email'], bookingMap['location'], bookingMap['phoneNumber'],
bookingMap['dateTime'], bookingMap['uid'], bookingMap['dateCreated']);
}).toList();
}
I'd like to know what would be professional/industrially accepted way in tackling this problem.
Like I said, in my opinion, the best solution for you is to set correct rules in database and create correct queries to get that data.
Rules:
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /{document=**} {
allow read, write: if false;
}
match /bookings/{docId} {
allow read: if resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid || isAdmin()
// bellow you can use second part after && but im not sure are it will be null or unassigned this is overenginered so you can just not use condition after &&.
allow update: if resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid && request.resource.data.uid == null || isAdmin()
allow create: if request.auth != null && request.resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid || isAdmin()
allow delete: if isAdmin()
}
}
}
function isAdmin() {
return request.auth.token.admin == true;
}
Queries you need to make for users:
getBookings() {
// Im not sure are it will work like that in flutter im not a flutter programmer.
// You need to specify using where() method that you want documents with your uid or rules will not allow you to get eny data.
var bookings = FirebaseFirestore.instance.collection('bookings').where('uid', '==', user.uid);
return bookings.get();
}
It would be better if: While you adding the booking data to the "Booking" collection, you also need to add it also to the user.booking collection.
Since the bookings collection can only be accessed by an admin account, a classical solution in your case (denormalization in a NoSQL Database) is to use a Cloud Function to create the Booking document in the users/{userID}/bookings subcollection when a new Booking is created in the bookings collection.
Something along the following lines:
exports.duplicateBooking = functions
.firestore
.document('bookings/{docId}')
.onCreate((snap, context) => {
const userId = ....; // Not clear from your question how you define that. You should probably add it to the booking doc.
const bookingData = snap.data();
return admin
.firestore()
.collection(`users/${userId}/bookings)
.add({
'location': bookingData.location,
'time': bookingData.time,
'email': bookingData.email,
'phoneNumber': bookingData.phoneNumber
});
});
Another possibilities would be to keep a unique bookings collection with a set of Security Rules that allows a user to read his own bookings. In this case, remember that rules are not filters when you write the corresponding query.

Firestore rules: unable to verify role in subcollection

I'm having difficulties to setting up my security rules
Data Structure
-- books (collection)
-- bookId (autogenerated Id - doc)
-- {chapter: text}, {chapter: text},
userBooks
-- email (email of user logged in - doc)
-- books (sub collection)
-- bookId (referencing bookId doc on collection book)
-- role: admin or read
The use case is as follow, a user with admin role is the only one permitted to share a book, allowing him to add an entry in books of another user.
created the function trying to achieve that but it does not pass successfully
I'm am logged in as user with email userWantsToShare#gmail.com. When user tries to share his book to addUser#gmail.com I make the following request:
userWantsToShare#gmail.com making the request to write under addUser#gmail.com collection.
final role = {'role': 'edit'};
await FirebaseFirestore.instance
.collection('userBooks')
.doc("addUser#gmail.com")
.collection('books')
.doc('9KHYZJVBY3BNAlYPYYoA')
.set(role);
When coming to firebase
this should translate to /userBooks/addUser#gmail.com/books/9KHYZJVBY3BNAlYPYYoA
Data {'role': 'edit'}.
match /userBooks/{emailId}/books/{bookId} {
allow write: if isSharedEmail(bookId);
}
//here im verifying the user that wants to share has admin role and therefore is authorised to write in another user book subcollection
function isSharedEmail(bookId){
//this should translate to /userBooks/userWantToShare#gmail.com/books/9KHYZJVBY3BNAlYPYYoA
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/userBooks/$(request.auth.token.email)/books/$(bookId)).data.role == "admin" ;
}
As userWantToShare#gmail.com has under that path admin role it should allow the insertion. But most likely I'm omitting something as it does not work at all.
What m I missing?
Thanks in advance
Ok, for anyone making the same dumb mistake as I did. When making the call to the function isSharedEmail was outside the context.
Meaning that by moving the function to the scope inside the context was enough to make it work
Before: not working
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /userBooks/{email} {
allow write: if ( isAppShared())
allow read: if true;
}
}
}
function isAppShared() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/userBooks/$(request.auth.token.email)).data.bookId == request.resource.data.bookId;
}
After: Working
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /userBooks/{email} {
allow write: if ( isAppShared())
allow read: if true;
}
function isAppShared() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/userBooks/$(request.auth.token.email)).data.bookId == request.resource.data.bookId;
}
}
}

Get role in every rule Firebase security

Hello so I have a role in my user collection and I wanted to write the rules depending on the role so if the role is the teacher you can have access to a little more stuff than the parent role. Now my question is there a possibility that I can access the role and use it for every collection, not only the user collection. Like a function that just checks every time what your role is?
I'm doing this for the first time and I'm not pretty sure if I understand everything right, so far.
This is what I have in my rules so far:
rules_version = '2';
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
function isSignedIn() {
return request.auth != null;
}
function isOneOfRoles(rsc, array) {
return isSignedIn() && ((getRole() in array) || rsc.data.openWorld == true);
}
function getRole() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/users/$(request.auth.uid)).data.role == 'pädagoge';
}
match /posts/{userPosts} {
allow read: if isSignedIn();
allow create: if isOneOfRoles(resource, ['pädagoge']);
}
match /messages/{messages} {
allow read, write: if isSignedIn();
}
}
}
UPDATE
I've tried your security rules in the Firestore "Rules playground". You can see below that you need to do isOneOfRoles(request.resource, ['pädagoge']);: with only resource, the rule engine cannot check the value of the field openWorld beacause the future state of the document is contained in the request.resource variable, not in the resource one. See the doc for more details.
You also need to have a corresponding user in the users collection with a role field with the value pädagoge: in my example the user's UID is A1 (i.e. the ID of the Firestore doc in the users collection). See on the second and third screenshots below how we use this value in the Firebase UID field in the "Rules playground" simulator.
(same screenshot as above, only the left pane was scrolled down to show the Firebase UID field)

Firestore security rules - Unique usernames [duplicate]

The Problem
I have seen this question several times (also in the context of the Firebase Real-Time Database), but I haven't seen a convincing answer to it. The problem statement is fairly simple:
How can (authenticated) users choose a username that hasn't been taken yet?
First of all, the why: After a user authenticates, they have a unique user ID. Many web-apps, however, let the user choose a "display name" (how the user wants to appear on the website), in order to protect the users personal data (like real name).
The Users Collection
Given a data structure like the following it is possible to store a username along with other data for each user:
/users (collection)
/{uid} (document)
- name: "<the username>"
- foo: "<other data>"
However, nothing prevents another user (with a different {uid}) to store the same name in their record. As far as I know, there is no "security rule" that allows us to check if the name has already been by another user.
Note: A client side check is possible, but unsafe as a malicious client could omit the check.
The Reverse Mapping
Popular solutions are creating a collection with a reverse mapping:
/usernames (collection)
/{name} (document)
- uid: "<the auth {uid} field>"
Given this reverse mapping, it is possible to write a security rule to enforce that a username is not already taken:
match /users/{userId} {
allow read: if true;
allow create, update: if
request.auth.uid == userId &&
request.resource.data.name is string &&
request.resource.data.name.size() >= 3 &&
get(/PATH/usernames/$(request.resource.data.name)).data.uid == userId;
}
and to force a user to create a usernames document first:
match /usernames/{name} {
allow read: if true;
allow create: if
request.resource.data.size() == 1 &&
request.resource.data.uid is string &&
request.resource.data.uid == request.auth.uid;
}
I believe the solution is half-way there. However, there are still a few unsolved issues.
Remaining Issues / Questions
This implementation is quite involved already but it doesn't even solve the problem of users that want to change their user name (requires record deletion or update rules, etc.)
Another issue is, nothing prevents a user from adding multiple records in the usernames collection, effectively snatching all good usernames to sabotage the system.
So to the questions:
Is there a simpler solution to enforce unique usernames?
How can spamming the usernames collection be prevented?
How can the username checks be made case-insensitive?
I tried also enforcing existence of the users, with another exists() rule for the /usernames collection and then committing a batch write operation, however, this doesn't seem to work ("Missing or insufficient permissions" error).
Another note: I have seen solutions with client-side checks. BUT THESE ARE UNSAFE. Any malicious client can modify the code, and omit checks.
#asciimike on twitter is a firebase security rules developer.
He says there is currently no way to enforce uniqueness on a key on a document. https://twitter.com/asciimike/status/937032291511025664
Since firestore is based on Google Cloud datastore it inherits this issue. It's been a long standing request since 2008.
https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/35875869#c14
However, you can achieve your goal by using firebase functions and some strict security rules.
You can view my entire proposed solution on medium.
https://medium.com/#jqualls/firebase-firestore-unique-constraints-d0673b7a4952
Created another, pretty simple solution for me.
I have usernames collection to storing unique values. username is available if the document doesn't exist, so it is easy to check on front-end.
Also, I added the pattern ^([a-z0-9_.]){5,30}$ to valide a key value.
Checking everything with Firestore rules:
function isValidUserName(username){
return username.matches('^([a-z0-9_.]){5,30}$');
}
function isUserNameAvailable(username){
return isValidUserName(username) && !exists(/databases/$(database)/documents/usernames/$(username));
}
match /users/{userID} {
allow update: if request.auth.uid == userID
&& (request.resource.data.username == resource.data.username
|| isUserNameAvailable(request.resource.data.username)
);
}
match /usernames/{username} {
allow get: if isValidUserName(username);
}
Firestore rules will not allow updating user's document in case if the username already exists or have an invalid value.
So, Cloud Functions will be handling only in case if the username has a valid value and doesn't exist yet. So, your server will have much less work.
Everything you need with cloud functions is to update usernames collection:
const functions = require("firebase-functions");
const admin = require("firebase-admin");
admin.initializeApp(functions.config().firebase);
exports.onUserUpdate = functions.firestore
.document("users/{userID}")
.onUpdate((change, context) => {
const { before, after } = change;
const { userID } = context.params;
const db = admin.firestore();
if (before.get("username") !== after.get('username')) {
const batch = db.batch()
// delete the old username document from the `usernames` collection
if (before.get('username')) {
// new users may not have a username value
batch.delete(db.collection('usernames')
.doc(before.get('username')));
}
// add a new username document
batch.set(db.collection('usernames')
.doc(after.get('username')), { userID });
return batch.commit();
}
return true;
});
Create a series of cloud functions that are triggered whenever a document is added, updated, or deleted in the users table. The cloud functions will maintain a separate lookup table named usernames, with document ids set to the usernames. Your front-end app can then query the usernames collection to see if a username is available.
Here is TypeScript code for the cloud functions:
/* Whenever a user document is added, if it contains a username, add that
to the usernames collection. */
export const userCreated = functions.firestore
.document('users/{userId}')
.onCreate((event) => {
const data = event.data();
const username = data.username.toLowerCase().trim();
if (username !== '') {
const db = admin.firestore();
/* just create an empty doc. We don't need any data - just the presence
or absence of the document is all we need */
return db.doc(`/usernames/${username}`).set({});
} else {
return true;
}
});
/* Whenever a user document is deleted, if it contained a username, delete
that from the usernames collection. */
export const userDeleted = functions.firestore
.document('users/{userId}')
.onDelete((event) => {
const data = event.data();
const username = data.username.toLowerCase().trim();
if (username !== '') {
const db = admin.firestore();
return db.doc(`/usernames/${username}`).delete();
}
return true;
});
/* Whenever a user document is modified, if the username changed, set and
delete documents to change it in the usernames collection. */
export const userUpdated = functions.firestore
.document('users/{userId}')
.onUpdate((event, context) => {
const oldData = event.before.data();
const newData = event.after.data();
if ( oldData.username === newData.username ) {
// if the username didn't change, we don't need to do anything
return true;
}
const oldUsername = oldData.username.toLowerCase().trim();
const newUsername = newData.username.toLowerCase().trim();
const db = admin.firestore();
const batch = db.batch();
if ( oldUsername !== '' ) {
const oldRef = db.collection("usernames").doc(oldUsername);
batch.delete(oldRef);
}
if ( newUsername !== '' ) {
const newRef = db.collection("usernames").doc(newUsername);
batch.set(newRef,{});
}
return batch.commit();
});
This works for me efficiently whereby username must be unique. I am able to add and edit usernames without duplicates.
NOTE: username must be in lowercase always, this eliminates duplicates caused by case sensitivity.
Create users collection:
/users (collection)
/{uid} (document)
- name "the username"
Create usernames collection:
/usernames (collection)
/{name} (document)
- uid "the auth {uid} field"
Then in firestore use the following rules:
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /usernames/{name} {
allow read,create: if request.auth != null;
allow update: if
request.auth.uid == resource.data.uid;
}
match /users/{userId}{
allow read: if true;
allow create, update: if
request.auth.uid == userId &&
request.resource.data.name is string &&
request.resource.data.name.size() >=3 &&
get(/databases/$(database)/documents/usernames/$(request.resource.data.name)).data.uid == userId;
}
}
I store the usernames in the same collection where each username occupies a unique document ID. That way the username which already exists will not be created in the database.
One possible solution is to store all usernames in a single document's usernames field and then permit only additions to that document using sets in Rules:
match /users/allUsernames {
function validateNewUsername() {
// Variables in functions are allowed.
let existingUsernames = resource.data.usernames;
let newUsernames = request.resource.data.usernames;
let usernameToAdd = newUsernames[newUsernames.size() - 1];
// Sets are a thing too.
let noRemovals = existingUsernames.toSet().difference(newUsernames.toSet()).size() == 0;
let usernameDoesntExistYet = !(usernameToAdd in existingUsernames.toSet());
let exactlyOneAddition = newUsernames.size() == existingUsernames.size() + 1;
return noRemovals && usernameDoesntExistYet && exactlyOneAddition;
}
allow update: if request.resource.data.keys().hasOnly(['usernames']) && validateNewUsername();
}
If you wanted to make a mapping from username -> uid (for validating other parts of the ruleset) this is possible in a single document too. You can just take the keyset of the document and do the same set operations as above.
This answer addresses your second concern about adding multiple records in the usernames collection. I'm not sure if this is the best method, but I believe a possible approach to prevent a given user from creating multiple username documents is writing an onCreate cloud function which checks if the user has an existing username document when a new username document is created. If the user does, then the cloud function can delete this document to prevent any malicious username parking.
Store the max integer user id used in the database in another collection. Query that collection everytime to find the max user id. You can even store other max ids in this collection. It can look something like this:
MaxIDCollection:
maxStudentIDDocument={ maxID: 55 } //lets say the max user id in db is 55
maxCourseIDDocument={ maxID: 77 }
Make sure to update the maxIDs everytime you add a new Student or Course.
If in future you add a new Student then by querying this collection you can know "if 55 is max then the new Student should get 56 as id."

Firestore: How to set security on object types with users as field names

As I understand it, Firestore does not allow queries within fields of type array, which is a shame. Therefore, if you want to be able to query the contents of an array you have to set up a field as an object type and then set the fields like a map, this is called a nested map. I want to have a map where the key is the ID of another user. Therefore, the database structure is:
database
users
{userId}
friends
userId1: true
userId2: true
The 'userId1' and 'userId2' field names will vary depending on the userId of the person listed as a friend.
The question is, how do I write my security rule so I can find my documents (via my {userId}) and the documents of other users where my {userId} is a field in the 'friends' object of the other user's document?
I guess it needs to be something like..
match /users/{userId} {
allow read, update, delete: if resource.data.userId == request.auth.uid;
allow read: if resource.data.friends.{userId} == true;
}
But of course this does not work because you cannot seem to use the variable {userId} to name the field that you want to perform a test on. So, if this cannot be done, what is a way to search for documents and have my {userId} stored somehow in someone else's document?
Edit
Well, I think I have the rules determined (see below). However, when trying to test these rules I can't seem to write a Swift call to retrieve data based on that friends object. My Swift call is:
db.collection("users").whereField(FieldPath(["friends.\(userId)"]), isEqualTo: true)
So, my questions are:
Are the rules below correct?
How do I make a Swift call to find the people with a certain userId in the field name of an object type?
service cloud.firestore {
match /databases/{database}/documents {
match /users/{documentId} {
allow read, write: if isOwner();
allow read: if getFriend(request.auth.uid) == true;
function isOwner() {
return request.auth.uid == resource.auth.uid;
}
function getFriend(userId) {
return getUserData().friends[userId]
}
function getUserData() {
return get(/databases/$(database)/documents/rooms/{documentId}).data
}
}
}
}
I still have not resolved the problem of accessing fields in an object, but it is noted that my Security Rules where generally invalid. You cannot have multiple lines with the same rule type in it, you cannot have multiple lines with 'allow: read' for example. You must use && and ||. For example, the correct definition for the basic rules if you want to check two things are:
// Database rules
service cloud.firestore {
// Any Cloud Firestore database in the project.
match /databases/{database}/documents {
// Handle users
match /users/{documentId} {
// The owner can do anything, you can access public data
allow read: if (isOwner() && isEmailVerified()) || isPublic();
allow write: if isOwner() && isEmailVerified();
// Functions //
function isSignedIn() {
return request.auth != null;
}
function isOwner() {
return request.auth.uid == resource.data.userId;
}
function isPublic() {
return resource.data.userId == "public";
}
function isEmailVerified() {
return request.auth.token.email_verified
}
}
}
}