I am creating a NodeJS API server that will be delegatiing authentication to an oauth2 server. While I could store the key and secret along with the source code, I want to avoid doing that since it feels like a security risk and it is something that doesn't match the lifespan of a server implementation update (key/secret refresh will likely happen more often).
I could store it in a database or a maybe a transient json file, but I would like to know what are the considered the best practices in the NodeJS world or what is considered acceptable. Any suggestions are appreciated.
One option would be to set environment variables as part of your deployment and then access them in the code from the global process object:
var clientId = process.env.CLIENT_ID
var clientSecret = process.env.CLIENT_SECRET
Since I wanted to provide something that can store multiple values, I just created a JSON file and then read that into a module I called keystore (using ES6 class):
class KeyStore {
load() {
// load the json file from a location specified in the config
// or process.env.MYSERVER_KEYSTORE
}
get (keyname) {
// return the key I am looking for
}
}
module.exports = new KeyStore();
I would ideally want to store the file encrypted, but for now I am just storing it read only to the current user in the home directory.
If there is another way, that is considered 'better', then I am open to that.
Related
As you may see, I have my db connection file and another "protected" file, where my credentials are, and this file is included in .gitignore. I import it and reach the data. Quite basic. Therefore my questions are:
Is this the right way to do it?
If not, how should I do it? Plus: how could I add extra security to my account,connection?
Let's suppose I have a private collection, that no one should see, how could I protect specially this collection? I mean, with a password or a two step verification let's say.
Current code:
const mongoose = require("mongoose");
const mongoCredentials = require("../protected/mongoCredential");
const URI = `mongodb+srv://${mongoCredentials.username}:${mongoCredential.password}
#firstcluster-eldi8.mongodb.net/culturapp?retryWrites=true&w=majority`;
mongoose.connect(URI, { useUnifiedTopology: true, useNewUrlParser: true })
.then(db => console.log("MongoDB is connected"))
.catch(err => console.log(">> ERROR: ",err));
module.exports = mongoose;
...I have my db connection file and another "protected" file, where my credentials are, and this file is included in .gitignore. I import it and reach the data..
The correct way to do it is to use envrironmental variables.
Use environmental variables
Environmental variables are set on the environment, i.e your local development machine or the remote production server.
Then, within your app, you read the environment variables and use them appropriately.
There's (at least) a couple reasons it's usually done like this:
The credentials don't exist in a file that can be read by someone viewing the repository contents. Someone cloning the repository doesn't need to know your database credentials.
The credentials are likely different between environments. You are likely using a different database on your local development machine and a different database in your remote production server.
Here's how you set environment variables (this is for Linux, other OS's might be different):
$ export MONGO_DB_USERNAME=foo
$ export MONGO_DB_PASSWORD=bar
and here's how you read them within Node.js:
console.log(process.env.MONGO_DB_USERNAME) // logs 'foo'
console.log(process.env.MONGO_DB_PASSWORD) // logs 'bar'
or pass variables to the process when starting up
Alternatively, you can pass variables when starting up the process like so:
$ MONGO_DB_USERNAME=foo MONGO_DB_PASSWORD=bar node app.js
However that's generally discouraged since you're most probably starting your process through the npm start script. Since package.json, where the npm start command is defined, is always committed to the repository it defeats the whole purpose of hiding the credentials.
Like you mentioned along lines, using environment variables is more like security through obfuscation.
I would try to have the credentials in a separate configuration file. With a bit of design, encrypt this file and store those keys in secure enclaves or TPMs.
Check this thread.
I am new to node and typescript. I am working on developing a node library that reaches out to another rest API to get and post data. This library is consumed by a/any UI application to send and receive data from the API service. Now my question is, how do I maintain environment specific configuration within the library? Like for ex:
Consumer calls GET /user
user end point on the consumer side calls a method in the library to get data
But if the consumer is calling the user end point in test environment I want the library to hit the following API Url
for test http://api.test.userinformation.company.com/user
for beta http://api.beta.userinformation.company.com/user
As far as I understand the library is just a reference and is running within the consumer application. Library can for sure get the environment from the consumer, but I do not want the consumer having to specify the full URL that needs to be hit, since that would be the responsibility of the library to figure out.
Note: URL is not the only problem, I can solve that with environment switch within the library, I have some client secrets based on environments which I can neither store in the code nor checkin to source control.
Additional Information
(as per jfriend00's request in comments)
My library has a LibExecutionEngine class and one method in it, which is the entry point of the library:
export class LibExecutionEngine implements ExecutionEngine {
constructor(private environment: Environments, private trailLoader:
TrailLoader) {}
async GetUserInfo(
userId: string,
userGroupVersion: string
): Promise<UserInfo> {
return this.userLoader.loadUserInfo(userId, userGroupVersion)
}
}
export interface ExecutionEngine {
GetUserInfo(userId: string, userGroupVersion: string): Promise<UserInfo>
}
The consumer starts to use the library by creating an instance of the LibraryExecution then calling the getuserinfo for example. As you see the constructor for the class accepts an environment. Once I have the environment in the library, I need to somehow load the values for keys API Url, APIClientId and APIClientSecret from within the constructor. I know of two ways to do this:
Option 1
I could do something like this._configLoader.SetConfigVariables(environment) where configLoader.ts is a class that loads the specific configuration values from files({environment}.json), but this would mean I maintain the above mentioned URL variables and the respective clientid, clientsecret to be able to hit the URL in a json file, which I should not be checking in to source control.
Option 2
I could use dotenv npm package, and create one .env file where I define the three keys, and then the values are stored in the deployment configuration which works perfectly for an independently deployable application, but this is a library and doesn't run by itself in any environment.
Option 3
Accept a configuration object from the consumer, which means that the consumer of the library provides the URL, clientId, and clientSecret based on the environment for the library to access, but why should the responsibility of maintaining the necessary variables for library be put on the consumer?
Please suggest on how best to implement this.
So, I think I got some clarity. Lets call my Library L, and consuming app C1 and the API that the library makes a call out to get user info as A. All are internal applications in our org and have a OAuth setup to be able to communicate, our infosec team provides those clientids and secrets to individual applications, so I think my clarity here is: C1 would request their own clientid and clientsecret to hit A's URL, C1 would then pass in the three config values to the library, which the library uses to communicate with A. Same applies for some C2 in the future.
Which would mean that L somehow needs to accept a full configuration object with all required config values from its consumers C1, C2 etc.
Yes, that sounds like the proper approach. The library is just some code doing what it's told. It's the client in this case that had to fetch the clientid and clientsecret from the infosec team and maintain them and keep them safe and the client also has the URL that goes with them. So, the client passes all this into your library, ideally just once per instance and you then keep it in your instance data for the duration of that instance
As you may see, I have my db connection file and another "protected" file, where my credentials are, and this file is included in .gitignore. I import it and reach the data. Quite basic. Therefore my questions are:
Is this the right way to do it?
If not, how should I do it? Plus: how could I add extra security to my account,connection?
Let's suppose I have a private collection, that no one should see, how could I protect specially this collection? I mean, with a password or a two step verification let's say.
Current code:
const mongoose = require("mongoose");
const mongoCredentials = require("../protected/mongoCredential");
const URI = `mongodb+srv://${mongoCredentials.username}:${mongoCredential.password}
#firstcluster-eldi8.mongodb.net/culturapp?retryWrites=true&w=majority`;
mongoose.connect(URI, { useUnifiedTopology: true, useNewUrlParser: true })
.then(db => console.log("MongoDB is connected"))
.catch(err => console.log(">> ERROR: ",err));
module.exports = mongoose;
...I have my db connection file and another "protected" file, where my credentials are, and this file is included in .gitignore. I import it and reach the data..
The correct way to do it is to use envrironmental variables.
Use environmental variables
Environmental variables are set on the environment, i.e your local development machine or the remote production server.
Then, within your app, you read the environment variables and use them appropriately.
There's (at least) a couple reasons it's usually done like this:
The credentials don't exist in a file that can be read by someone viewing the repository contents. Someone cloning the repository doesn't need to know your database credentials.
The credentials are likely different between environments. You are likely using a different database on your local development machine and a different database in your remote production server.
Here's how you set environment variables (this is for Linux, other OS's might be different):
$ export MONGO_DB_USERNAME=foo
$ export MONGO_DB_PASSWORD=bar
and here's how you read them within Node.js:
console.log(process.env.MONGO_DB_USERNAME) // logs 'foo'
console.log(process.env.MONGO_DB_PASSWORD) // logs 'bar'
or pass variables to the process when starting up
Alternatively, you can pass variables when starting up the process like so:
$ MONGO_DB_USERNAME=foo MONGO_DB_PASSWORD=bar node app.js
However that's generally discouraged since you're most probably starting your process through the npm start script. Since package.json, where the npm start command is defined, is always committed to the repository it defeats the whole purpose of hiding the credentials.
Like you mentioned along lines, using environment variables is more like security through obfuscation.
I would try to have the credentials in a separate configuration file. With a bit of design, encrypt this file and store those keys in secure enclaves or TPMs.
Check this thread.
As per the title, can a Node.js package require a database connection?
For example, I have written a specific piece of middlware functionality that I plan to publish via NPM, however, it requires a connection to a NoSQL database. The functionality in its current state uses Mongoose to save data in a specific format and returns a boolean value.
Is this considered bad practice?
It is not a bad practice as long as you require the DB needed and also explicitly state it clearly in your Readme.md file, it's only a bad practice when you go ahead and work without provide a comment in your codes or a readme.md file that will guide any other person going through your codes.
Example:
//require your NoSQL database eg MongoDB
const mongoose = require('mongoose');
// to connect to the database. **boy** is the database name
mongoose.connect('mongodb://localhost/boy', function(err) {
if (err) {
console.log(err);
} else {
console.log("Success");
}
});
You generally have two choices when your module needs a database and wants to remain as independently useful as possible:
You can load a preferred database in your code and use it.
You can provide the developer using your module a means of passing in a database that meets your specification to be used by your module. The usual way of passing in the database would be for the developer using your module to pass your module the data in a module constructor function.
In the first case, you may need to allow the developer to specify a disk store path to be used. In the second case, you have to be very specific in your documentation about what kind of database interface is required.
There's also a hybrid option where you offer the developer the option of configuring and passing you a database, but if not provided, then you load your own.
The functionality in its current state uses Mongoose to save data in a specific format and returns a boolean value. Is this considered bad practice?
No, it's not a bad practice. This would be an implementation of option number 1 above. As long as your customers (the developers using your module) don't mind you loading and using Mongoose, then this is perfectly fine.
I'm new to angular and developing my first 'real' application. I'm trying to build a calendar/scheduling app ( source code can all be seen on github ) and I want to be able to change the content if there is a user logged in (i.e. display details relevant to them) but here's the catch:
I don't want the app to be dependent on having a logged in user ( needs to be something that can be configured to work publicly, privately or both)
I don't want to implement the user/login within this app if it can be avoided ( I want to eventually include my app in another app where this might be implemented but isn't necessarily implemented using any particular security frameworks or limited to any)
I had an idea of creating some global variable user that could be referenced through out my application, or if I had to implement a system to do it all in this app that I could do so in in some abstract way so that different options could be injected in.
some of my ideas or understanding of what I should be doing may be completely wrong and ignorant of fundamentals but I genuinely do not know what approach I should take to do this.
In case it is relevant I currently don't have any back-end but eventually hope use MongoDB for storage and nodejs for services but I also want to try keep it open-ended to allow others to use different storage/backends such as sql and php
is there away to have a global uservariable/service that I could inject/populate from another (parent?) app?
If so what would be the best approach to do so?
If Not, why and what approach should I take and why?
Update
I Believe from comments online and some suggestion made to me that a service would be the best option BUT How would I go about injecting from a parent application into this applications service?
If your (single) page is rendered dynamically by the server and the server knows if you are logged-in or not, then you could do the following:
Dynamically render a script tag that produces:
<script>
window.user = { id: 1234, name: 'User A', isLoggedIn: true };
</script>
For non logged-in users:
<script>
window.user = { isLoggedIn: false };
</script>
For convinience, copy user to a value inside angular's IOC:
angular.module('myApp').value('user', window.user);
Then, you can use it in DI:
angular.module('myApp').factory('myService', function(user) {
return {
doSomething: function() {
if (user.isLoggedIn) {
...
} else {
...
}
}
};
});
Something tricky (which you should thing twice before doing [SEE COMMENTS]) is extending the $scope:
angular.module('myApp').config(function($provide) {
$provide.decorator('$controller', function($delegate, user) {
return function(constructor, locals) {
locals.$scope._user = user;
return $delegate(constructor, locals);
};
});
});
This piece of code decorates the $controller service (responsible for contructing controllers) and basically says that $scope objects prior to being passed to controllers, will be enhanced with the _user property.
Having it automatically $scoped means that you can directly use it any view, anywhere:
<div ng-if="_user.isLoggedIn">Content only for logged-in users</div>
This is something risky since you may end up running into naming conflicts with the original $scope API or properties that you add in your controllers.
It goes without saying that these stuff run solely in the client and they can be easily tampered. Your server-side code should always check the user and return the correct data subset or accept the right actions.
Yes you can do it in $rootScope. However, I believe it's better practice to put it inside a service. Services are singletons meaning they maintain the same state throughout the application and as such are prefect for storing things like a user object. Using a "user" service instead of $rootScope is just better organization in my opinion. Although technically you can achieve the same results, generally speaking you don't want to over-populate your $rootScope with functionality.
You can have a global user object inside the $rootScope and have it injected in all your controllers by simply putting it into the arguments of the controller, just as you do with $scope. Then you can implement functionalities in a simple check: if($rootScope.user). This allows you to model the user object in any way you want and where you want, acting as a global variable, inside of Angular's domain and good practices with DI.
Just to add on my comment and your edit. Here is what the code would look like if you wanted to be able to re-use your user service and insert it into other apps.
angular.module('user', []).service('userService', [function(){
//declare your user properties and methods
}])
angular.module('myApp', ['user'])
.controller('myCtrl', ['userService', '$scope', function(userService, scope){
// you can access userService from here
}])
Not sure if that's what you wanted but likewise you could have your "user" module have a dependency to another "parent" module and access that module's data the same way.