So basically I'm developing a service that requires plain text input of user and password from the user.
The main server won't ever need to decrypt the password, so it should encrypt the user password with the public key and store it to DB.
Consuming service, which does web scraping needs the password as plain text to be able to authenticate.
And uses a private key for decryption.
I'm wondering whats the best practice to store the cert, I tried to base64 encrypt the key and use it from env. But something is getting corrupted at times. And being unable to decrypt the password.
Any advice on how to handle it is helpful
Wouldn't worry so much about obfuscating the key. Just make sure the server its on is secured, and limit access to the key via permissions and users which have access to that account. If it were a service account with no login ability, that would be better. If you need to reproduce this concept multiple times, use different key/cert for each unique use of this process to limit the exposure if there is a compromise. I'm sure there will be more good responses... let them stack up and see which mix best suits your use case.
Best practice it to hash passwords and store the hashes. When a user logs in, hash their input and compare its value to the hash you already have stored. In this manner a compromise only reveals the hashes, not the actual passwords. There are rainbow tables to crack hashes, but that's a topic for another day.
Related
Hi (sorry about the wordy post)
I'm working on a web app that will store some of the users personal data.
I have looked into various ways of encrypting the data to protect it from intruders if the database or web server was compromised and think that creating and storing a unique “master key” encrypted with a password derived key for each user is the best way to go for my set-up.
The only issue I can see is with forgotten passwords. Currently, the users can reset a forgotten password by receiving an email containing a link with a unique token that takes then to the password reset form.
My idea is to add security questions to the registration page that will be used to create a 2nd derived key and use it to encrypt the users master key. The answers will not be stored in the database, just the key derived from them. The questions would be more opinion based than personal or factual.
This will mean there are two encrypted versions of the “master key”.
These questions would be added to the existing password reset form and the answers used to recreate the derived key and decrypt the master key. This would mean that the original master key can then be encrypted using the new password.
I have read many posts on how security questions should not be used to reset passwords but in this case it seems like an additional layer of security.
Does anyone see any potential problems with this approach or have any other suggestions?
Thanks
It is not clear who you are trying to protect the data from (your organisation or potential intruders), but I would presume that intruders is your main concern, since your organisation has access to the code of the application and therefore can view the passwords that the user is inputting (unless encryption/decryption takes place on the client side).
I would not encrypt the data using the passwords of the users. Instead, I would generate random key(s) for each user, store them on a separate server, and retrieve them once the user authenticates successfully. That separate server would have to be inaccessible from the outside world.
Note that user authentication should also take place on the second server as well. Do not return the keys without prior user authentication, in case the first server gets compromised. You can additionally encrypt these keys using the user passwords and on a different column, using a master key that you are holding in case someone forgets their passwords.
This way you will get stronger passwords as well, than what the average user is going to use.
I'm working on implementing 2FA with Google Authenticator on our website. If I understand correctly every user will have their own secret code, which I will need on login to verify the 6 digit code they enter.
Storing these secret codes in the same database as the user passwords seems like a bad idea (although, if someone got a hold of the database we have bigger problems), is there anyway around it? Or should they just be treated like a password and encrypted?
You cannot hash the secret used to generate the TOTP code for Google Authenticator because you need the original secret to actually generate the code.
It pretty much is as you say, if someone has your database then you're in bigger trouble anyway. However this is how 2 Factor Authentication is supposed to work. If the password is indeed hashed securely and the attacker has only the TOTP secret then all they can do is generate 1 out of the 2 factors required to login and they have more work to do to break or steal the password.
If you'd rather not worry about storing these secrets for your users and letting a third party take care of it, can I recommend you take a look at Twilio's Two Factor Authentication API. Full disclosure, I work for Twilio, but if you don't want to worry about looking after secrets that you can't hash, as well as take advantage of other things like the Authy app (including secret transfer without QR codes) and the extra device data that is now available with authentications then it might be of interest.
You are right.
Is true that the 2FA increase the user security, but is not so strong at server side by definition. If a hacker or malicious employee with database access dump and publish the users secrets, the adtional security is gone.
What can be done ?
You can create a external isolated microservice, that receive a user hash and generate a 2FA secret keys, cryptography it and store in a key-value database, like elasticsearch. You can set the cryptographic key dynamically after the server start, to not store it hard-coded. You can store the database at a external server where the employees have no access other than via API.
This way if a malicious actor dump the elasticsearch database, they can not know what is the secret, and even if he gain access to the crypto keys he doesn't know who is the user that use that secret, because the key is the user id hash(not the user id).
Nothing is perfect, but 2FA targets to make harder to a attacker to have success. I think it help.
Imagine this situation: your users give you their credentials (username/password) to access a third party service. So you have to produce those credentials when connecting to the service, you cannot just store a salted hash.
The environment is Grails, with psql as DB. From the programmer point of view, ideally the user/password would still be part of the domain objects (so they are easy to use).
What would be the best practice to securely store them?
*(I'm not a security or crypto expert; this is my understanding based on my reading and research, but is very far from authoritative advice. Get the advice of web-app security professionals and get a proper security audit.)*
The best you can really do is have your app unable to decrypt them when the user isn't actively logged in.
Encrypt the credentials with a key based partially on the user's raw, unhashed password. You never store the user's password to log into your service on your systems, of course, so you only have access to it for a brief moment during authentication (and only then because the web hasn't caught up with the mid-90's and adopted sane challenge-response authentication schemes). You can, at the moment of user log-in, decrypt the saved credentials for the 3rd party services and store them in the volatile server-side session for the user.
For the encryption key you might hash the username and user raw password with a large-ish salt value you generate randomly for each (user,3rd-party-credential) pair and store alongside the encrypted credentials. The salt should be different to their salt used for their stored hashed password.
This is far from ideal and has all sorts of problems - but the credentials won't be accessible after the user's session expires or they log our and you purge their session.
It also means your app cannot act on their behalf when they aren't actively logged in, a limitation that may be a showstopper for you depending on your requirements.
A weaker option is to have a key for all user credentials that's manually entered by the sysadmin when the app is re-started. This key has to be stored in memory, but it's at least not sitting on the disk or in the database, so someone stealing a dump of your database will have a much harder time decrypting the stored credentials.
Neither option will help you if the attacker finds a way to trick your app into revealing those domain objects after decryption - or getting it to let them impersonate that user, getting it to perform actions on the 3rd party service on behalf of another user, etc. It'll at least protect against theft of database dumps and similar attacks, though.
One further recommendation: Rather than using pgcrypto to the crypto in the DB, do it on the application side. This means the DB never sees the key material required to decrypt the data; it can never be leaked into database logs, sniffed out of pg_stat_activity, etc.
There are a lot of questions on Stack Overflow about how to store user passwords, and the general advice of course is to hash the passwords and compare hashes.
However, imagine you are building a shrinkwrap intranet application (like SharePoint) that people deploy in their own environments. And suppose it requires a username/password combination to access an external service via HTTP (solutions that rely on API keys or federated security aren't supported).
In this case, we can't hash the password because we will need to pass the original password to the web service that we call. Encrypting would be the second best solution, but what would we use for the encryption key? If an attacked compromised the database, presumably they would have access to whatever key is used to encrypt the data in the first place?
If it was really a requirement for you to get the plain-text version of a stored password, how would you approach the problem in the most secure way?
This is actually a really interesting question. I'll join in.
You should encrypt it when storing it. No matter how you look at it it's better than storing it in plain text. Let's say an attacker finds an sql injection ad dumps the db, he still don't hold the encryption key. On the other hand, if he gets access to the server he will probably also find the encryption key.
To improve it a bit, you could store the encryption key in the server configuration. Assuming you are using Apache, you could use SetEnv.
I in my environment are required to enter the encryption key when Apache starts, this is then stored as en environment variable, so the key isn't really stored anywhere on my server.
There is no way, unless you require the user to enter a key to decrypt the password that you will be 100% safe.
You could generate the encryption key from the user's password. (Not their password for the external service—their password for your service.) Since you're not storing their password in plain text, an attacker who compromised your database wouldn't be able to decrypt the passwords. The downside is that you have to ask them for their password (for your service) whenever you need their external password.
You have the question inverted. The problem is not how to let the consumer "view" the password; the problem is how to let the consumer verify authentication.
In your implementation provide a means by which the consumer can provide a password and a username and get either a yes or a no. Then you continue to store encrypted (not hashed) passwords in the database.
So I need to be able to actually decrypt the password because some old websites don't use OAuth and I need to have some of my users have access to them through there API. Therefore one way hashing does not work for me. I have been told that the best way to store the passwords with AES and using the salted hash of the passwords as the key. How do I store all the keys and where do I store the salt? Basically how would I exactly implement this.
Thank You
If I understand you correctly you have the following situation. Users log in to your system with a username and password. Your system then needs to impersonate these users by logging into another system that you do not control using the user's username and password for that system which they have given to you.
If that is correct, then it might be reasonable to encrypt their credentials for the other websites using AES. In this case, I would not store the key used to encrypt those crendentials. The password that the user uses to access your system should be used as the key, and it should not be stored anywhere. In this way, you have a chance of protecting your users privacy (depending on the design of the rest of the system, of course).
Since you are encrypting rather than hashing, and the encryption key would be differnet for each user, salting is not necessary.
Also, I would encrypt the full credentials, not just the passwords. Your users are showing an incredible amount of trust by giving you their credentials in the first place, so I would do everything possible to justify that trust!
Your approach is essentially to use AES as a hash function but this will not allow you to decrypt the passwords (short of brute force or some yet-to-be-discovered vulnerability).
You might want to consider asymetric key encryption instead (e.g. RSA). You'll need to encrypt the passwords with the public key of each person you expect would need to decrypt it (which would include the user).