Earlier I wrote about my feelings on Google’s new verification process for sensitive and restricted Gmail API scopes, and here I’ll be posting live updates of GMass’s journey through the process. We’re doing this for the benefit of the thousands of developers that have yet to begin the process, are thinking about the process, or are frustrated with the process.
I email Bishop Fox to ask about the approval status of the SAQ (Self Assessment Questionnaire), because it’s been a couple weeks and I haven’t heard anything. If Google approves their use of the SAQ, it lessens my cost of the security assessment.
5/16/19 (update from Google)
Google sent the below email, informing me that if I don’t go through with the security assessment, I’ll lose access to the restricted scopes. It also clarifies one of the prior points of confusion — that if my app is to be used within G Suite domains only, then I don’t have to go through the security assessment. Meaning, if I don’t care about taking on @gmail.com users, then I don’t need to go through with the assessment. The email also asks for confirmation of whether I will be proceeding or not. I have replied confirming my intention to go through with the assessment.
5/9/19 (two quotes arrive from Bishop Fox)
Bishop Fox explains that they are attempting to get approval from Google to satisfy one portion of the requirements via a “Self Assessment Questionnaire” rather than a full deployment review, and policy and procedure review. Of course, I welcome the simpler approach, and I’m waiting to see if this approach is approved.
5/3/19 (later that day)
Bishop Fox acknowledges receipt of the scoping survey.
5/3/19 (I respond to Bishop Fox’s scoping survey)
It took a while to fill out, because of the detailed questions in it.
5/2/19 (Proposal arrives from Leviathan)
I’m impressed with the speed at which Leviathan handles communication. It was just 15 minutes before I got a response to my initial inquiry, and I have a proposal the very next day after our phone call. I’ve been asked not to disclose pricing information, so out of respect for Leviathan, I won’t mention that here.
5/1/19 (Call with Leviathan and follow-up)
I have a short phone call with a rep from Leviathan, where I describe the nature of GMass, its public facing interfaces, and a little about its underlying architecture. Given that GMass does not have an API and is only usable as a Chrome extension, the rep indicates that this will be one of their simpler security assessments and would require 2-3 days of work. After the call, he sends me some information to verify and an NDA, which I send back the next morning.
4/29/19 (several hours later)
Bishop Fox responds within several hours of my email.
4/29/19 (15 minutes later)
Leviathan responds within 15 minutes of my email. We eventually schedule a phone call for mid-next week.
4/29/19 (later in the day)
4/29/19 (earlier in the day)
Google denies my request to skip the security assessment.
I respond to the notice asking if I can skip the security assessment if I reduce the Gmail API scopes I’m using for GMass.
I receive a notice from Google that the fun is only now beginning (proceed with security assessment).
(April Fool’s Day — maybe they’ll let me know this has all been a joke?)
I’m told I’m in the final stages of verification.
I respond with my agreement.
Google emails asking me to confirm my agreement with a statement.
I responded with another video.
3/21/19 (a few hours later)
I received an additional request deeming the first video as insufficient.
I receive this request from Google for an additional video.
I respond, letting Google know I’ve made the branding changes they suggested.
After Google presumably watches my video, they respond, asking them to conform to their branding guidelines.
I respond with the requested YouTube video.
Google responds with their request for a YouTube video.
I responded to the ambiguous request from Google.
Received this email with no project ID listed, and given that I manage multiple apps built for Gmail, I didn’t know if this pertained to GMass or not.
I respond to Google’s request for the scope explanation.
Email received from Google asking for an explanation of the need for the full mail.google.com scope