I have three service accounts:
App engine default service account
Datastore service account
Alert Center API service account
My cloud functions uses Firestore in datastore mode for book keeping and invokes Alert Center API.
One can assign only one service account while deploying cloud functions.
Is there way similar to AWS where one can create multiple inline policies and assign it to default service account.
P.S. I tried creating custom service account but datastore roles are not supported. Also I do not want to store credentials in environment variables or upload credentials file with source code.
You're looking at service accounts a bit backwards.
Granted, I see how the naming can lead you in this direction. "Service" in this case doesn't refer to the service being offered, but rather to the non-human entities (i.e. apps, machines, etc - called services in this case) trying to access that offered service. From Understanding service accounts:
A service account is a special type of Google account that belongs to
your application or a virtual machine (VM), instead of to an
individual end user. Your application assumes the identity of the
service account to call Google APIs, so that the users aren't
directly involved.
So you shouldn't be looking at service accounts from the offered service perspective - i.e. Datastore or Alert Center API, but rather from their "users" perspective - your CF in this case.
That single service account assigned to a particular CF is simply identifying that CF (as opposed to some other CF, app, machine, user, etc) when accessing a certain service.
If you want that CF to be able to access a certain Google service you need to give that CF's service account the proper role(s) and/or permissions to do that.
For accessing the Datastore you'd be looking at these Permissions and Roles. If the datastore that your CFs need to access is in the same GCP project the default CF service account - which is the same as the GAE app's one from that project - already has access to the Datastore (of course, if you're OK with using the default service account).
I didn't use the Alert Center API, but apparently it uses OAuth 2.0, so you probably should go through Service accounts.
Related
Th company I work for recently switched to using Team Drive and we had multiple applications that would interact with Google Drive using the Google Drive API. The API calls would be authorized using Google Service Accounts and access to specific files would be given to an app by sharing the file with the Service Account email in the same way you would share a file with a normal user. Now that we've switched to Team Drive I'm unable to grant access to the Service Account as the email address associated with it is not considered part of our organization. I've also looked into adding the Service Account as a normal user in our organization through the Google Admin dashboard, but it only allows me to create new users, not include existing ones. The only solution I've found is to enable sharing with external parties which would allow me to share Team Drive files with the Service Account, which would be considered an external party. This solution is risky and incorrect as the applications using the Service Account are part of our organization. We also do not want enable sharing with external parties in general for security reasons.
I've followed the steps described in How to access Team Drive using service account with Google Drive .NET API v3 and they work, but as mentioned above they require sharing with external parties to be enabled which we do not want.
The ideal solution would be for the Service Account to be considered part of our organization, but I cannot find a way to do this.
I've also tried delegating Domain-Wide Authority to the Service Account as described in https://developers.google.com/identity/protocols/OAuth2ServiceAccount#delegatingauthority, but as far as I understand this is not what I want as this will allow the Service Account to impersonate other users, but the reason we have a Service Account is for carrying out processes that happen automatically and which aren't associated with a specific user.
I've also followed the steps outlined here https://developers.google.com/admin-sdk/reports/v1/guides/delegation#delegate_domain-wide_authority_to_your_service_account for white-listing a specific API service through the Google Admin Security interface, but this doesn't seem to do anything, and I'm not sure what it is supposed to do as I have already enabled the Drive API for this Service Account in the APIs & Services dashboard where I originally created the Service Account.
We're using R and so I've been using the googledrive package which has functions for working with Team Drives like:
googledrive::drive_find()
googledrive::team_drive_find()
googledrive::team_drive_get(id = "team-drive-id")
I would expect to be able to see the team drive, but I guess this is not possible unless the Service Account email is a member of the Team Drive which is not possible because the Service Account (which is linked to our organization through its owner) is not considered part of our organization.
I had the exact same issue and after trying a lot of approaches, landed on the solution below (++):
Create a group in Google Workspace. You can add any external identity/email to a group, since they can be used for multiple things. So add the role account to this group.
Google has recently come out with "Trust" rules, that allow granular sharing. You can share with a group. So I created a trust rule that allowed sharing of any data source (easier than restricting who can share since file/shared drive ownership affects this rule) to only the group that contains the service account. Now external sharing is permitted, but only to the role account.
Lastly, share the drive with that role account.
++ Note that I also had followed the majority of steps above including the GCP project creation and domain-wide delegation before this portion, but was similarly stuck getting a 403 for access rights.
I am using Azure API Management to provide API gateway for some APIs. To set up a policy for a particular Api, I have used a Property(Named Value) to restore user metadata and then I assign it into a Variable in incoming request body. When adding a new user I need to add metadata for the new user in to the json. The property value has grown and exceeded the limit now and I cannot add more info to it anymore. I am wondering what the best way is to restore my large metadata in order to be accessible in API Management policy?
Update1:
I have switched the Authentication process from Azure to Auth0 so I can add the user metadata to Auth0 app_metadata and then in Azure policies I validate JWT from Auth0 and obtain token claim(app_metadata) explained in this article. By doing so I can solve the large user metadata (json) issue however this doesn't solve other non-related user metadata stored in other Properties(Named Value) and moreover the API gateway inbound policies are growing and becoming a huge bunch of logic which is not easy to manage and maintain.
At this stage I am looking for a solution to handle all the API gateway inbound policies in a better way and more manageable environment i.e. C#. So my two cents is to implement the API gateway inbound policies in a new .net Api and call this new API in the existing API gateway inbound policies so that it can play a bridge role between Azure API gateway and existing API however I'm still not sure if this is acheivable and whether existing API can be called via new API directly or it should be called via Azure API gateway in some way!
At this point you have to either store it in multiple variables or hardcode it in policy directly.
After more research I ended up with this solution which basically suggests to restore user metadata in Azure Cosmos DB and call Cosmos API in API Management Policy to access to the metadata and also the Cosmos API call can be cached in the policy.
An OpenShift Origin instance can be configured with Google OAuth login with or without a hosted domain restriction. On first login an account is created for the user and then permissions can be assigned.
Is it possible to restrict automatic new account creation, i.e. disable it completely to only allow certain people on the instance?
You can start by choosing which hosted domain you want to use: https://docs.openshift.org/latest/install_config/configuring_authentication.html#Google . In addition, you can choose the lookup mapping method for users to identities: https://docs.openshift.org/latest/install_config/configuring_authentication.html#mapping-identities-to-users and tightly control who can and can't have a user on your cluster.
I am trying to understand what is the intended use case for app auth and app users. Im basically thinking about building an app that would use Box to store data of users that would subscribe to our service. Our service would allow each user to access and view their data.
If I have an account that basically owns the data of all the subscribed users, can I use the enterprise access token as a base for authentication while using the user account token to restrict the user to only viewing the data from their specific sub directory. Or do I have to have a unique account with its own api key for every user?
I hope this makes sense. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Thanks.
App Auth and App Users -- which is officially called Box Platform -- is essentially a white-labeled version of Box. I think of it this way: "Box" as we know it is software-as-a-service. It offers a web app, mobile apps, and all the trimmings. Box Platform is the platform layer upon which the SaaS is built, providing API-based management of users/content/comments/collaborations/etc. With Box Platform you have a walled garden in which you can build apps that leverage all the features of the APIs, but are not otherwise "Box apps."
I'm basically thinking about building an app that would use Box to store data of users that would subscribe to our service. Our service would allow each user to access and view their data.
This is an appropriate use case. With Box Platform you will be the owner and administrator of a Box enterprise and all the accounts and data contained within.
If I have an account that basically owns the data of all the subscribed users, can I use the enterprise access token as a base for authentication while using the user account token to restrict the user to only viewing the data from their specific sub directory. Or do I have to have a unique account with its own api key for every user?
I think it's generally cleanest to create unique accounts for each user as opposed to giving users a special subdirectory in the admin account. From there you can use the App Auth workflow to get an access token specific to that user.
We used to have an application connector implementing the Document List Service v3 to upload documents to users account. Now that the service will be discontinued starting as of next Monday and we need to migrate to the Drive API/SDK we have the problem to migrate our current login schema .. we are unable to use the OAuth 2 protocol and we need to authenticate users with their username/password credentials.
DocumentsService myService = new DocumentsService("xxx");
myService.setUserCredentials(username, password);
The reason is that our application scans and processes documents asynchronously from MFD devices (printers) and all processing/storage job is done in a different moment on processing servers, thus the limitation that the processing service cannot ask any consens to the user.
We do the same for other online cloud storage application (e.g. Dropbox) where they allow special 'OAuth 1' schema on request for such 'enterprise' situations.
How can we do this with the new Drive API/SDK? I couldn't find anything about that in the documentation rather than the service account, also looks like not suitable.
What you need to do is request authentication from you user once. The server gives you back a refresh token. Your automated application can then use this refresh token to get a new access token. You only need to ask the user one time for authentication. Then everything can run automated.
A service account wont really work in this instance because its meant for use with an account that you the developer own not a users account