Can I create a passbook pass that is accessible by apps by other developers? From what I read, it appears there is some form of authentication that entitles a companion app to access passbook passes on the phone based on passTypeId. If I share the passTypeId with other apps, then would these apps be able to read the information off my pass?
If you receive pkpass data from another developer's server you can display their pass and even save it to passbook. However, unless you have their pass type identifier tied to your own developer account/provisioning profile, you will NOT be able to actually view/manipulate their passes through your app. i.e. when you call [passLibrary passes] only the passes to which your app is entitled to will be returned.
No. You would have to share the actual passbook certificate created for that passTypeId, including your distribution certificate (I think) to the other developers so they could build their app with those certs in their keychain. It seems that Apple did not design passes to be sharable or consumable across developers.
UPDATE I have submitted a enhancement request to Apple requesting that apps can be entitled to use pass type identifiers created by other developers, requiring both certs/profiles at build time. As of today it is not possible to do so, even if all required certs/profiles are available at build time. I am not holding my breath.
Related
This is the first time i'm working with firebase. My goal is to have a bounch of client apps (more and more over time), all of them managed by an admin app (One app to rule them all).
The thing is that the client apps have a certain content that needs to be updated from the admin app. My best approach is to create a firebase project, put the admin app there and adding client apps over time. I'have read that is possible to have an unlimited number of apps inside one Firebase project. On addition, someone told me to create one project for each client app and connect them to the same database somehow. I simply don't know what to do.
Which would be the best solution for my problem? thank you
firebaser here
A Firebase project can currently contain up to 30 app definitions. This is meant to support variations of the same logical application. For example, having an Admin app in addition to the app for regular users, and/or having an iOS, Android, and Web version of the same app, and for example having a free and a pro version of the app (if that is allowed by the stores where you deliver them).
Adding multiple apps to a project is expressly not meant to be used for white labeling apps, where you ship essentially the same app with different branding to different user segments, as you'd be sharing the backend services between them. For some backend services (such as database and storage) this is not necessarily a problem, as you can isolate the customers with security rules. But for other services (such as authentication and analytics) this is not possible, which is why this use-case is not supported.
If you need to define a separate app in the project for each customer, the only supported approach is to create a separate project for each customer.
I'have read that is possible to have an unlimited number of apps inside one Firebase project.
In that case please provide a link, so we can either fix it, or (if it's not in the Firebase documentation) leave a comment to clarify.
I am curious to know of available options, that a developer can use to secure sensitive information inside the mobile application. This is to prevent anyone from breaking the app and use keys for some nefarious purposes. Example of sensitive data includes passwords of APIs, which app can use seamlessly in the background to retrieve data.
Code obfuscation can help but cannot prevent from stealing the information;
Local storage options such as nativescript-couchbase or nativescript-secure-storage -if my understanding is correct- depends on feeding the information manually after installing the app. But the information needs to be available inside the app at the time of shipping.
OAuth is not an option as it requires the user to login in order to receive the tokens. JWT is neither an option, as the APIs are protected just using basic authentication.
I am using nativescript/angular2 but i would appreciate any generic simple yet effective ideas..
I think you are looking for obfuscation here, securing the information within your source code. By default {N} has uglify plugin configured within webpack, it gives the basic obfuscation.
There is Jscrambler support which is paid.
Also, speaking of Sqlite, there is commercial version of the plugin that supports encryptions but I haven't tried it personally. You may feed your data into it and pack your db at build time then install the db on first launch.
I want to access datastore (and storage) data of an AppEngine project via google-cloud-datastore and google-cloud-storage with an Python program on my own server.
This works with my AppEngine staging server, by creating a service account and giving it owner access (to the project).
Doing the same thing with the production AppEngine instance fails with
google.api_core.exceptions.PermissionDenied: 403 Missing or insufficient permissions.
Part of the problem might be, that I might be using the wrong project to create the service account with. There are more than one project with the same name in my cloud console. How do I identify the correct one?
How do I get more details about the problem?
First, note that the Datastore and the Cloud Storage are 2 different products with 2 different accessing methods.
The Datastore is closely tied to the GAE project - each project has its own datastore. The external access procedure in general is captured in How do I use Google datastore for my web app which is NOT hosted in google app engine?.
When switching the project (staging to production in your case) there are 2 things to keep in mind:
as you observed, you need to change the project you're accessing.
you also need to change the credentials you load and use for access to match the project you select, as each project has it own service account key configured in the above-mentioned procedure
For the google-cloud-datastore library both of these are simultaneously configured via the datastore.Client() call parameters (emphasis mine):
class google.cloud.datastore.client.Client(project=None,
namespace=None, credentials=None, _http=None, _use_grpc=None)
project (str) – (Optional) The project to pass to proxied API methods.
credentials (Credentials) – (Optional) The OAuth2 Credentials to use for this client. If not passed (and if no _http object is passed),
falls back to the default inferred from the environment.
The Cloud Storage is completely independent from GAE, the GAE project/credentials you use (if any) have no bearing on bucket/object access restrictions whatsoever. There's nothing you need to do from the google-cloud-storage library perspective when switching from one GAE project to another
To eliminate the confusion created by multiple projects having the same name just go to the IAM & admin Settings page, select the respective projects from the drop-down list on the top blue bar and rename them using meaningful names (click in the Project name box to edit the name, then click SAVE). Then re-check if you're using the right keys for the desired project.
I am hosting some Web Applications in Google Cloud Platform using App Engine and those are for internal purpose only. One month ago I got a mail from Google Cloud Team, saying one of my apps needs verification. By based on their response I did some research and finally migrated all apps to the Organisation level as they mentioned in documentation (below link for reference). https://support.google.com/googleapi/answer/7394288#gsuite-app
But, yesterday also I got another notification regarding the same.
May I ignore this notification, or are there any further steps I need to complete?
As stated in this other documentation page:
If you're creating an internal web app for which [...] your project is
associated with a Cloud Organization that your users belong to, you
don't need to go through verification. Internal users of your
application won't see the unverified app screen.
If your application will only be used by internal users belonging to the same organization as where your project is located, you can ignore this message. It was probably triggered by the fact that your application is indeed not verified (although you do not need to do so).
So if that is the case, you will only need, as stated in the link you shared, to create an Organization and then migrate your existing project to that organization (then make sure that the users who will be accessing the app belong to the same organization).
I have googled a bit for how I should handle security in a web service application when the application is basically the data repository for a Silverlight application, but have gotten inconclusive results.
The Silverlight application is not supposed to have its own user authentication, since it will be reachable only through a web application that the user have already authenticated to get into.
As such, I was thinking I could simply add a parameter to the SL application that is a cookie-type value, with a certain lifetime, linked to the user in the database. The SL application would then have to pass this value alongside other parameters to the web services. Since the web service is hopefully going to be a generic web service endpoint, few methods, adding an extra parameter at this level will not be a problem.
But, am I supposed to roll this system on my own? It sounds to me as this isn't exactly new features that nobody has considered before, so what are my options?
First of all use SSL for the service. Otherwise users will be able to capture all the parameters passed to the service. It's still possible to see it in case of https but it will be a little bit more difficult.
Also, consider using Message Inspector for adding custom headers to the messages which you will validate on the server. This way you will not need to add extra parameters.