ovidiuvasiliu84

I just stumbled upon this video that's related to Google Drive's new security policies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMiB5Z7n6Y8

Apparently Google Drive's new security requirements and app approval is cumbersome and a lot of apps are affected by this. It could be that Devolution's app was also affected, and, due to this they decided to not support Google Drive anymore.

Sorry if my previous post was too harsh on Devolutions, it seems the effort in supporting Google Drive might not be worth the time and money investment.

It's a shame that now there's no other easy way for free accounts to support 3rd party document storage systems (both Google Drive and Dropbox were deprecated).

It would still be nice to have an official answer from Devolutions explaining their decision.

I had to write a reply because the situation seems to be disappointing.

So, a couple of months ago Google started restricting apps that require FULL access to Google data. Why? Because it's a violation of the customer's privacy to ask for FULL access when you only need to create/modify/delete files in Google Drive.

Devolution communication with Google Drive asks for FULL access, which is not required and also worrying from a customer's perspective when anyone would ask them to give FULL access to ALL their data. Devolutions's implementation was incorrect from the start - they should not have asked for full access, but they did - why?... (from a developer's perspective), I'd say either this option was not available at the time they implemented it, or out of pure developer laziness or, this was intended to be like this, which is even more worrying. There are many apps out there that use Google Drive as a storage and do not ask for full permissions, so it's not a a matter of technical implementation restrictions.

Devolutions should have gone back to their implementation and make the necessary changes that allows their app to work without full access to Google Drive data. I assume (because there was no official reason why this happened) this is a strategical shift to force free accounts to store their data on Devolutions' servers. Why? The Dropbox integration is also deprecated, meaning the Google Drive was the only way left to store the data online on a 3rd-party service for free accounts. Free accounts now have no options to store their data online, except if they create an account and store it on Devolutions's servers. So, for free accounts, there's clearly a push to keep the data on their servers - which they control and we, as customers have no guarantee they don't use it for other reasons. The fact that their Google Drive implementation asks for FULL permissions is also not reassuring that they would keep my data secure or that they will not use it for something else.

I'm curious to see a response from their staff regarding this push for free accounts to remove the ability to store the data on a 3rd party service. It's their product and of course their decision to do so, but it would be good to know the reasons behind this.

PS: It seems that free accounts can also connect to Azure SQL or SQL Server databases to store the data there, but these are rather technical options that a non-technical user will find hard to use.

Hello,

I created an account on the forum to simply post a reply to this thread. I simply cannot understand how such a security issue still hasn't been fixed in 2 years :| . As @tylwright said in the previous post, right now Google is simply blocking the app.

What I cannot understand is how a company that's providing security software (credential manager, etc) is requesting FULL access to store its data in Google Drive. Not only it's ironic, but unprofessional, irrational and bottom line not trust-worthy that a company that's advertising for security is asking full control over the customer's Google Drive :| .

Guys, it's been 2 years since one of your clients raised a valid security concern - that shouldn't have even been implemented in the first place - and no real answer. I would have imagined this would be your top priority - I would have fixed is ASAP, followed by an apology that such a security issue slipped your "security team".

I'm sorry if my above words seem like I'm mocking your work - they're not, I'm writing this in disbelief that such a security issue is even real nowadays and also not fixed after 2 years.