Building an AIR based mobile application which will only be used over a local wifi network.
The SocketServer class will be used to load and save high scores.
Will I need to make use of a policy file?
Probably, pretty much if you are requesting a resource from anywhere other than the same port and host as where the .swf came from you will probably need a policy server and a crossdomain file.
Edit: The reason for this is security. Imagine you are working at a corperate office behind a firewall browsing the web. A malicious flash ad is on a site you are visiting and starts copying intranet files from your browser (which is behind the firewall) and uploading them to a secret location. The policy server ensures that servers you access want you to access them, and can specify what exactly you are allowed to access.
Related
I am new to Cloud Foundry.
Is there any way that only specific users can view and update an app deployed in Cloud Foundry?
1.I deployed an app in Cloud Foundry using “cf push”command.
2.After entering “cf push “command I’ve got an message below.
Using manifest file /home/stevemar/node-hello-world/manifest.yml
enter Creating app node-hello-world-example...
name: node-hello-world-example
requested state: started
routes: {route-information}
last uploaded: Mon 14 Sep 13:46:54 UTC 2020
stack: cflinuxfs3
buildpacks: sdk-for-nodejs
type: web
instances: 1/1
memory usage: 256M
3.Using the {route-information} above,I can see the app deployed via browser entering below URL.
https://{route-information}
By this way ,anyone can see app from browser, but I don’t want that to be seen by everyone and limit access to specific user.
I heard that this global IP will be allocated to {route-information} by default.
Is there any way to limit access to only between specific users?
(For example,is there any function like “private registry” at Kubernetes in Cloud Foundry which is not open to public)
Since I am using Cloud Foundry in IBM Cloud it would be better if there is solution using IBM Cloud.
I’ve already granted cloud foundry role to the other user.
Thank you.
The CloudFoundry platform itself does not provide any access controls for applications. If you assign a public route to your application, where the DNS is publicly resolvable and the foundation is on the public Internet, like IBM Bluemix, then anyone can access your app.
There's a number of things you can do to limit access, but they do require some work on your part.
Use a private DNS. You can add any domain you want to Cloud Foundry, even ones that don't resolve. That means you could add my-cool-domain.local which does not resolve anywhere. You could then add a record to /etc/hosts for this domain or perhaps run DNS on your local network to resolve this DNS domain and direct traffic to the CloudFoundry.
With this setup, most people cannot access your application because the DNS domain for the route to your application does not resolve anywhere. It's important to understand that this isn't really security, but obscurity. It would stop most traffic from making it to your app, but if someone knew the domain, they could add their own /etc/hosts header or send fake Host headers to access your application.
This type of setup can work well if you have light security requirements like you just want to hide something while you work on it, or it can work well paired with other options below.
You can set up access controls in your application. Many application servers & frameworks can do things like restrict access by IP address or require user access (Basic auth is easy and it is OK, if you're only allowing HTTPS traffic to your app which you should always do anyway).
You can use OAuth2 to secure apps too. Again, many app servers & frameworks have support for this and make it relatively simple to secure your apps. If you don't have a corporate OAuth2 solution, there are public providers you can use. Exactly how you do OAuth2 in your app is beyond the scope of this question, but there's plenty of material out there on how to do this. Google information for your application language/framework of choice.
You could set up an access Gateway. This would be an application that's job is to proxy traffic to other applications on the foundation. The Gateway could be something like Nginx, Apache HTTPD, or Spring Cloud Gateway. The idea is that the gateway would be publicly accessible, and would almost certainly apply access controls/restrictions (see #2, many of these proxies have access control options that only take a few lines of config). Your actual applications would not be deployed publicly though. When you deploy your actual applications, they would only be on the internal Cloud Foundry domain.
CloudFoundry has local domains, often apps.internal (run cf domains to see if that shows up), which you can use to easily route traffic across the internal container-to-container network. Using this domain and the C2C network, you can have apps deployed to CF that are not accessible to the public Internet, except through your Gateway.
Again, how you configure this exactly is outside the scope of this question, but check out the docs I linked to for info on using the C2C network & internal routes. Then check out your proxy server of choice's documentation.
I have an internal WEB application I use, with a local printer attached.
To control the local printer (it's a ticketing printer) I use locally a small program that manages it. In order for my WEB application to "use" the printer, I make it to POST AJAX request to the small local program.
My WEB application is served with HTTPS, while the local program exposes a simple HTTP API through HTTP (non-secure).
The problem is, I am facing blocked: mixed-content restrictions when accessing the application through HTTPS (in development mode I wasn't seen this, of course).
I have several fixes (don't like any of them):
Make the local program to expose its simple HTTP API through HTTPS.
It's doable, but I will face problems with self signed certificates (will have to install them on the target machine), or will have to use DNS tricks to expose it under a "name".
Disallow browsers to block mixed-content
Doable. But will have to configure each browser accessing my application, plus will make them less secure.
====
So my question is: is there another way of circumventing/bypassing the blocked: mixed-content restriction? Ideally supported on new Firefox and Chrome versions.
You shouldn't but you can upgrade all non-secure requests by allowing it in your header
<meta http-equiv="Content-Security-Policy" content="upgrade-insecure-requests">
I have a gadget[*] that connects to the user's WiFi network and responds to commands over a simple REST interface. The user uses a web app to control this gadget. The web app is currently served over http and the app's javascript does AJAX calls to the gadget's local IP address to control it. This scheme works well and I have no issues with it.
[*] By "gadget" I mean an actual, physical IoT device that the user buys and installs within their home, and configures to connect to their home WiFi network
Now, I want to serve this web app over https. I have no issue setting up https on the hosting side. The problem is, now the browser blocks access to the gadget (since the gadget's REST API is over http and not https).
The obvious solution is to have the gadget serve it's REST API over https. But how? It has a local IP address and no one will issue a certificate for it. (Even if they did, I'd have to buy a boatload of certificates for each possible local IP address.) I could round-trip via the cloud (by adding additional logic on my server side to accept commands from the web app and forward it to the gadget over another connection), but this will increase latencies.
Is there a way around this problem? One possibility that I have in mind is to:
Get a wildcard certificate (say, *.mydomain.com)
Run my own DNS that maps sub-domains to a local IP address following a pattern (For example, 192-168-1-123.mydomain.com would map to 192.168.1.123)
Use the wild-card certificate in all the gadgets
My web app could then make AJAX calls to https://192-168-1-123.mydomain.com instead of http://192.168.1.123 and latencies would remain unaffected aside from the initial DNS lookup
Would this work? It's an expensive experiment to try out (wildcard certificates cost ~$200) and running a DNS server seems like a lot of work. Plus I find myself under-qualified to think through the security implications.
Perhaps there's already a service out there that solves this problem?
While this is a pretty old question, it is still nothing that you find out-of-the-box solutions for today.
Just as #Jaffa-the-cake posted in a comment, you can lean on how Plex did it, which Filippo Valsorda explained in his blog:
https://blog.filippo.io/how-plex-is-doing-https-for-all-its-users/
This is very similar to what you proposed yourself. You don't even need a wildcard certificate, but you can generate certificates on-the-fly using Let's Encrypt. (You can still use wildcard certificates, if you want, which Let's Encrypt supports now, too.)
Just yesterday I did a manual proof-of-concept for that workflow, that can be automated with the following steps:
Write a Web Service that can create DNS entries for individual devices dynamically and generate matching certificates via Let's Encrypt - this is pretty easy using certbot and e.g. Google Cloud DNS. I guess Azure, AWS and others have similar offerings, too. When you use certbot's DNS plugins, you don't even need to have an actual web server running on port 80/443.
On you local device, contact that Web Service to generate a unique DNS entry (e.g. ..yourdns.com) and certificate for that domain
Use that certificate in your local HTTPS server
Browse to that domain instead of your local IP
Now you will have a HTTPS connection to your local server, using a local IP, but a publicly resolved DNS entry.
The downside is that this does not work offline from arbitrary clients. And you need to think of a good security concept to create trust between the client that requests a DNS and certificate, and your web service that will generate those.
BTW, do you mind sharing what kind of gadget it is that you are building?
If all you want is to access the device APIs through the web browser, A Simple solution would be to proxy all the requests to the device through your web server.this was even self signed certs for the devices wont be a problem. Only problem though is that the server would have to be on the same network as your devices.
If you are not on the same network, you can write a simple browser plugin (chrome) to send the api request to IoT device. but then the dependency on the app/plugin will be clumsy.
I am trying to access a barebone MEAN stack application with Google's glcloud one click deployments. I have successfully been able to add the code for the MEAN app and can access (via ssh) and run/start app using grunt. Neither of the external links provided by gcloud is working: http://:3000 or http://
Any idea on how to access app for viewing/testing?
I figured it out by allowing the default MEAN JS port 3000 on the firewall rules in the Google Developer Console. Networking > Firewall rules. You must also allow http port for incoming traffic.
Is it possible to run a facebook hosted on localhost?Will other users throughout the world will be able to use that app or the firewall will be blocking facebook from fetching content from my computer when users request for it?
Firewalls don't even get a chance to intercept it.
"localhost" is on a non-routable network by definition of IPv4. I can not reach your home computer by name reliably and "localhost" will always resolve to the local host.
There are some tricks that you can use to make your home machine visible to the outside world, but they are not reliable and I really don't want to use a service that went down because your Angry Birds game crashed your machine.
In your app's basic settings (https://developers.facebook.com/apps) under Settings->Basic->Select how your app integrates with Facebook...
Use "Site URL:" and "Mobile Site URL:" to hold your production and development URLs. Both sites will be allowed to authenticate. I'm just using Facebook for authentication so I don't need any of the mobile site redirection features. I usually change the "Mobile Site URL:" to my "localhost:12345" site while I'm testing the authentication, and then set it back to normal when I'm done.