The documentation says that confidential information should not be stored:
https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/storage
Confidential user information should not be stored! The storage area isn't encrypted.
But it seems users do have the option of choosing their own passphrase to encrypt their Chrome sync data:
https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1181035
So which one is it? Is Chrome extension data also protected by the sync passphrase?
Also, I don't get this bit:
When you sign in to Chrome and enable sync, Chrome keeps your information secure by using your Google Account credentials to encrypt your synced passwords. Alternatively, you can choose to encrypt all of your synced data with a sync passphrase. This sync passphrase is stored on your computer and isn't sent to Google.
Why exactly is the passphrase stored on the computer? It doesn't make it any more secure.
The chrome.storage area is not encrypted anyhow while on your machine. That's why the first warning is there, and it's valid.
When transmitted to Google servers, you can opt to secure it with an additional layer of encryption - but only while it's on Google's servers. It's a protection against trying to get your data (to an new device, or from a hypothetical attack on Google servers).
It's stored on the computer, so that Google never sees it and can't decrypt data on its servers. But you need to passphrase to work with this data, and Chrome does not ask for it every time it syncs data (which very often) - it's stored locally.
Think of it like a box with a lock. Instead of giving Google a plain-text document, you give Google a box with said document and keep the key to yourself. Meanwhile, while working on that document, you keep your local copy outside the box, and you keep your key handy in case the box is sent by Google to you.
Related
I'm a hobbyist student developer playing around with the Actions on Google to create a simple "text adventure" game on Google Home. Since Google Home will be speaking to the player rather than the player reading the text, I'm hoping this will create an experience similar to the "Dungeons and Dragons" roleplaying game, with the computer working as the "Dungeon Master." With the natural language assistance offered by API.AI and Actions on Google, it seemed like a good fit, since the player can respond "naturally." Here's an example of an Amazon Alexa skill that does essentially what I'm going for.
However, every time I boot up the game, it's always a new game. I'd like to store a savegame with the user's previous state in a JSON file hosted on the user's Google Drive -- Since I'm just a student doing this for fun, I don't actually have an official website or anything beyond a free Heroku server I'm running the app from, making storing saves on my end pretty much out of the question.
I've walked through the Google Drive REST quickstart for Node.js, and I've gotten that working in the console just fine. The only problem is in that quickstart, the user has to click a link to authorize the application to read the stuff in their Google Drive account, and I'm not sure how I'd be able to "click a link" and give back an access token via voice on Google Home.
Is there a way to do this via Google Drive? Or is there a better way to provide persistent data between sessions? I don't normally work in web development, so any help would be appreciated.
The bad news is you won't be able to get away from the need for a user to use his web browser to authorise your app to access his Drive.
The good news is that you only need to do this once. When your app requests authoirsation, it should specify "offline", which will result in you being given a refresh token. You should save this somewhere in your database of users. Whenever you need to access the user's Drive, you can use the saved refresh token to request an access token and you're good to go.
You have a few problems that you need to solve here, and while they seem related, they're not as related as you might hope:
You need to get authorization to access a user's Drive space
You need to authenticate the user's Home (so you know this person has come back)
You have to connect the two relationships - so you know what Drive space to use for the Home device that is talking to you
You've found the answers to (1) already, and as noted, you'll need to use a browser for them to authorize you to access their Drive. You'll then store the refresh token and will be able to access it in the future.
But that is only part of the problem. Home does not provide you access to the user's Google account directly, so you'll have to manage your own account mechanism and tie it to Home. There are a few solutions here:
Home provides anonymous user identity in the JSON sent to your webhook. You can access this using getUser().user_id if you're using the Actions API library, or access this in the data.user.user_id field in the JSON. While this is similar to a browser cookie, it only stores the user ID and can't store additional data. There is also no concept of "local storage". On the plus side, this ID is consistent across devices.
You can request user information such as their name and address. But it doesn't have anything unique or account information, so this probably isn't useful to you.
You can implement an OAuth2 server and do account linking. Note that this is the other side from what you need to do with Google Drive - you'll be providing the access and refresh tokens to authenticate and authorize access to your account and the Google Home device will send these tokens back to you so you can determine who the user is. You don't actually need to store account information - you can provide token information using JSON Web Tokens (JWT) or other methods and have them store account information in a secure way. Users will use the Google Home app to actually sign-in to your service as a one-time event.
In order to handle (3), you may be thinking that (1) lets you get tokens and the OAuth solution for (2) requires you to hand out tokens. Can the two be combined? Well... probably, but it isn't as straightforward. You can't just give the Google OAuth2 endpoints to Home - they explicitly block that and you need to control your OAuth2 endpoints. You may, however, be able to build proxy endpoints - but I haven't explored the security implications of doing so.
I think you're on the right track - using Drive is a good place to store users' information. Using Home's account linking gives you a place where they have to come to your web site to authenticate and authorize their Home, and you can use this to do the same for their Drive.
Google offers two systems for accessing Gmail. IMAP and SMTP and a the Gmail rest api Gmail - Scope for SMTP is https://mail.google.com/. However with Gmail rest API, just the required scope (like send, modify) can be used.
What are the main differences between the implementation of these two for sending an email? I've been using SMTP to send the mails without any issues but since that involves having a bigger scope for OAuth2, I want to know if there are any possible risks involved in moving to the API approach.
Users.messages: send says there's a restriction on attachment size.
This method supports an /upload URI and accepts uploaded media with
the following characteristics:
Maximum file size: 35MB Accepted Media MIME types: message/rfc822
Are there any other differences that I should know about if I start using Gmail APIs instead of using SMTP connection for OAuth2.
Also, what is the reasoning behind providing full access as the only possible scope for SMTP/IMAP?
Note: I only requirement is the ability to send emails.
Using SMTP you are directly accessing the mail server located at mail.google.com. SMTP servers have been around since the 60's they don't have the ability to limit what access you have. When you log in you have full access to do what ever the mail server in question is capable of. To login to the SMTP server you need the login (most often email address) and password of the account you wish to access. Drawback to using the SMTP to connect to Gmail is that if the user changed the password you would then loose access. This day in age it is also considered by most to be bad practice for third party developers to be storing a users login and password in your system. For example: I would never give any application access to my login and password to Google. How could you ever prove to me that your system is secure? If your hacked so am I.
Now on to Oauth2. Oauth came about sometime around 2005 when people wanted to be able to access APIs without having to do something stupid like
http://awsom.api.com?login=xxx&password=XXX
If memory services it was originally created for the twitter API developers wanted to be able to access their users twitter account without having to store their login in and password. Again the main problem with this was the developer in question would then have full access to a users twitter account and if the user or the developer changed the password things would break.
So they created OAuth. The main features with OAuth are:
You can limit access you give an application: (readonly, read write)
Password change does not affect access
No sharing account credentials with developers of third party apps
So the main point for me as a developer using Oauth with any Google API would be not having to store the login and password of my users and not being affected by a password change. My users would probably say not having to share their login with me and being able to give my application limited access to their account.
Now back to Gmail. Google made a change about two months ago any refresh token(oauth2) that was created using a Gmail scope will automatically expire when the user changes their password. To my knowledge this is only Gmail. so that removes point number two from the features of oauth.
Which should you use is really up to you, assuming you need to be able to send emails. Then limiting access to read only in your application isn't something you need (point one). However in my opinion from a security standpoint I would never ask my users to give me their login and password and would always choose oauth2. Yes SMTP works, will Google shut it down, probably not users have always been given access to the direct SMTP server of their email provider its how applications like outlook work.
as for OAuth support with SMTP unfortunately I haven't done much research into that guess I need to read RFC 4422 . If you can use OAuth with SMTP servers then again I guess the question would have to come down to speed is it faster to access the SMTP server or the REST API server? I can really think of no differences. Attachments with the Rest API can be tricky. I may do a bit more digging on the subject.
I built a Chrome Extension, where a login form is displayed as a side bar using content scripts injection. I do not want the user to see this login form if the user is already logged in on the website and vice versa if the user logs in on the Chrome Extension and then visits the website, user should automatically log in.
I am returning tokens from the backend when a user successfully logs in.
My question is, what is the best way to store these tokens so both the content scripts in my extension and the website have access to the token to check to see if the user is already logged in.
As far as I understand I have localStorage, ChromeStorage but I do not know if they are shared between the tabs of the browser and the extension.
Any direction is highly appreciated.
Thank you.
If you're returning tokens, a reasonable way to do it would be to inject a content script into pages that match the callback URL containing the token, extract it and save into chrome.storage. It is shared between the content script and all other extension contexts.
Do note: chrome.storage is not exactly secure: it's not encrypted on disk, and can be snooped upon with Dev Tools. Then again, the token is normally stored in the cookie store, which can be likewise examined even without access to the (slightly) more secure password storage.
Perhaps the only more secure way to keep the token in the extension is chrome.identity API, but then you have to login separately, defeating your goal.
I have an iPhone application that needs to collect data from an online MySQL database. I've written a PHP web service so I collect the data with JSON. The problem is that everyone can see the data if they go to the URL now. How do i secure the data transfer properly?
Thanks for your suggestions.
Typically, if you are showing data private to a particular user, then each user will generally have an account (user id and password). The app will pass the user's credentials to the server before the server will provide the user's data.
You can also do something similar using SSO integration, or OAuth (ala Facebook).
In some cases, your app may only pass the username/password on the initial call and receive a session ID, which the app passes on remaining calls. This allows the server to store session data.
Even if the data isn't private to a particular user, you can use accounts to restrict access and privileges for a publicly reachable web API.
In all of the above cases encryption such as SSL (HTTPS) must be used to protect the authentication mechanisms and data transfer.
I'm assuming your data is public for all users of your app, in other words, you don't want to implement a login mechanism for your users. If you just want to make sure you return the data only to users of your app and not to anyone who happens to enter the right URL in their browser, you will need to sign your requests, so that only requests from your app are accepted by your server.
I use a secret key that my app uses to create a hash/digest of the request which the server verifies (it knows the secret key as well). Also I make sure requests cannot be replayed if they are intercepted by adding a timestamp and a nonce. The timestamp is checked to be within 10 minutes of the server's timestamp (relaxed sync) and the nonce must be unique (server keeps the last 10 minutes of nonces). This way no-one can copy the same request, the server will just serve an error if they try.
This post explains how to sign your requests in a bit more detail:
http://www.naildrivin5.com/blog/2008/04/21/rest-security-signing-requests-with-secret-key-but-does-it-work.html
We have a google corporate account and need to transfer ALL of a user's google drive files to another account in certain instances. We want to do what is described at the following link for "all files" but programatically via the latest Drive API http://support.google.com/a/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1247799
We are currently using the following API version(s) below, coupled with domain wide authority delegation as described at https://developers.google.com/drive/delegation and are able to see a user's files, iterate over them etc.
google-api-services-drive 1.14.2-beta
google-api-client 1.14.1-beta
My question is this: it appears that the only way to change permissions is by fileId by fileId etc. Instead of having to traverse and iterate over an entire set of user's files, if we just want to transfer ALL of a user's files to another particular user: is there a way in the API to do this (ownership transfer for ALL files) rather than individual requests file/by file?
Also when transferring ownershisp, must the transferee be in the same #domain or can it be another #domain we manage? I read somewhere that you can only transfer to owners in the same domain. Does this still hold true? For instance we manage #myCompany.com and have our corporate account registered under that, however that shell account has several sub-domains within it. We would like to transfer files from users in the sub-domains to a central user in the #myCompany domain.
You need to change permissions file by file, there is no updateAll type of functionality at the moment.
You cant transfer the ownership to another domain's user. Ownership can only be transferred to another user in the same domain as the current owner.
This answer doesn't directly answer your question, but it could be helpful for both you and future visitors.
As of now, you can mass transfer files to new users with Google's new Admin console. It doesn't let you filter for specific folders, but it does allow you to transfer all of one user's Drive files to a second user.
I know you were trying to create something which uses the API to iterate through folders and files, and you probably have a very specific use-case in mind. However, in the case where you have employees leaving, or you need to transfer everything, using the following method is fast and simple.
Open the Google Admin console
Go to Google Apps > Drive
Click on "Transfer ownership"
Fill out both user fields and submit
This process will even email both users once the process is completed.
You can do this with a single call to the Data Transfer API
Exactly what is needed but only with API!
Open the Google Admin console
Go to Google Apps > Drive
Click on "Transfer ownership"
Fill out both user fields and submit
This process will even email both users once the process is completed.
If this is not possible via API calls, then there is no point deleting a user using API.