I have to develop a basic social network for an academic purpose; but I need some tips for the users management..
The users are subdivided into 3 groups with different privilege: admins,analysts and standards users.
For every user should be stored into the database the following information: name,lastname,e-mail,age,password.
I'm not quite sure how I should design the database between theese two solutions:
1)one table called 'users' with the 'role' attribute that explain what a user can do and what can't do, and the permissions are managed via php
2)every application user is a database user created with the query 'CREATE ROLE' (It's a postgres database) and he has permissions on some tables granted with the 'GRANT' statement
You should take into account that the project is for a database exam..
thanks
Don't use the database's authorization mechanism to be your application's authorization system. Three main reasons:
A) You'll never be able to change to a different database without rebuilding the whole app.
B) The types of things you want to grant the users in the app might differ from what the db's ACL system allows.
And most importantly:
C) You don't want to give an application user the ability to do anything directly to your database. Ever.
So your #2 option is right out. Thus, store a user type field with each user record, and then "what that user type allows" becomes part of your business logic that is calculated in PHP.
Solution 1 every time as you don't want to restrict yourself to only assign permissions on a per-table basis. Using database users would be cumbersome and not very practical.
Go with Option 1. It will be much more flexible in the long run, probably easier to code, and you don't want to tie your application logic too closely to a specific implementation. What if you later on want to port the application to run on SQL-Server? If database users are implemented differently, Option 2 could give you serious pains.
Go with your first alternative (manage permissions with PHP). Here are the reasons:
The database does not give you enough choices and granularity in the permissions you'll need to manage (who is allowed to send emails, to what groups people are allowed access, etc.)
Typically connections to the database are rather expensive so you'll want to connect once and stay connected as long as possible (with the same database user)
All databases are not created equal in the way they handle user accounts. By building your own user system above SQL you can hope to be more database independant
In the real world the tasks of administering the database and developping programs are done by completely different people and the program does not have the right to create or alter database users
Related
I need to implement access control in my application. I need to control which columns of which row can be edited by who.
Examples of a rule may be:
User can edit only her own rows (and also insert rown only for her) of TableA, which is linked to her through TableB (TableB contains foreign keys of both User and TableA).
User can edit just some parts of her profile, while admin can update other parts.
Instead of asking a DB to give my application all the information needed to evaluate the possibility of change in the application code, I am currently thinking about trigger based approach for inserts, updates and deletes. In this scenario a triggers, which would fail when operation is not permitted, would be hooked to controlled tables.
I will tell Postgres which user is working right now using local configuration.
Then I simply run the operation while expecting the possibility of failure.
Assuming I am able to evaluate all the permissions inside the Postgres DB, I see a few positives:
I would not need to ask the DB before the operation if it can be done.
I would not litter the application with permissions evaluation.
I can run updates from different parts of application even without using proper models while maintaining the security.
My questions are:
Can this become a bottleneck when scaling up? (It is a pretty traditional web-based PHP app, so I am expecting about a 100-times more selects than updates. But this would shift evaluation from web server which could be more easily replicated then DB server.)
Is there some better well-known design practice to implement this kind of permissions I have in mind.
there is a possibility that after scaling up your DB will be full of triggers which would be difficult to edit or change something. E.g. if you add extra column, you should edit all procedures related to table.
If I've got your question, you're trying to control web application users.
I think better way is to implement restrictions on a PHP side. For instance to create role, which contain array of possible to edit columns. And if this is 'admin', his/her list would contain all columns.
Then dynamically create the form according to role configuration, in order to let user see, what he/she can edit.
I have a web application where companies can register their company and use a set of features. However, lets say company 1 and company 2 has registered. They are still accessing the same website. Now each of these companies are 100% independent of each other when it comes to sharing information etc. The only thing they might share, is the users/employees.
Now my question is really, what is the best practice if each of these companies are to insert, select, update and deleted about 10K rows a day, each.
It can be everything from project handling, hourlists etc. All of which are split into different tables.
Would it be best practice to have independent databases, or use the same database for all the companies, and identify them by company_id?
Also keeping in mind the web application has to easily adapt to more than 10+ companies.
You could go one of two ways:
Add a companyId column to your tables,
Create a separate database for each company.
Option 1:
This option is the most dynamic one. You can keep the data separated by adding the correct companyId identifier to the where clause of your query.
This method is good when:
You expect a large number of customers,
You expect your number of customers to increase and decrease on a regular basis,
You do not need to share your database access with your customers (they only access it through your API/GUI).
Option 2:
This option gives a better separation of data. You keep each custommers data in their own dedicated instance of the database schema. This option allows you to offload the access-control burden to the database server, instead of having to enforce it in your application logic (which is more error prone).
However, there are some downsides: whenever a new customer shows up, you need to create a new database instance for them, which implies having a user with create database and grant privileges, something not every system administrator would be overly happy about.
The other issue is that whenever something changes in the database structure, you need to apply the chance to each instance of the database.
The good thing about this option is that you can give backup copies of your database to your customers, give them direct access to the database server, if needs be, or, in a more limited form, you could give them a copy of the database structure, without the need to filter out the customerId columns (as would be the case with option 1 above).
In summary:
There is no silver bullet, it all depends on your use-case. Option 1 is more flexible, Options 2 offers a better separation of data and easier access management.
[1]Keep separate database as there is more DML operations with your database.
[2]Keep very good database maintenance plan for Statistics management, Index maintenance and Backup/Recovery,otherwise you will have performance issue or more down time in case of database crash.
I've been working on a web app for a few months now. It's a PHP and MySQL driven database app which relates objects between each other.
I'd like to add functionality so that someone could register to use it and set up a monthly subscription. When they log in the app would simply populate with data from their own database.
I've done some scouring online but I'm struggling to find a starting point for adding this sort of feature.
The app relies on half a dozen tables within a database. So I'm also not sure if creating an individual database per user is practical.
Creating a db per user is very rarely the way to go - it's complicated and has very few benefits with lots of drawbacks (eg maintaining multiple simultaneous Db connections as most libraries only connect to a single Db). What you really need to do is create a user table and then tag various records with a UserId.
When a user registers, create a new User record, then create their new entries in other tables all referencing that Id. (Actually, only the "root" of each relational object needs a UserId eg If you have Order and OrderItems only the Order table needs a UserId)
Without more detail, it's impossible to help further.
Incidentally, the only time you should consider db-per-user is if each user requires unique tables (in which case your app would have to be very complex to actually use the data) or if there are security concerns re: storing data together (more likely with multiple clients than multiple users).
I have built a web application for one user, but now I would like to offer it to many users (it's an application for photographer(s)).
Multiple databases problems
I first did this by creating an application for each user, but this has many problems, like:
Giving access to a new user can't be automated (or is very difficult) since I have to create a subdomain, a database, initial tables, copy code to a new location, etc. This is tedious to do by hand!
I can't as easily create reports and statistics of usage, like how many projects do my users have, how many photos, etc.
Single database problems
But having just one database for each users creates it's own problems in code:
Now I have to change the DB schema to accommodate extra users, like the projects table having a user_id column (the same goes for some other tables like settings, etc.).
I have to look at almost each line of code that accesses the database and edit the SQL for selecting and inserting, so that I sava data for that specific user, at the same time doing joins so that I check permissions (select ... from projects inner join project_users ... where user_id = ?).
If I forget to do that at one spot in the code it means security breach or another unpleasant thing (consider showing user's projects by just doing select * from projects like I used to do - it will show all users' projects).
Backup: backup is harder because there's more data for the whole database and if a user says: "hey, I made a mistake today, can you revert the DB to yesterday", I can't as easily do that.
A solution?
I have read multiple questions on stackoverflow and have decided that I should go the "single database" route. But I'd like to get rid of the problems, if it's possible.
So I was thinking if there was a way to segment my database somehow so that I don't get these nasty (sometimes invisible) bugs?
I can reprogram the DB access layer if needed, but I'm using SQLs and not OO getter and setter methods.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I don't think there's a silver bullet on this one - though there are some things you can do.
Firstly, you could have your new design use a different MySQL user, and deny that user "select" rights on tables that should only be accessed through joins with the "users" table. You can then create a view which joins the two tables together, and use that whenever you run "select" queries. This way, if you forget a query, it will fail spectacularly, instead of silently. You can of course also limit insert, update and delete in this way - though that's a lot harder with a view.
Edit
So, if your application currently connects as "web_user", you could revoke select access on the projects table from that user. Instead, you'd create a view "projects_for_users", and grant "select" permissions on that view to a new user - "photographer", perhaps. The new user should also not have select access to "projects".
You could then re-write the application's data access step by step, and you'd be sure that you'd caught every instance where your app selects projects, because it would explode when trying to retrieve data - neither of your users would have "select" permissions on the projects table.
As a little side bonus - the select permission is also required for updates with a where clause, so you'd also be able to find instances where the application updates the project table without having been rewritten.
Secondly, you want to think about the provisioning process - how will you grant access to the system to new users? Who does this? Again, by separating the database user who can insert records into "users", you can avoid stupid bugs where page in your system does more than you think it does. With this kind of system, there are usually several steps that make up the provisioning process. Make sure you separate out the privileges for those tasks from the regular user privileges.
Edit
Provisioning is the word for setting up a service for a new user (I think it comes from the telephony world, where phone companies will talk about provisioning a new service on an existing phone line). It usually includes a whole bunch of business processes - and each step in the process must succeed for the next one to start. So, in your app, you may need to set up a new user account, validate their email address, set up storage space etc. Each of those steps needs to be considered as a step in the process, not just a single task.
Finally, while you're doing this, you may as well think about different levels of privilege. Will your system merit different types of user? Photographers, who can upload work, reviewers who can't? If that's a possible feature extension, you may want to build support for that now, even if the only type of user you support on go-live is photographer.
Well, time to face some hard facts -- I think. The "single database problem" that you describe, is not a problem, but a normal (usual) design. Quite often, one is simply a special case of many.
For some reason you have designed a web-app for one user -- not many of those around.
So, time to re-design.
So, first things first, I'm a student. I'm developing an application where other students can have access to a MySQL database. Basically, I wanted to spare the students the need to search for hosting or even installing MySQL on their computers. Another plus is the fact that they can present their works to the class just by browsing a website. So, my idea was to use the same database for everyone, and add a login system for the students. This way, I can associate a prefix to every student, and they can execute any type of query without worrying if it will clash with someone's table, because the system would prefix their queries tables automatically. My idea was to limit how much tables and rows each user can have, which shouldn't be hard with a parser. It doesn't necessarily need to be a parser in PHP, it could be in perl or python. PHP is just more convenient. .NET would be more troublesome because of Windows
By the way, each class of "introduction to database systems" has around 50 students and there are 3 classes, so it could reach about 150 students...
For example, SELECT * FROM employees
has to become
SELECT * FROM prefix_employees
I do not know how the query will look like, it could get fairly complex so I'd probably need a well written parser, which I haven't found yet for PHP.
Thanks guys, I hope I have made myself clear
Unfortunately, MySQL does not (AFAIK) have schemas as some other databases (e.g. PostgreSQL) have them (for seperating content (tables, etc...) logically within one database).
But I would definitely go for the seperate databases-scenario.
Your parser (with the 'prefixing sheme') will be broken (unwillingly and also possibly willingly) unless you are willing to put an extreme amount of time into making this work.
I'd rather go with the "one database per user" approach. This solution requires some administration (you can either create the users/databases manually using a tool like phpMyAdmin, or simply create your own little administration panel in which you allow the students to register), but will require far less amount of work from you than filtering all requests.
This way, each student has his login/password, with preferably a database of the same name on which he has all rights (this can be done automatically with phpMyAdmin), and is able to work without interferring with other students. You can be sure that some will try to break your security, no matter how hard you try and how good-willing you are. Clustering them in different databases will leave them no choice than trying to gain admin access of your DB, which will be pretty hard if you maintain an up to date server and complex enough passwords (and you don't store them in clear on a "readable by all" .txt file on your university server.
Plus, you will be able to monitor the disk space, usage, etc... of each database individually, which is easier than having to look at tables separately.
Depending on your exact requirements, you may be able to use table permissions to prevent one student from modifying (or viewing) data from another student. You would still need a process to allow students to create a new table with their assigned prefix (and create an appropriate permissions entry), but once created, the DB would control access through all queries so you would not have to (just don't allow student accounts to directly create/alter tables).
As for quota, I'm not aware of MySQL directly supporting a quota system but you could create the files that back the tables for each user on a separate directory and use OS level quota systems to limit disk space usage.