I've read about security best practices saying that inactive user accounts should be disabled and even deleted to avoid security issues like unauthorized use. I can see that being true for regular username and password authentication sites, however my application was built to work only with Facebook groups and as such the only way to login or create a new account is to use the Facebook login.
The argument can be said that someone malicious could take control of one of my users' Facebook accounts and then use it access my application. Although that is true if they have control of a Facebook account my application would never know it's a malicious person so I don't see that as a valid criteria to use in determining if the account should be disabled.
Furthermore if a user is inactive and wants to become active again since it's Facebook login there really is no reason for them to go through some kind of reactivation process like confirming their email or changing their password.
I must be missing something here because it's certainly mentioned as a best practice to disable accounts but since my only login method is Facebook (OAuth) I can't come up with a valid reason to disable/delete inactive accounts.
Regarding other methods of unauthorized access I have security measures in place so I'd like to keep the answers relevant to the login method.
Please enlighten me if I've missed something.
If you have decided that your application needs to use Facebook authentication, then your system's identities will only be as traceable as Facebook's identity management permits. (And don't expect Facebook to help you by disabling / blocking users at their end ...)
You need to design it accordingly:
Don't make any assumptions that users will behave properly.
Don't rely on login controls to keep out malicious users.
Put in your own (sufficient) defenses against malicious behavior into your own system.
You are correct that disabling an account in your system won't achieve much if you also allow the user to (easily) reenable it. Given that it is easy to create (effectively) untraceable Facebook accounts, the chances are that a typical malicious actor will not just rely on old accounts. They may use a brand new account and connect from an IP address that you have never seen.
There are some things that you could do though. For example, implement mechanisms to do the following:
Make sure that users simply cannot upload dangerous content (e.g. files with trojans, web content with dangerous links or scripts.
Allow administrative locking an existing account or OAuth identity,
Allow blocking of creation of accounts or access in from specified IP addresses or ranges,
Keep an audit trail so that you can watch the history of user behavior.
Consider a company that delivers a network of computers as part of its deliveries. And it does this for hundreds of different customers. All of the PCs need to have secure passwords. This at least means:
The password should conform to the basic password rules (capitalization, numbers, special characters, etc.)
The same password shouldn't be used for different customers.
The password shouldn't be easily guessable.
If possible, the same password shouldn't be used for different PCs in the network (but it may be acceptable to do so).
Since there is also a need to maintain these systems as part of the delivery, the operators need to be able to retrieve a password for a specific system easily without causing any security problems (like forwarding passwords in emails, etc.).
Here are my questions regarding such a setup:
Is it advisable to create a password scheme such that the operators can "calculate" the password without having to look up? [Problem is, once the scheme is disclosed, all systems will have a security problem.]
How should the passwords be stored/retrieved for good security? [Is there a program that can be used to access a secure database with a web interface?]
I found WebKeePass during my investigation (which looks promising). One other option was to print the passwords and keep them in a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory in a basement with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'? but I believe that wouldn't be convenient for the operator. I wonder what are the other options would be...
Update: The "web" interface doesn't have to be open to public access (i.e., it can be accessible only within a VPN).
Since the users aren't able to choose their password, the passwords should be generated randomly. If the passwords are generated using some algorithm, as you stated, once the algorithm is cracked, all of the passwords can be cracked.
If you must store retrievable passwords, you should still encrypt and salt them. See adobe's recent issue where 150 million of adobe's encrypted passwords were leaked. The problem with unsalted passwords is that even if I can't crack the encryption, I can still see everybody who has the same password as me.
Admin Retrieval
For admin-only retrieval of passwords, you could use a password vault system, where one password entered by a staff member unlocks access to additional stored passwords. Ideally, you should have a system where you can select and display a single password on the screen. It should encrypt the passwords, log accesses, and be controlled by an administrator.
This could be a web-based system, but hosted internally on an intranet, perhaps accessed through a VPN. RDP or something similar may also be viable, perhaps even using two-factor authentication.
Unfortunately, we don't recommend products on StackOverflow.
End User Retrieval
We've designed a system in the past where you can recover a password via a HTTPS secured web site. You simply enter your username, and a random one-time-use retrieval code is delivered to the email address on record.
While we're not in control of the security level on their email account, we at least assume that only the user knows the password to access the email account. This forces the user to re-authenticate in some form in order to retrieve their password.
They then type the retrieval code into a web form and are shown their password. Again, this web site is secured with HTTPS. Additionally, the user must keep the web page open during the transaction (secure session), and the IP address must not change during the transaction.
I realize that mac addresses or machine ids aren't transferred over the internet, however, I would like to lock down our subscription-based website security so that only specific computers can register and have access to its resources.
Large organizations will subscribe to our service and will undoubtedly have more than one ip for their organization. As well, we'd like to give the ability for their qualified employees to access the website on devices outside of their physical organization (for road-trip presentations, etc.).
Is there a sure-fire way to achieve this end (beyond the username/password assigned to each account)? If not, what would be the most effective approach?
Instead of restricting access via IP, you want to use something that's actually secure.
Username and password over an HTTPS connection should at least be unsniffable, but you might want to look in to client SSL certificates. They can be configured in Apache or other web server software. If username/password authentication is not enough, this is the next (and perhaps final) step up.
UPDATE:
That said, what many application providers will do is provide a method for subscribers to implement an ACL for their accounts. You can even force people to consider their ACL before allowing them to access your services. Think of it this way:
An account is set up in your system allowing login from anywhere. Upon creation, the ACL is UNSET.
User logs in and is immediately directed to an ACL setup page, where they must provide either an IP address or range or subnet associated with their account. You can be clever and pre-populate things with their existing IP address or subnet, perhaps even looking things up at ARIN to see if their IP is in a network assigned to the company name on their account.
Once the ACL is set (or they have, despite your warnings, confirmed that they want to keep their ACL open), they can access your services.
If they try log in from elsewhere, they (and you) are notified via email (or SMS or whatever) of an attempted breach.
If they no longer have access to their ACL-listed IPs (i.e. IP renumbering due to a new upstream Internet provider and bad planning), they can call your phone support who will validate them by other means. FAX confirmation perhaps, because that's SO secure...
A user-managed ACL is not a "sure-fire" way, but it may be sufficiently effective for your needs, and it will certainly instill a sense in your customers that you have their best interests at heart.
There is no sure-fire way. That's in the nature of networks. You accept data from a remote machine and you have to trust it at least to some extend.
Take the simple username/password approach. If the usename and the passwords match, you have to trust, that they where entered by the person that the username and password was intended for. This does not fundamentally change if you require more data to be send by the client.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
I'd like to know what people consider best practice for securing the Admin sections of websites, specifically from an authentication/access point of view.
Of course there are obvious things, such as using SSL and logging all access, but I'm wondering just where above these basic steps people consider the bar to be set.
For example:
Are you just relying on the same authentication mechanism that you use for normal users? If not, what?
Are you running the Admin section in the same 'application domain'?
What steps do you take to make the admin section undiscovered? (or do you reject the whole 'obscurity' thing)
So far, suggestions from answerers include:
Introduce an artificial server-side pause into each admin password check to prevent brute force attacks [Developer Art]
Use separate login pages for users and admin using the same DB table (to stop XSRF and session-stealing granting access to admin areas) [Thief Master]
Consider also adding webserver native authentication to the admin area (e.g. via .htaccess) [Thief Master]
Consider blocking users IP after a number of failed admin login attempts [Thief Master]
Add captcha after failed admin login attempts [Thief Master]
Provide equally strong mechanisms (using the above techniques) for users as well as admins (e.g. don't treat admins specially) [Lo'oris]
Consider Second level authentication (e.g. client certificates, smart cards, cardspace, etc.) [JoeGeeky]
Only allow access from trusted IPs/Domains, add check to basic HTTP pipeline (via e.g. HttpModules) if possible. [JoeGeeky]
[ASP.NET] Lock down IPrincipal & Principal (make them immutable and non-enumerable) [JoeGeeky]
Federate Rights Elevation - e.g. email other admins when any admin's rights are upgraded.
[JoeGeeky]
Consider fine-grained rights for admins - e.g. rather than roles based rights, define rights for indicidual actions per admin [JoeGeeky]
Restrict creation of admins - e.g. Admins cannot change or create other admin accounts. Use a locked-down 'superadmin' client for this. [JoeGeeky]
Consider Client Side SSL Certificates, or RSA type keyfobs (electronic tokens) [Daniel Papasian]
If using cookies for Authentication, use separate cookies for admin and normal pages, by e.g. putting the admin section on a different domain. [Daniel Papasian]
If practical, consider keeping the admin site on a private subnet, off the public internet. [John Hartsock]
Reissue auth/session tickets when moving between admin/normal usage contexts of the website [Richard JP Le Guen]
These are all good answers... I generally like to add a couple additional layers for my administrative sections. Although I've used a few variations on a theme, they generally include one of the following:
Second level authentication: This could include client certificates (Ex. x509 certs), smart cards, cardspace, etc...
Domain/IP restrictions: In this case, only clients coming from trusted/verifiable domains; such as internal subnets; are allowed into the admin area. Remote admins often go through trusted VPN entrypoints so their session would be verifiable and is often protected with RSA keys as well. If you're using ASP.NET you can easily perform these checks in the HTTP Pipeline via HTTP Modules which will prevent your application from ever receiving any requests if security checks are not satisfied.
Locked down IPrincipal & Principal-based Authorization: Creating custom Principles is a common practice, although a common mistake is making them modifiable and/or rights enumerable. Although its not just an admin issue, it's more important since here is where users are likely to have elevated rights. Be sure they're immutable and not enumerable. Additionally, make sure all assessments for Authorization are made based on the Principal.
Federate Rights Elevation: When any account receives a select number of rights, all the admins and the security officer are immediately notified via email. This makes sure that if an attacker elevates rights we know right away. These rights generally revolve around priviledged rights, rights to see privacy protected information, and/or financial information (e.g. credit cards).
Issue rights sparingly, even to Admins: Finally, and this can be a bit more advanced for some shops. Authorization rights should be as discreet as possible and should surround real functional behaviours. Typical Role-Based Security (RBS) approaches tend to have a Group mentality. From a security perspective this is not the best pattern. Instead of 'Groups' like 'User Manager', try breaking it down further (Ex. Create User, Authorize User, Elevate/Revoke access rights, etc...). This can have a little more overhead in terms of administration, but this gives you the flexibility to only assign rights that are actually needed by the larger admin group. If access is compromised at least they may not get all rights. I like to wrap this in Code Access Security (CAS) permissions supported by .NET and Java, but that is beyond the scope of this answer. One more thing... in one app, admins cannot manage change other admin accounts, or make a users an admin. That can only be done via a locked down client which only a couple people can access.
If the website requires a login for both regular activities and admins, e.g. a forum, I'd use separate logins which use the same user database. This ensures that XSRF and session-stealing won't allow the attacker to access administrative areas.
Additionally, if the admin section is in a separate subdirectory, securing that one with the webserver's authentication (.htaccess in Apache for example) might be a good idea - then someone needs both that password and the user password.
Obscuring the admin path yields almost no security gain - if someone knows valid login data he's most likely also able to find out the path of the admin tool since he either phished it or keylogged you or got it via social engineering (which would probably reveal the path, too).
A brute-force protection like blocking the user's IP after 3 failed logins or requiring a CAPTCHA after a failed login (not for the first login as that's just extremely annoying for legit users) might also be useful.
I reject obscurity
Using two authentication systems instead of one is overkill
The artificial pause between attempts should be done for users too
Blocking IPs of failed attempts should be done for users too
Strong passwords should be used by users too
If you consider captchas ok, guess what, you could use them for users too
Yes, after writing it, I realize that this answer could be summarized as a "nothing special for the admin login, they are all security features that should be used for any login".
If you do use only a single login for users who have both normal-user privileges and admin privileges, regenerate their session identifier (be it in a cookie or a GET parameter or whatever...) when there is a change in the level of priviledge... at the very least.
So if I log in, do a bunch of normal user stuff and then visit an admin page, regenerate my session ID. If I then navigate away from an admin page(s) to a normal user page, regenerate my ID again.
Have a good admin password.
Not "123456" but a sequence of letters, digits and special characters long enough, say, 15-20 characters. Like "ksd83,'|4d#rrpp0%27&lq(go43$sd{3>".
Add a pause for each password check to prevent brute force attack.
Here are some other things to consider:
One option to consider, especially if you manage the admin's computers or they are technically competent, is to use something based on SSL certificates for client authentication. RSA keyfobs and whatnot can also be used for added security.
If you're using cookies at all - perhaps for an authentication/session token - you probably want to ensure that the cookies are only sent to the admin pages. This helps mitigate the risks posed to your site by stealing cookies, by either layer 1/2 compromise or XSS. This can be done easily by having the admin portion being on a different hostname or domain as well as setting the secure flag with the cookie.
Restricting by IP can be smart as well, and if you have users throughout the internet you can still do this, if there is a trusted VPN that they can join.
We use Windows Authentication for admin access. This is most practical way of protecting admin areas while keeping the authentication seperate from what applies to general end-users. The system admin manages the Admin user access credentials and enforces password policies on the domain user account.
The strict way is to have two complete different "farms" including databases, servers and all and move the data from one farm to the other. Most modern, large scale, systems use this approach (Vignette, SharePoint, etc.). It's normally refered to as having different stages "editing stage" -> "preview stage" -> "delivery stage". This method lets you treat content/config the same way you treat code (dev->qa->prod).
If you are less paranoid you can have a single database but only have your admin section available on the "editing" servers. I mean, only have the editing scripts/files placed on the editing server.
Naturally the editing stage should only be available on a local intranet and/or using a VPN.
This may seem a bit of an overkill and may not be the easiest solution for all usage cases, but it is definetly the most robust way of doing things.
Note that things like "have strong admin passwords" are nice, but still leave your admin open to smart attacts of all sorts.
It very much depends on what kind of data you want to protect (legal requirements and such).
Alot of suggestions is about authentication.. I think you just should consider using OpenId / Facebook authentication as login. (They will most likely spend more resources on authentication security then you)
Save changes as well as updating values in the database. That way you can rollback changes from user X or between date X and Y.
I didn't notice anyone mention storage/validation of the admin password. Please please please do not store the PW in plain text, and preferably not even something that can be reversed - use something like a salted MD5 hash so that at the very least if someone happens to retrieve the stored "password" they don't have anything terribly useful, unless they also have your salt scheme.
Add a password field and a security question that the Administrator will know, e.g. what was your first girlfriend name, or randomize the questions everytime viewing the admin panel.
Perhaps you could always put the administration section in a big directory, e.g.
http://domain.com/sub/sub/sub/sub/sub/index.php
But that's not really good hah.
Perhaps you could include a query string in the home page, like:
http://domain.com/index.php?display=true
When it does, the username and password field will appear.
If a site uses a persistent login feature that's set up according to the best practices defined here, are there any potential security issues with dropping the persistent login cookie right at the account creation step? (Immediately upon validating the new account data on the server.) The site does not require that users verify new accounts via an e-mailed link.
If this suits your needs, then there would be no technical reason to prevent you from dropping a persistent cookie. There is an assumption that you are wanting to do this to keep the user logged in between browser restarts etc.
Just do this with caution, on the t'internet the whole account activation without some kind of validation/confirmation is open to exploits - so as long as you have weighed those risks up then I see no problem.
I don't see why not - the user just entered their password, after all, you're not gaining anything by asking for it again.
So long as the cookie you're giving them once they've signed up is new, that's fine. I suspect it's rare since most places do email validation.