Protected Fields docs#716
Open
BufferUnderflower wants to merge 1 commit intoparse-community:gh-pagesfrom
Open
Conversation
awgeorge
suggested changes
May 10, 2020
awgeorge
left a comment
awgeorge
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Probably worth mentioning that by default the field email in the _User table is protected.
Additionally, that you can configure the protected fields in the init options of ParseServer.
var api = new ParseServer({
protectedFields: { _User: {"*": [ "username", "email", "gender", "mobile", "telephone", "addressLine1", "addressLine2", "city", "postcode","dob"], "role:Management": []}}
});
| classLevelPermissions: | ||
| { | ||
| "protectedFields": { | ||
| "*": ["views", "secret", "ownerEmail", "owner", "article",], |
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| It is essential to understand the basic principle how server determines which fields to protect when user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, server finds all scopes with `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| It is essential to understand the basic principle how server determines which fields to protect when user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, server finds all scopes with `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets. | |
| It is essential to understand the basic principle of how the server determines which fields to protect when a user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, the server finds all scopes with the `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then the resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets. |
|
|
||
| It is essential to understand the basic principle how server determines which fields to protect when user belongs to multiple groups with different rules defined. First, server finds all scopes with `protectedFields` the user belongs to. Then resulting set is determined as an intersection of all applicable sets. | ||
|
|
||
| In the above example, for logged in user: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| In the above example, for logged in user: | |
| In the above example, for a logged in user: |
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| * When user with `role:moderator` fetches an object, `secret` is protected. | ||
| * When user with `role:tester` fetches same object - all fields appear to be visible, even though `role:tester` has `ownerEmail` set as protected. This happens because of role hierarchy - when user has a role, he also implicitly gets all the inherited roles. Then server intersects sets for all roles (both `role:tester` and inherited `role:moderator` in this case) and intersection of `["secret"]` vs `["ownerEmail"]` results in `[]` (sets have no fields in common). |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * When user with `role:tester` fetches same object - all fields appear to be visible, even though `role:tester` has `ownerEmail` set as protected. This happens because of role hierarchy - when user has a role, he also implicitly gets all the inherited roles. Then server intersects sets for all roles (both `role:tester` and inherited `role:moderator` in this case) and intersection of `["secret"]` vs `["ownerEmail"]` results in `[]` (sets have no fields in common). | |
| * When a user with `role:tester` fetches the same object - all fields appear to be visible, even though `role:tester` has `ownerEmail` set as protected. This happens because of role hierarchy - when a user has a role, they also implicitly get all the inherited roles. Then server intersects sets for all roles (both `role:tester` and inherited `role:moderator` in this case) and intersection of `["secret"]` vs `["ownerEmail"]` results in `[]` (sets have no fields in common). |
| moderator.getRelation('roles).add(tester); | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Here is an example of a tricky setup that may lead to unexpected result, we'll explain why right after: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| Here is an example of a tricky setup that may lead to unexpected result, we'll explain why right after: | |
| Here is an example of a tricky setup that may lead to unexpected results, we'll explain why right after: |
| The same rule apples here - user that is targeted by id is still subject to rules set for all broader scopes. So for `s0m3userId`: | ||
|
|
||
| * 3 sets of fields will be intersected: `*`, `authenticated` and `s0m3userId`. | ||
| * As a result only `["ownerEmail"]` ia protected. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| * As a result only `["ownerEmail"]` ia protected. | |
| * As a result only `["ownerEmail"]` is protected. |
|
|
||
| ### `userField:` (pointers) | ||
|
|
||
| There is one more way to target user - by pointer field. The syntax is: `userField:column_name`. This uses similar concept as [#pointer-permissions](Pointer Permisssions). You use column name (of either `Pointer<_User>` or `Array` type) as a key. And fields will be protected for any users pointed to by this field. For example: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| There is one more way to target user - by pointer field. The syntax is: `userField:column_name`. This uses similar concept as [#pointer-permissions](Pointer Permisssions). You use column name (of either `Pointer<_User>` or `Array` type) as a key. And fields will be protected for any users pointed to by this field. For example: | |
| There is one more way to target a user - by pointer field. The syntax is: `userField:column_name`. This uses a similar concept as [#pointer-permissions](Pointer Permissions). You use column name (of either `Pointer<_User>` or `Array` type) as a key and fields will be protected for any users pointed to by this field. For example: |
|
|
||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| In this example, server checks if the user who hass issued a request is pointed to in requested object's `owner` field. No fields will be protected for user who is set as `owner` of each particular object. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggested change
| In this example, server checks if the user who hass issued a request is pointed to in requested object's `owner` field. No fields will be protected for user who is set as `owner` of each particular object. | |
| In this example, the server checks if the authenticated user is equal to the `owner` field of the object. No fields will be protected for the user who is set in the `owner` field of each particular object. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Documentation for protected fields - CLP feature currently under development. As of now it does not provide substantial level of security and it is advised to avoid using it in production environment especially for sensitive data.