The Firebase Web-App guide states I should put the given apiKey in my Html to initialize Firebase:
// TODO: Replace with your project's customized code snippet
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/firebasejs/3.0.2/firebase.js"></script>
<script>
// Initialize Firebase
var config = {
apiKey: '<your-api-key>',
authDomain: '<your-auth-domain>',
databaseURL: '<your-database-url>',
storageBucket: '<your-storage-bucket>'
};
firebase.initializeApp(config);
</script>
By doing so, the apiKey is exposed to every visitor.
What is the purpose of that key and is it really meant to be public?
The apiKey in this configuration snippet just identifies your Firebase project on the Google servers. It is not a security risk for someone to know it. In fact, it is necessary for them to know it, in order for them to interact with your Firebase project. This same configuration data is also included in every iOS and Android app that uses Firebase as its backend.
In that sense it is very similar to the database URL that identifies the back-end database associated with your project in the same snippet: https://<app-id>.firebaseio.com. See this question on why this is not a security risk: How to restrict Firebase data modification?, including the use of Firebase's server side security rules to ensure only authorized users can access the backend services.
If you want to learn how to secure all data access to your Firebase backend services is authorized, read up on the documentation on Firebase security rules. These rules control access to file storage and database access, and are enforced on the Firebase servers. So no matter if it's your code, or somebody else's code that uses you configuration data, it can only do what the security rules allow it to do.
For another explanation of what Firebase uses these values for, and for which of them you can set quotas, see the Firebase documentation on using and managing API keys.
If you'd like to reduce the risk of committing this configuration data to version control, consider using the SDK auto-configuration of Firebase Hosting. While the keys will still end up in the browser in the same format, they won't be hard-coded into your code anymore with that.
Update (May 2021): Thanks to the new feature called Firebase App Check, it is now actually possible to limit access to the backend services in your Firebase project to only those coming from iOS, Android and Web apps that are registered in that specific project.
You'll typically want to combine this with the user authentication based security described above, so that you have another shield against abusive users that do use your app.
By combining App Check with security rules you have both broad protection against abuse, and fine gained control over what data each user can access, while still allowing direct access to the database from your client-side application code.
Building on the answers of prufrofro and Frank van Puffelen here, I put together this setup that doesn't prevent scraping, but can make it slightly harder to use your API key.
Warning: To get your data, even with this method, one can for example simply open the JS console in Chrome and type:
firebase.database().ref("/get/all/the/data").once("value", function (data) {
console.log(data.val());
});
Only the database security rules can protect your data.
Nevertheless, I restricted my production API key use to my domain name like this:
https://console.developers.google.com/apis
Select your Firebase project
Credentials
Under API keys, pick your Browser key. It should look like this: "Browser key (auto created by Google Service)"
In "Accept requests from these
HTTP referrers (web sites)", add the URL of your app (exemple: projectname.firebaseapp.com/* )
Now the app will only work on this specific domain name. So I created another API Key that will be private for localhost developement.
Click Create credentials > API Key
By default, as mentioned by Emmanuel Campos, Firebase only whitelists localhost and your Firebase hosting domain.
In order to make sure I don't publish the wrong API key by mistake, I use one of the following methods to automatically use the more restricted one in production.
Setup for Create-React-App
In /env.development:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###dev-key###
In /env.production:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###public-key###
In /src/index.js
const firebaseConfig = {
apiKey: process.env.REACT_APP_API_KEY,
// ...
};
I am not convinced to expose security/config keys to client. I would not call it secure, not because some one can steal all private information from first day, because someone can make excessive request, and drain your quota and make you owe to Google a lot of money.
You need to think about many concepts from restricting people not to access where they are not supposed to be, DOS attacks etc.
I would more prefer the client first will hit to your web server, there you put what ever first hand firewall, captcha , cloudflare, custom security in between the client and server, or between server and firebase and you are good to go. At least you can first stop suspect activity before it reaches to firebase. You will have much more flexibility.
I only see one good usage scenario for using client based config for internal usages. For example, you have internal domain, and you are pretty sure outsiders cannot access there, so you can setup environment like browser -> firebase type.
The API key exposure creates a vulnerability when user/password sign up is enabled. There is an open API endpoint that takes the API key and allows anyone to create a new user account. They then can use this new account to log in to your Firebase Auth protected app or use the SDK to auth with user/pass and run queries.
I've reported this to Google but they say it's working as intended.
If you can't disable user/password accounts you should do the following:
Create a cloud function to auto disable new users onCreate and create a new DB entry to manage their access.
Ex: MyUsers/{userId}/Access: 0
exports.addUser = functions.auth.user().onCreate(onAddUser);
exports.deleteUser = functions.auth.user().onDelete(onDeleteUser);
Update your rules to only allow reads for users with access > 1.
On the off chance the listener function doesn't disable the account fast enough then the read rules will prevent them from reading any data.
I believe once database rules are written accurately, it will be enough to protect your data. Moreover, there are guidelines that one can follow to structure your database accordingly. For example, making a UID node under users, and putting all under information under it. After that, you will need to implement a simple database rule as below
"rules": {
"users": {
"$uid": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid"
}
}
}
}
No other user will be able to read other users' data, moreover, domain policy will restrict requests coming from other domains.
One can read more about it on
Firebase Security rules
While the original question was answered (that the api key can be exposed - the protection of the data must be set from the DB rulles), I was also looking for a solution to restrict the access to specific parts of the DB.
So after reading this and some personal research about the possibilities, I came up with a slightly different approach to restrict data usage for unauthorised users:
I save my users in my DB too, under the same uid (and save the profile data in there). So i just set the db rules like this:
".read": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()",
".write": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()"
This way only a previous saved user can add new users in the DB so there is no way anyone without an account can do operations on DB.
Also adding new users is posible only if the user has a special role and edit only by admin or by that user itself (something like this):
"userdata": {
"$userId": {
".write": "$userId === auth.uid || root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').val() === 'superadmin'",
...
EXPOSURE OF API KEYS ISN'T A SECURITY RISK BUT ANYONE CAN PUT YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THEIR SITE.
Open api keys leads to attacks that can use a lot resources at firebase that will definitely cost your hard money.
You can always restrict you firebase project keys to domains / IP's.
https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/key
select your project Id and key and restrict it to Your Android/iOs/web App.
It is oky to include them, and special care is required only for Firebase ML or when using Firebase Authentication
API keys for Firebase are different from typical API keys:
Unlike how API keys are typically used, API keys for Firebase services are not used to control access to backend resources; that can only be done with Firebase Security Rules. Usually, you need to fastidiously guard API keys (for example, by using a vault service or setting the keys as environment variables); however, API keys for Firebase services are ok to include in code or checked-in config files.
Although API keys for Firebase services are safe to include in code, there are a few specific cases when you should enforce limits for your API key; for example, if you're using Firebase ML or using Firebase Authentication with the email/password sign-in method. Learn more about these cases later on this page.
For more informations, check the offical docs
I am making a blog website on github pages. I got an idea to embbed comments in the end of every blog page. I understand how firebase get and gives you data.
I have tested many times with project and even using console. I am totally disagree the saying vlit is vulnerable.
Believe me there is no issue of showing your api key publically if you have followed privacy steps recommend by firebase.
Go to https://console.developers.google.com/apis
and perfrom a security steup.
You should not expose this info. in public, specially api keys.
It may lead to a privacy leak.
Before making the website public you should hide it. You can do it in 2 or more ways
Complex coding/hiding
Simply put firebase SDK codes at bottom of your website or app thus firebase automatically does all works. you don't need to put API keys anywhere
I got 401 unauthorized when trying to export a report from Power BI online by using the Power BI REST API.
My access token works fine with other API methods. I am also setting full API access in App registrations.
When I logged in by using the same account and use 'try', the access token provided in this test actually works.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/power-bi/reports/exportreport
Has anyone successfully used this method?
You will need to create an Authentication app and provide the right privileges corresponding to the REST API you are loading from. For this particular API Microsoft suggests to provide Report.Read.All or Report.ReadWrite.All privileges.
You can achieve this directly by creating an authentication application from https://dev.powerbi.com/apps.
You will also need to make sure you grant the admin consent once your app is up and running.
Also, make sure the request you are creating is in the right format. If you match your request with the one specified here : https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/rest/api/power-bi/reports/export report and test to check if it working with your parameters and login, you should be able to make it work with your code. Also test it with Postman to make sure you are entering the right configuration in the request and you know what you are requesting.
Once you have all this in place, you should not have any issues accessing the right data.
Our organization has a data collection on their servers. A soap API has been implemented and the data can be accessed using the WSDL on SOAP UI. I am a front-end developer and when I make a POST request using XMLHttpRequest to get the query result, it throws CORS error: "Response to the preflight request doesn't pass access control". It is NOT possible to enable CORS on the data collection servers. I am using Liferay for the website front end and the back end.
Any suggestions how I can get the query results from the front end without enabling CORS on database servers(this is different than the Liferay backend server)? Or I can use a website backend to interact with the database? Or use third-party services like Kinvey?
I have had similar issues in the past. Like you, I wanted to create a basic webpage on my machine and that contained some Javascript to call an API. With this approach, I got the CORS issue you are seeing.
I then hosted my page on a web-server and I still got the CORS issue.
To resolve, I had to create a web app, which I wrote in Java. This back-end contained its own API. One of the resources in 'my' API was a simple wrapper to call the API of interest. I then modified the webpage I wrote (now all hosted in the same web app), to call my API, which in turn calls the API of interest.
I do have some data stored in my Real-Time Firebase database. I am willing to expose some of this data via a REST API to my B2B customers.
I know that Firebase is itself a REST API but its authentication mechanisms don't fit my needs. I am willing my customers to access the API with a simple API Key passed in the HTTP request headers.
To summarize, I need an API layer sitting on top of my Firebase real-time database with the following properties:
Basic Authentication via an API key passed in the HTTP request headers
Some custom logic that makes sure customers respect the API limits (maximum requests per day for example)
The only thing I can think of is implementing this layer in AWS lambda but that also sounds a bit off. From the lambda, I would have to access my Firebase database and serve that data. That seems too many network requests; something native to Firebase would be great.
Thanks,
Guven.
Why not have a simple API which provides them an Oauth token for the original firebase REST API if they have the correct Api Key
It'll be more secure as only you'll be able to make the tokens as only you'll have the service account private key. Also saves you the headache of making a whole REST API. Also the Oauth tokens expire relatively quickly so it's less of a risk than a normal key that you furnish
I personally have created my own Servlets where a user posts their data if they are authenticated using an id pass combo.
In the Servlets i use the default REST API provided by Firebase with the Oauth generated in my servlet. This way, i can have the DB security rules set to false for all writes from any client api. And the REST API and their admin sdk on my server ignore the security rules by default.
After some research, I have decided that AWS is the best platform such API related features.
Gateway API lets you setup your API interface in a matter of seconds
DynamoDB stores your API data; you can easily populate the data here
AWS Lambda lets you write the integration code between Gateway API and DynamoDB
On top of these, the platform offers these features out of the box:
Creation & handling and verification of API keys for authentication
Usage plans to make sure that API consumers don't exceed your API usage limits
Most of what I was looking for is offered in these AWS services.
I recently succeeded in building a page that loads data via an ajax get call to a REST interface (that runs on my server) and then uses the data to construct a map overlay for Google maps via JS.
I managed to do this but now I have concerns about the security of my data. Obviously everybody could just use curl to load the overlay data from my REST interface. However, I do not want to make my data so easily available, since they are kind of the business value of my page...
Is saw many solutions on the web that all require a login of the user.
However, this should not be required on my page.
Is there an easy solution to this problem, without the user having to use a log in or something? Basically I only want to allow my web application to query data from my REST interface, but not anyone else.
One solution that came to my head is to pass the data directly from php into JS, when the page is loaded. However this looks like a real ugly solution to me...
On a RESTful interface, I suppose you want to avoid login into a session. You have basically 2 more ways :
use IP address filtering if the web application run on a private network with known IP addresses
pass an identification token in the request headers or as a request parameter. The token has to be passed along in all the requests.