Is there any way to restrict post requests to my REST API only to requests coming from my own mobile app binary? This app will be distributed on Google Play and the Apple App Store so it should be implied that someone will have access to its binary and try to reverse engineer it.
I was thinking something involving the app signatures, since every published app must be signed somehow, but I can't figure out how to do it in a secure way. Maybe a combination of getting the app signature, plus time-based hashes, plus app-generated key pairs and the good old security though obscurity?
I'm looking for something as fail proof as possible. The reason why is because I need to deliver data to the app based on data gathered by the phone sensors, and if people can pose as my own app and send data to my api that wasn't processed by my own algorithms, it defeats its purpose.
I'm open to any effective solution, no matter how complicated. Tin foil hat solutions are greatly appreciated.
Any credentials that are stored in the app can be exposed by the user. In the case of Android, they can completely decompile your app and easily retrieve them.
If the connection to the server does not utilize SSL, they can be easily sniffed off the network.
Seriously, anybody who wants the credentials will get them, so don't worry about concealing them. In essence, you have a public API.
There are some pitfalls and it takes extra time to manage a public API.
Many public APIs still track by IP address and implement tarpits to simply slow down requests from any IP address that seems to be abusing the system. This way, legitimate users from the same IP address can still carry on, albeit slower.
You have to be willing to shut off an IP address or IP address range despite the fact that you may be blocking innocent and upstanding users at the same time as the abusers. If your application is free, it may give you more freedom since there is no expected level of service and no contract, but you may want to guard yourself with a legal agreement.
In general, if your service is popular enough that someone wants to attack it, that's usually a good sign, so don't worry about it too much early on, but do stay ahead of it. You don't want the reason for your app's failure to be because users got tired of waiting on a slow server.
Your other option is to have the users register, so you can block by credentials rather than IP address when you spot abuse.
Yes, It's public
This app will be distributed on Google Play and the Apple App Store so it should be implied that someone will have access to its binary and try to reverse engineer it.
From the moment its on the stores it's public, therefore anything sensitive on the app binary must be considered as potentially compromised.
The Difference Between WHO and WHAT is Accessing the API Server
Before I dive into your problem I would like to first clear a misconception about who and what is accessing an API server. I wrote a series of articles around API and Mobile security, and in the article Why Does Your Mobile App Need An Api Key? you can read in detail the difference between who and what is accessing your API server, but I will extract here the main takes from it:
The what is the thing making the request to the API server. Is it really a genuine instance of your mobile app, or is it a bot, an automated script or an attacker manually poking around your API server with a tool like Postman?
The who is the user of the mobile app that we can authenticate, authorize and identify in several ways, like using OpenID Connect or OAUTH2 flows.
Think about the who as the user your API server will be able to Authenticate and Authorize access to the data, and think about the what as the software making that request in behalf of the user.
So if you are not using user authentication in the app, then you are left with trying to attest what is doing the request.
Mobile Apps should be as much dumb as possible
The reason why is because I need to deliver data to the app based on data gathered by the phone sensors, and if people can pose as my own app and send data to my api that wasn't processed by my own algorithms, it defeats its purpose.
It sounds to me that you are saying that you have algorithms running on the phone to process data from the device sensors and then send them to the API server. If so then you should reconsider this approach and instead just collect the sensor values and send them to the API server and have it running the algorithm.
As I said anything inside your app binary is public, because as yourself said, it can be reverse engineered:
should be implied that someone will have access to its binary and try to reverse engineer it.
Keeping the algorithms in the backend will allow you to not reveal your business logic, and at same time you may reject requests with sensor readings that do not make sense(if is possible to do). This also brings you the benefit of not having to release a new version of the app each time you tweak the algorithm or fix a bug in it.
Runtime attacks
I was thinking something involving the app signatures, since every published app must be signed somehow, but I can't figure out how to do it in a secure way.
Anything you do at runtime to protect the request you are about to send to your API can be reverse engineered with tools like Frida:
Inject your own scripts into black box processes. Hook any function, spy on crypto APIs or trace private application code, no source code needed. Edit, hit save, and instantly see the results. All without compilation steps or program restarts.
Your Suggested Solutions
Security is all about layers of defense, thus you should add as many as you can afford and required by law(e.g GDPR in Europe), therefore any of your purposed solutions are one more layer the attacker needs to bypass, and depending on is skill-set and time is willing to spent on your mobile app it may prevent them to go any further, but in the end all of them can be bypassed.
Maybe a combination of getting the app signature, plus time-based hashes, plus app-generated key pairs and the good old security though obscurity?
Even when you use key pairs stored in the hardware trusted execution environment, all an attacker needs to do is to use an instrumentation framework to hook in the function of your code that uses the keys in order to extract or manipulate the parameters and return values of the function.
Android Hardware-backed Keystore
The availability of a trusted execution environment in a system on a chip (SoC) offers an opportunity for Android devices to provide hardware-backed, strong security services to the Android OS, to platform services, and even to third-party apps.
While it can be defeated I still recommend you to use it, because not all hackers have the skill set or are willing to spend the time on it, and I would recommend you to read this series of articles about Mobile API Security Techniques to learn about some complementary/similar techniques to the ones you described. This articles will teach you how API Keys, User Access Tokens, HMAC and TLS Pinning can be used to protect the API and how they can be bypassed.
Possible Better Solutions
Nowadays I see developers using Android SafetyNet to attest what is doing the request to the API server, but they fail to understand it's not intended to attest that the mobile app is what is doing the request, instead it's intended to attest the integrity of the device, and I go in more detail on my answer to the question Android equivalent of ios devicecheck. So should I use it? Yes you should, because it is one more layer of defense, that in this case tells you that your mobile app is not installed in a rooted device, unless SafetyNet has been bypassed.
Is there any way to restrict post requests to my REST API only to requests coming from my own mobile app binary?
You can allow the API server to have an high degree of confidence that is indeed accepting requests only from your genuine app binary by implementing the Mobile App Attestation concept, and I describe it in more detail on this answer I gave to the question How to secure an API REST for mobile app?, specially the sections Securing the API Server and A Possible Better Solution.
Do you want to go the Extra Mile?
In any response to a security question I always like to reference the excellent work from the OWASP foundation.
For APIS
OWASP API Security Top 10
The OWASP API Security Project seeks to provide value to software developers and security assessors by underscoring the potential risks in insecure APIs, and illustrating how these risks may be mitigated. In order to facilitate this goal, the OWASP API Security Project will create and maintain a Top 10 API Security Risks document, as well as a documentation portal for best practices when creating or assessing APIs.
For Mobile Apps
OWASP Mobile Security Project - Top 10 risks
The OWASP Mobile Security Project is a centralized resource intended to give developers and security teams the resources they need to build and maintain secure mobile applications. Through the project, our goal is to classify mobile security risks and provide developmental controls to reduce their impact or likelihood of exploitation.
OWASP - Mobile Security Testing Guide:
The Mobile Security Testing Guide (MSTG) is a comprehensive manual for mobile app security development, testing and reverse engineering.
No. You're publishing a service with a public interface and your app will presumably only communicate via this REST API. Anything that your app can send, anyone else can send also. This means that the only way to secure access would be to authenticate in some way, i.e. keep a secret. However, you are also publishing your apps. This means that any secret in your app is essentially being given out also. You can't have it both ways; you can't expect to both give out your secret and keep it secret.
Though this is an old post, I thought I should share the updates from Google in this regard.
You can actually ensure that your Android application is calling the API using the SafetyNet mobile attestation APIs. This adds a little overhead on the network calls and prevents your application from running in a rooted device.
I found nothing similar like SafetyNet for iOS. Hence in my case, I checked the device configuration first in my login API and took different measures for Android and iOS. In case of iOS, I decided to keep a shared secret key between the server and the application. As the iOS applications are a little bit difficult to reversed engineered, I think this extra key checking adds some protection.
Of course, in both cases, you need to communicate over HTTPS.
As the other answers and comments imply, you cant truly restrict API access to only your app but you can take different measures to reduce the attempts. I believe the best solution is to make requests to your API (from native code of course) with a custom header like "App-Version-Key" (this key will be decided at compile time) and make your server check for this key to decide if it should accept or reject. Also when using this method you SHOULD use HTTPS/SSL as this will reduce the risk of people seeing your key by viewing the request on the network.
Regarding Cordova/Phonegap apps, I will be creating a plugin to do the above mentioned method. I will update this comment when its complete.
there is nothing much you can do. cause when you let some one in they can call your APIs. the most you can do is as below:
since you want only and only your application (with a specific package name and signature) calls your APIs, you can get the signature key of your apk pragmatically and send is to sever in every API call and if thats ok you response to the request. (or you can have a token API that your app calls it every beginning of the app and then use that token for other APIs - though token must be invalidated after some hours of not working with)
then you need to proguard your code so no one sees what you are sending and how you encrypt them. if you do a good encrypt decompiling will be so hard to do.
even signature of apk can be mocked in some hard ways but its the best you can do.
Someone have looked at Firebase App Check ?
https://firebase.google.com/docs/app-check
Is there any way to restrict post requests to my REST API only to requests coming from my own mobile app binary?
I'm not sure if there is an absolute solution.
But, you can reduce unwanted requests.
Use an App Check:
The "Firebase App Check" can be used cross-platform (https://firebase.google.com/docs/app-check) - credit to #Xande-Rasta-Moura
iOS: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicecheck
Android: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2013/01/verifying-back-end-calls-from-android.html
Use BasicAuth (for API requests)
Allow a user-agent header for mobile devices only (for API requests)
Use a robots.txt file to reduce bots
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
From my understanding, the hololens provides just a prediction of the head tracking to the unity app (or other game engine app), after which the camera is positioned. In a postprocessing step, probably after the unity app generated the image, the image is transformed to the newest, actual head tracking measurement. The result is great for room-fixed holograms and bad for camera-fixed holograms.
I have two questions: (a) Can you confirm or disprove this? and (b) Are there any related settings accessible for the user, like disable the post-transformation?
Thank you in advance.
Currently HoloLens does not support this use case. However, you can provide more information about your business request and submit a feature request via feedback hub on new feature request to be considered in future releases of HoloLens OS and devices. If it's a hot impacted feature, it will be possible to be given priority to jump in the development schedule.
For how to post feedback request, you can follow this doc: Send feedback to Microsoft with the Feedback Hub app.
Assume the following scenario: we want to implement an open-source password manager that uses a central service that enables the different clients (on different devices) to synchronize their local databases. It doesn't matter if this service is run by a company or on a server of the user (compare to owncloud usage scenarios). To make our application more "secure", we want to use an Intel SGX enclave for the central service (please ignore current attack research on SGX enclaves).
Then, the typical workflow would be:
local client attests central enclave
user registers / logs in
(local and remote database are synced)
user stores / retrieves passwords
Now my question: Does every user of our password manager need to register with the Intel Attestation Service (IAS)? If yes, wouldn't this imply that, since private key sharing is really bad, every single device needs to be registered?
According to my investigations, the answer is, at least for the development and testing phase, yes. I could not find any public information for production scenarios. All I know is that a business registration changes the behavior of the enclave (it can be run in production mode) which is not of any matter here. I have two thoughts on this:
If I am correct, isn't this another show stopper for SGX? Using SGX without the attestation feature seems to be useless.
How do services such as https://www.fortanix.com/ circumvent or solve the problem? Their documentation does not give a hint for needed interaction with Intel.
The above described scenario is only an example; it can be improved and we do not plan to implement it. But it was a lot easier to describe a scenario, that can be easy imagined and seems to be a realistic use case for SGX, than describing our current project plans.
P.S.: This question is kind of consecutive to Intel SGX developer licensing and open-source software
One does not need an Intel-registered certificate to create a quote but one does need to communicate with the IAS (Intel Attestation Service) to verify a quote, which requires an Intel-registered certificate. So every node checking if a remote attestation is valid would require such a certificate in a naive approach.
One could of course leverage SGX to provide a proxy which would be structured somewhat like that:
Generate two certificates and their corresponding private key, I'll name one of them the IAS-conn-cert and the other one the Proxy-cert.
Register the IAS-conn-cert of them to the IAS.
Of course, you need to have to trust that these certificates were indeed generated in an enclave. To do so, you could remotely attest to another service provider you trust.
Now pin (by for example hard-coding) the Proxy-cert in your client application. When it needs to verify a quote, it connects to the enclave using that pinned proxy-cert thus knowing it connects to the enclave. The enclave will then connect to the IAS and relay everything it receives from the client to the IAS and vise-versa. The client can now communicate with the IAS without having to own an IAS-registered certificate but can still be assured that there is no tampering in the proxy, given that it trusts that the proxy-certificate was indeed generated in a non-malicious enclave.
We're developing a mobile application with Xamarin which will operate on Android and iOS initially, with plans to port to Windows phone in the future (if the 3 people who use it scream loud enough).
The nature of the data being transmitted and the actions that this application will allow (SSO into another read/write system) we want to take every step we can to secure the data transfer layer as much as possible.
Naturally this takes us down the path of SSL/TLS Certificate Pinning (in addition to other mitigations in the API calls themselves) to protect the clients from connecting to MITM proxies and the like.
We operate the API endpoint and have complete control of the certificates and thus we are comfortable with storing public keys in the app to pin to, as we will be able to update our certs and deploy with new pins in sufficient time. All certificates are valid 3rd party signed certs (not self signed).
Unfortunately it appears that doing the SSL Pinning with Xamarin is not performed very often, as we've found it difficult to find implemented examples.
OWASP provide some .NET sample SSL Pinning code which uses ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback to provide a callback to check the SSL pin; but doesn't specifically mention it working under Xamarin.
Additional Google searches for this code often returns people using it to do the exact opposite of what we're wanting - they use it reduce the SSL certificate checking, not increase it!
I can see one answer which suggests this approach works OK Android and iOS - but I'm most interested in specific experiences in around using this in Xamarin, specifically Xamarin.Forms, to pin SSL/TLS Certificates.
I have validated that SSL/TLS Key Pinning works on Android (though only in an emulator at this point) using ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback
My client does not have Apple Developer account yet. What I want that I associate it with my own Dev account and let him do kind of some BEta Testing on his device. What things/steps would be required for me and him?
Thanks
I used TestFlight a couple of times and I was impressed from the ease of use (Especially for clients who don't know alot about development). TestFlight simplify the process of beta testing and deployment. Much easier then using the adhoc provisioning.
The client doesn't even need to connect the device to a PC, the deployment is over the air.