11-19-2021 12:00 PM
This is a response to eBay’s claims that the new “Application Access” authorization is to repair the avatars and feedback that have been missing from the eBay community, originally posted here: https://community.ebay.com/t5/Share-Community-Platform/Intermittent-issues-on-Community-platform-mis...
The information mentioned is freely available to anyone. You do not need any form of application authorization to retrieve this information.
As evidence to back up this claim, I will have to give an explanation of exactly what these “Grant Application Access” messages are, how the eBay API works, and what information is freely available.
What is the eBay API?
The eBay API is basically a system that will allow software to communicate with eBay and exchange information/data. Much of eBay’s website uses the API to retrieve the information that it displays on the “My eBay” and “Sellers Hub” pages.
What information is available through the API?
In basic terms, there’s basically two classes of information that are available on eBay. For this explanation I’ll be calling them Public and Private.
For example, when you’re browsing eBay and looking at other users' listings, the information you’re seeing is “public”. This means anyone can see the information. You could see the item they posted, the photos, the pricing, etc.
In another example, if you go to revise your own listings, you’ll see all the “public” information that was shown, but since you’re logged in to your own account, you also have access to seeing additional information such as rate tables, handling time, promotion values, etc. This is the “private” information. Typically, you could only see “Private” information on your own account.
Some functions of eBay are private as well. If you try to create a new listing, that is considered a “private” function. Nobody else could create new listings for your store. Only you could.
What are these “Grant Application Access” pages?
Let’s say for example that I’ve created a piece of software to assist with creating listings, and checking recent orders to see if any of the listings that were created sold. We’ll say in this example that the name of this software was “ExListing Manager”
By default, “ExListing Manager” could use the eBay API to check information that is public.
Now you’ve learned about “ExListing Manager” and you’d like to try it. Once you’re registering for the software, it’ll direct you to a webpage that states:
“Grant Application Access: ExListing Manager”
If you agree to this request, it basically generates a token (let’s say like a password) that will allow “ExListing Manager” to access your private eBay data.
Prior to agreeing, if “ExListing Manager” attempted to create a listing on your store, it wouldn’t be allowed. But after you had agreed, it can send the request to create a listing to the eBay API, and it can now use the token, and eBay would allow the software to create the listing on your behalf.
“ExListing Manager” also is supposed to track if the listings it creates are sold. So it will also be using API to check your sold listings. It could check for notifications from the API with your token to confirm if an order is processing, and then typically once an order is paid, that would trigger the software to basically say “The item sold! Let’s increase the sold number by 1”.
How are we being lied to?
EBay had claimed that this new authorization for the eBay community was to restore the avatar images and feedback modules that had not been working for a couple months now. For those of us who have experience with the eBay API and know what the Application Access grants, we know this is a lie.
The store avatar images and feedback? Those are both pieces of PUBLIC information. You do not need any private access to retrieve these images. Just like how you could go to another sellers store page and see their images and feedback on the eBay website directly, software could do this with the eBay API without any special access.
To prove this, I’ve tested it myself. I browsed to the eBay homepage and one of the daily deals it’s giving me is for this listing: https://www.ebay.com/itm/202694169021
If I use the eBay API call “GetStore”, with this sellers name: “harmanaudio”, I do not have any “Application Access” for them. I will only be retrieving public information. The full information is quite long, but this is an excerpt from the results that I receive from the eBay API:
{
"$": {
"xmlns": "urn:ebay:apis:eBLBaseComponents"
},
"Timestamp": "2021-11-19T18:23:12.611Z",
"Ack": "Success",
"Version": "1177",
"Build": "E1177_CORE_API5_19110890_R1",
"Store": {
"Name": "Harman Audio",
"URLPath": "harmanaudio",
"URL": "http://www.ebay.com/str/harmanaudio",
"SubscriptionLevel": "CustomCode",
"Description": "Welcome to the official eBay store for the Harman family of brands: JBL, Harman Kardon, AKG, and Infinity. Shop premium wireless speakers, headphones, home speakers, car speakers, and more!",
"Logo": {
"URL": "http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE0WDIwMA==/z/FqcAAOSwdBRZg6by/$_1.JPG?set_11.JPG?set_id=807"
},
Sure enough, you could see in the “Logo” > “URL” section, there’s the avatar image. Again, I want to stress this is all public information freely available to the eBay API without any Application Access.
Then I could use the GetFeedback API call on the same store and here is another excerpt:
{
"$": {
"xmlns": "urn:ebay:apis:eBLBaseComponents"
},
"Timestamp": "2021-11-19T18:26:23.179Z",
"Ack": "Success",
"Version": "1201",
"Build": "E1201_CORE_APIFEEDBACK_19196963_R1",
"FeedbackScore": "197512",
As you could see, this information is all public, freely accessible information that does not require any form of Application Access.
And then for the URL links to others listings? You could literally do that with a URL and a simple store name:
https://www.ebay.com/sch/zamo-zuan/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=
Just change zamo-zuan to the username. You do NOT need the eBay API at all for this one!
The data already exists in the Community Forum servers
One more alarming thing is that we're being told this access is what's restoring the images. But if you take a look at existing posts in the dev console, you can see that the avatar images already exist on the Khoros/Lithium servers!
For the record, I retrieve that on another PC that was NOT logged in and NOT authorized! As you could see in the screenshot, the image already exists on the lithium server. No access to eBay is needed, and certainly not API access.
If the images already exist on the Lithium server, if we're not seeing them, then Khoros/Lithium itself is blocking us from seeing information on their own servers.
Yet we're being told that we need to approve access in order to see this information...?
So this brings me back to my original question…
Why is eBay lying to us about Application Access? What information is really being retrieved from our stores?
The only reason for Application Access would be to access any private information. What private information could the eBay Community possibly need?
Furthermore, they’re not even following their own terms, as they are supposed to be transparent about the reasons they’re requesting access in the Application Access request itself. It even states if you click for more information that “Additional capabilities as described to you in the application or by the application’s provider” - and the eBay community does NOT describe what additional capabilities are being accessed. And as mentioned, the reason we’re being given does not require this type of access.
To make things even worse, it says “Just go to my eBay if you change your mind”. I tried to go there to monitor our 3rd party authorizations, and the preferences page isn’t even loading to allow us to see what applications are accessing our accounts, or remove their access!
So what’s really going on here, eBay?
What private information is being accessed by the Community software?
Why is the request not even informing us of what is being accessed?
Why is the wool being pulled over community members' eyes?
Why are members being told reasons that could easily be debunked?
12-10-2021 10:41 AM - edited 12-10-2021 10:42 AM
@hurryagain wrote:
When that grant access page popped up the first time for me, all I could see and hear were red alarm bells everywhere. I am NOT a tekkie by a long shot...I probably know the least in the techincal dept. than anyone else who posted here.
I just have major trust issues and it actually became a positive thing to have in this situation.
There was NO WAY that I was going to grant any form of access to a third party in regards to anything concerning my eBay account...just crazy...who knows what I am granting access to...???
I thought that I was just going to be a watcher of questions and issues that arise on these boards and nothing more until about 2 weeks after the grant access notification first started. Suddenly I was signed in without any need to grant access to anything. I am sooo happy that I refused to partake in that
schemesituation and I sure do feel for all who have granted access.
If it were me who had granted access only to find out that I did not need to do such a thing a few weeks later, I would be royally bleeped!
So sorry to all who are rightfully concerned.
Yeah. I didn't want to accept it. But I wouldn't have been able to post without logging in, and I felt it was important to take the risk in order to inform people and try to get answers regarding this, because as mentioned, we have no idea what access happened and eBay didn't follow their own policies!
And as you mentioned, that's the issue - who knows to who or what you we had granted?
It only made the problem worse when explanations given to us could be debunked. Honestly, that's kind of crazy to me. When being approached about things not being true, why on earth would the responses be something else that could be shown to not be true...? Was that supposed to alleviate our worries? It just gave more reason for concern and some more examples of exactly what I was talking about.
Then to give the impression that I called it a conspiracy is just weird. I just asked for the truth.
I have to be frank. The biggest piece of evidence of it not being a conspiracy is how poor the responses were. If it was an actual conspiracy the responses would have likely been more careful, as it's doubtful anyone would cover a conspiracy with an easily debunked excuse.
I just wish I knew why it was so hard to get to the truth. Things we're being told are not factual and the responses have only added more things to be concerned about, rather than alleviating the concern.
12-10-2021 10:46 AM
...maybe they didn't think that the few tech geniuses that we have on these boards would not look into the situation more carefully...???
What a price to pay just to get ones avatar back...
12-10-2021 12:01 PM
@hurryagain wrote:
When that grant access page popped up the first time for me, all I could see and hear were red alarm bells everywhere. I am NOT a tekkie by a long shot...I probably know the least in the techincal dept. than anyone else who posted here.
I just have major trust issues and it actually became a positive thing to have in this situation.
There was NO WAY that I was going to grant any form of access to a third party in regards to anything concerning my eBay account...just crazy...who knows what I am granting access to...???
I thought that I was just going to be a watcher of questions and issues that arise on these boards and nothing more until about 2 weeks after the grant access notification first started. Suddenly I was signed in without any need to grant access to anything. I am sooo happy that I refused to partake in that
schemesituation and I sure do feel for all who have granted access.
If it were me who had granted access only to find out that I did not need to do such a thing a few weeks later, I would be royally bleeped!
So sorry to all who are rightfully concerned.
It was a temporary fix to get around a problem in the community. It has now been gone for awhile, I'm not sure why it is still of concern. I do understand and respect why their was concern, but it is now behind us.
12-10-2021 12:11 PM - edited 12-10-2021 12:12 PM
@zamo-zuan wrote:I was hoping the communication would continue. Now that so much time has passed I guess it's safe to assume that the further concerns I've brought up are not going to be addressed at this point... And we're just going to be left with the one reply.
Looking over the reply again, I find it extremely odd that the very first thing mentioned is "no conspiracy". I browsed this entire thread, and not once was the word conspiracy mentioned by anyone. From the beginning, it seems what I had said was misrepresented in the response in order to not fully reply to the concerns brought up.
What I had asked was why were we lied to. And as mentioned in message #69, I understand that it could have been a lie of omission during communication with other teams, and/or them not fully knowing/understanding the situation.
But considering we could confirm for ourselves that the things mentioned weren't true/didn't play out as described, somebody had lied. Not necessarily any of the mods here, they may have been unaware of the situation since they are not tech people. But somebody had given out this information that was not true, and that information was passed to us.
Shouldn't the buck stop somewhere? If those in charge of the forums here don't want the responsibility to fall on them, isn't it their responsibility to trace back to whoever gave this information in the first place, and then advocate for us so we can get some real answers as to exactly what happened?
We're still left without any disclosure of what was accessed when we allowed permission, eBay still never fulfilling their own policies. We're given reasons that don't make sense. We're told the problem would be fixed by logging in when it was fixed before logging in. We're told the 3rd party access page glitch was a "browser issue" when we can confirmed it's not a browser issue. And despite the access not being required anymore, we still can not revoke access to these keys to restore our security and no resolution was provided. And something that we were told wasn't possible to be fixed until next year was seemingly resolved in around a week, raising questions as to why they weren't done that way in the first place.
Also, just looking at the timeline now as I write this post, it's hard not to notice one more claim that doesn't make sense based on two pieces of information... If this post/request for a response was not seen earlier... And if the resolution to the issues raised here took over a week... How could the issue have not been seen if it was pushed to the team to deploy a resolution over a week before the issue was resolved - when it was resolved on the day of the response?
As I said in my earlier post, this causes major trust issues.
From @zamo-zuan post from earlier today. Highlighted in red is of their main concern.
I do not blame them either.
12-10-2021 01:14 PM - edited 12-10-2021 01:14 PM
@mam98031 wrote:It was a temporary fix to get around a problem in the community. It has now been gone for awhile, I'm not sure why it is still of concern. I do understand and respect why their was concern, but it is now behind us.
As Hurry had mentioned, the majority of us who had accepted (maybe all of us? I don't recall seeing anyone confirming they were able to remove them) can not revoke access to those tokens.
The approval upon coming to the boards may be gone, but the API keys are still active and able to fully access our account, with no way to remove them. So it's still not behind us until the 3rd party apps page isn't broken and we can remove those API keys.
12-10-2021 05:24 PM
What makes you think it's gone now, that they don't still have access inside our seller accounts? How could you know if they did or not?