Within the multi-user application I have in my View index.phtml:
<a href="<?php echo $this->url( array( "module" => "myModule", "controller"
=>"myController","action" => "edit", "id" => $objThings->thingsid),
'default', TRUE )?>
Clicking this link will lead to the url:
http://website/mymodule/mycontroller/edit/id/228
where user can edit the record.
Once logged in a user could copy this url and change the parameter to 229 or 130 etc. and get access to information from other users.
What is the best practice to prevent this, set authentication on the level of records and deny access to records of other users? (Of course the records have a userid).
Hiding the parameters in the url would be a step to not tempt a user, suggestions for this are welcome.
Necessary is also authentication on module/action level.
I have been searching but can not seem to find the solution.
Do both. If you want to edit a logged in users profile details, you don't need the id in the URL as you already know who they are.
Then, in your update code, only allow them to update their specific data.
If you have a logged in user, you may well have an object you have for them which will make updating their data easy (depending if you are using ActiveRecord or something else), otherwise ensure you use id in your SQL.
Related
I am working with GWT / RequestFactory and a set of customer requirements regarding permissions. Let me explain a basic example:
Every user is assigned to a company. Every user should be able to edit company's core data - but only e.g contact information, website etc. Security-relevant ones like BIC/SWIFT, IBAN, Company name and so on can only be changed if the user has a certain permission XY.
So far so good, on the client side I can check the permissions and disable those fields the user is not allowed to edit. But what would be the most elegant way to ensure on the server side that those fields have not been set without permission?
My problem is that I cannot track changes on the server side. Having #PreAuthorize on every setter is not an option too, because it would end in an authorization-massacre in each and every entity.
At the moment I am following a workaround: every field that is secured / depends on a given permission is passed as an argument to the entity-method and is excluded from the proxy. That way, values cannot be set using the proxy and I can check in my server code if the user has permissions. If not, nothing happens. If user has permissions, I set the values manually. But that produces a lot of boilerplate-code and ugly method signatures because the number of values passed to the method could get large.
I hope you understand my issue. I'm looking forward for your opinions and tips. Thank you in advance.
Well, you can receive many answers (different each other), and all of them could be right, so, at the end is your call. Wait for others answers. I am going to give you the approach that I followed (and it worked pretty well). :D.
Under my opinion, the server should do less as possible, so keep the logic for allowing modify each param on the server I think it is not a scalable solution (if your system has 1M users modifying everything at the same time, will your server work fluent?). I prefer let the client do the job (like Roomba :D).
For solving that problem, in our system we implemented an Access Control List solution. You can store in your db, on each user entity, a list with granted permissions. So, when that information arrives to the client (after user's log in, for example), you can get them, and show the fields that he/she is allow to modify.
Something like:
if (canModifyPersonalDetails(user.getAcls(), ...) ) {
//show labels ...
}
if (canModifyBankDetails(user.getAcls(), ...) ) {
//show labels
}
You can not avoid server call for log in, so it is not a big deal send the extra information (think about the ACLs could be simple list of integers 0 means personal details, 1 bank details....).
If you are dealing with very compromised information and you prefer do some stuff on the server, in that case probably I'd set up a security level, when you are persisting/updating your proxy, I'd do something like:
if (isAllowForPersonalDetails(user.getSecurityCode()) {
//update the modified personal details
}
if (isAllowForBankDetails(user.getSecurityCode()) {
//update the modified bank details
}
user.update();
I am a big fan of clear User GUI's, and a very big fan of let the server free as much as possible, so I prefer the first option. But if you have constraints for modifying user entity in db, or you prefer do not modify your views, or any constraint with security, maybe the second option is the best one for you.
Hope that helps!
I'm absolutely new of Symfony, and I'm trying to implement a registration form that works only with invitation
but that can redirect two different forms for two different roles.
In practice if I send an invitation for an USER_TYPE1 role the client can only register like USER_TYPE1, if I send an invitation for an USER_TYPE2 the client can only register like USER_TYPE2 (and, of course, assigns the corrispondent role).
Is it possible?
thank you in advance for your help
UPDATE:
I want two different form because one user will be allowed to update file, but will also have to set his position and other important settings. The second user will only allow to download the files uploaded by the first kind of user, and his profile needs completely different information.
I do not have enough reputation to ask for details, but one thing that is not clear in your question is: why do you need 2 different forms? In your question, you mention 2 different roles, but why do you need 2 different forms? If you really need 2 different forms, then you should first:
- create a new form type
- create a new view (twig)
Like Boris suggested, I would keep some kind of token for every invitation sent, and associate an email address, and a role to it. Then modify your registration route so you can pass a token in there, like this:
register:
pattern: /signup/{token}
defaults: { _controller: MyBundle:Registration:signup }
In the registration action of your controller, you created the correct form type and display the appropriate twig, depending on the ROLE associated to the token you just got. And when handling a POST, you check the Token again to see if it matches the email address, and assign the proper ROLE when creating the User.
public function signupAction($token) {
// 1. Get the Token entity matching the $token variable
// 2. Create the correct form type
// 3. Display the correct twig for GET, assign correct ROLE to new User for POST
}
But you can't use FOSUserBundle as-is. You will have to overwrite the registration process. You can read the FOSUserBundle documentation about that.
What's certain is that, for every invitation you send, you should keep a token with a matching email address and ROLE (the role you want to give to that person).
I am not 100% sure if this is as big an issue has I seem to think it is right now but I think I may of found an issue or at else an hole within the Inspect Element viewer within Chrome.
I was using (I have now changed my settings) hidden ID's to set a number of defaults, one was users levels, another was to make the user active by default.
However when I view these ID's within the inspect Element view and then changed the values, submitting the form would submit the NEW value to the server and not the value I had given it.
For Example:
I had something like the following within my code,
<input type="hidden" name="data[user][level][id]" value="1" id="MyID">
I then changed it within the Inspect view to,
<input type="hidden" name="data[user][level][id]" value="2" id="MyID">
Then I submitted the form and was surprised that the NEW value was submitted, I was always under the inpresion that hidden ID's where not changeable and the browser should only submit the default values held within.
I have now changed this to letting the database default to a basic user and then I can change the users setting has I want to. But in some cases this may not be an option, so I was hoping for an answer or some feedback about how to make this more safe.
Am I just a bit slow, are there better methods (different ones) to passing 'hidden' data from forms to the server?
I was thinking about maybe using JQuery to add the needed hidden fields to the forms once the user had selected / submitted the form, but i am not sure if this is 100% safe or even if its a good idea.
Any ideas / feedback are very welcome.....
Many Thanks,
Glenn.
I had the same problem passing the database data into a modal,the solution i know is to use jquery ajax to get the informations from the database requesting a file,adding them into variables and compare the variables
$.ajax({
url: "test.html",
context: document.body
}).done(function() {
$(this).addClass("done");
});
I used this code sample to do it.
Of course there are a few modifications to be done depending on your script
I found a better way of doing this, at lest in CakePHP. The CakePHP framework has inbuilt security calls. These in-built functions when added give you all sorts of stuff but the main reason I used them was to stop this sort of form tampering.
I am not 100% sure how it does this, but it adds a token to all forms and it checks to see if the form being submitted is right? Again not sure how the token works.
But here is the code I used ::
public function beforeFilter() {
$this->Auth->allow('index', 'SystemAccess');
$this->Security->blackHoleCallback = 'blackhole';
}
public function blackhole($type) {
$this->Auth->logout();
$this->Session->setFlash('Sorry a security issue has been detected, please try again or contact us for support.', 'default', array(), 'bad');
$this->redirect($this->Auth->redirect('/'));
}
Now I will add that the call the Auth logout I added to this for extra added security, as the user maybe have logged in on a system and it just not be them that is trying to do things that they should not.
Hope that helps others out!
But this is only a fix for when CakePHP is in use. I would take it that other frameworks would have their options but if your only using basic HTML? or a CMS like Drupal again there might be in built security.
Many Thanks
Glenn.
The only safe and best solution that I found for this issue is to check on the server side whether the user_id sent with the form is the same user_id logged in with or not.
Although using jquery is good idea, but, did not work with my case as am using data: $(this).serialize(),
However here's my code on the server side (Note, am using Laravel 5.4, but am sure it won't matter with your case)
if ($request->user_id != Auth::user()->id)
return json_encode("F**K YOU ! Don't Play Smart -_- !");
else
raw_material_category::create($request->all());
Hope this helped ;)
I'm using devise/omniauth to do facebook authentication and works great. However, I would like to add a flow where an existing (non-facebook) user has ability to connect his account with facebook. This would require different facebook permissions. so i can't seem to find two things
how to use devise/omniauth to request facebook connect without logging out current user
request different extended permissions from user (different from those specified in the devise configuration file)
any ideas? thanks
Answer to 1 is pretty easy: just add a if path into the omniauth_callbacks_controller::process_callback method like this
# If a user is signed in then he is trying to link a new account
if user_signed_in?
if authentication.persisted? # This was a linking operation so send back the user to the account edit page
flash[:success] = I18n.t "controllers.omniauth_callbacks.process_callback.success.link_account",
:provider => registration_hash[:provider].capitalize,
:account => registration_hash[:email]
else
flash[:error] = I18n.t "controllers.omniauth_callbacks.process_callback.error.link_account",
:provider => registration_hash[:provider].capitalize,
:account => registration_hash[:email],
:errors =>authentication.errors
end
redirect_to edit_user_account_path(current_user)
This is what I do in my application and it works fine.
Regarding question 2 I do not know how to support 2 different facebook authentication configurations however I have hard time seeing how that is useful to users since they need a consistent experience across both path: "sign in using facebook" and "link your account to facebook".
(If you still want to pursue this path one idea I would explore is to create a new facebook application with its independent keys and configuration...)
Hope this help.
One simple way to implement multi-tier permissions is to use Facebook Javascript SDK(in addition to omniauth, if you want). You can simply specify different "scope" parameter, which specifies permissions required, at each call you want. What I'm doing is making omniauth provide a basic set of permissions, then, after the user has connected through omniauth(and thus stored their data in our DB), if further permissions are needed, we show them JS-based buttons which provide expanded sets of permissions. If you want to check what particular permissions a user has granted to you, you can simply use me/permissions API call.
I am using web2py forms and i want to have some fields only visible to user (as fixed which cannot be edited). I tried making various combinations of editable, writeable, readonly but was of no use. I looked into web2py book too but that also seems insufficient. It would be great if someone can tell me how to do this.
You mean some fields visible to all visitors and some fields visible only if logged in?
If that's the case, then build your form conditionally:
form_fields = [
Field('pubfield'),
Field('pubfield2')
]
if auth.user: # This is true if the end-user is logged in and you're using the built-in auth
form_fields.append(Field('private_field'))
return dict(form=FORM(form_fields))
Unless you're not talking about logged in users, and just want to make the fields be visible, but not editable. Then, use writable=False like you tried, but I think you have to either use crud.create/crud.update or SQLFORM / SQLFORM.factory (the latter does not require a data model)
SQLFORM.factory(Field('my_readable_field', writable=False))
If you the form is based off of a database, you can use CRUD (you'll need to modify the settings for CRUD if you're not using authentication, so that CRUD forms are accessible)
crud.create(db.some_table)
or
SQLFORM(db.some_table)