I have noticed that sites like facebook, google, upwork uses back-end validation for their login form instead of frontend validation.
Even for basic validation such as checking if the input field is empty or not, they use back-end! Why is so?
I further noticed that they all use front-end validation only for registration forms. I don't know if this is a coincidence but I would really like to know what's the reason behind this.
as u said Why Frontend Validation is used on Register Form but not on Login Form? yes before going to this i will let you know one thing as you said you have noticed sites like facebook,google,upwork will only use back-end validation.ok its write but they will also use front-end validation.as i will come to the question Mostly the Client Side Validation depends on the JavaScript Language, so if users turn JavaScript off, it can easily bypass and submit dangerous input to the server . So the Client Side Validation can not protect your application from malicious attacks on your server resources and databases.
all use front-end validation only for registration forms because For example, if the user enter an invalid email format, you can show an error message immediately before the user move to the next field, so the user can correct every field before they submit the form.
As both the validation methods have their own significances, it is recommended that the Server side validation is more SECURE!
Related
I just learnt one can manipulate the frontend code of a website from the developer tools that comes with some browsers. Now, my question is that if someone can manipulate my js, HTML and CSS codes to suitable needs, and was able to send a request to my webserver, will the server receive and process the request as authenticated request. Let me site a suitable example:
Let's say I created a form that uses ajax to retrieve some information from my webserver, in the form I have a hidden input that contains numbers which determine the information that will be displayed (e.g. 1 should display information for level 1 users, 2 should display information for level 2 users). The default value of the hidden input is 1, now if the user (level 1) is able to tweak the frontend code and set the value to 2 before sending, will he receive the information meant for level 2.
If this is possible, how can I prevent such thing from happening, or what is the standard procedure for handling situations like this?
The typical rules in this case are:
Validate
Validate
Validate
Do not trust the client exclusively to tell you whether they have the permission or not. You should have the information to determine that on the server side, use it.
Validate client side requests, and make sure the user that is requesting an action has the actually has permissions to do so, and that the data they are sending is valid.
Sure, you can have client side validation for a good UX experience, but always backstop it with server side validation, authentication and authorization.
The best way to prevent your example scenario is: Don't send the client side data they aren't supposed to see and then rely on the client to hide it. If the user isn't supposed to see it, don't send it.
I'm trying to implement a GET method with Express in my nodeJs application.
I'd like to do something like this in order to display user data :
router.get("/user/:idUser", (req, res) => {
The user doesn't need to be authenticated in order to execute this code. However I don't want that anybody can execute this request with a user id of someone else. Because he could see data he's not supposed to see.
How could I proceed ? I thought about using some encryption process to have something like :
/user/PdfgdfJFDGTfrfgdsf
Your question isn't really making sense. You don't want authentication, but you only want a user to be able to view their own data so nobody else can view it.
The ONLY way to solve that is by using some form of authentication. The user has to prove to the server that they are allowed to view that data before the user renders the page for them.
Yes, you could obscure the URL (make it some mostly unguessable string of characters), but it's not clear what problem that is solving. The user themselves won't be able to remember it or type it so it would probably have to be a link in a web page and if it's a link in an unauthenticated web page, then anyone can get to it - thus defeating the purpose.
There are cases where temporary links (often done for privileged downloads) such as what you mention /user/PdfgdfJFDGTfrfgdsf are sent via an authenticated channel (either an authenticated webpage or sent to an email address known to belong to an authenticated user) and these links contain some unique and hard to guess code. The user can then click on that link (in authenticated webpage or in email) and access that resource without further authentication. In that case, the knowledge of the code in the URL is serving as a form of proof of authentication. Because URLs may be logged in service providers or corporate infrastructure and thus not remain entirely private, this technique has its limitations and is typically only used for short term (download this resource in the next 10 minutes) type of uses, not a long term substitute for authentication and not used for things that demand real security. You don't explain enough of your use case to know whether this is practical for your situation or not.
The user doesn't need to be authenticated in order to execute this code. However I don't want that anybody can execute this request with a user id of someone else. Because he could see data he's not supposed to see.
That's an inconsistent statement. You say "user doesn't need to be authenticated in order to execute this code" and then you say "I don't want that anybody can execute this request with a user id of someone else.". You can't have both. The user is either required to prove authorization or they aren't. Pick one. It can't be both.
you can use jwt for this and a auth middleware for this
upon decoding jwt token, you can implement logic to check if the decodedToken.user_id (given that you add user_id when encode token payload) is equal to the :idUser in route (or any kind of logic you want) there.
No matter how I reason about it, it seems as if there is no secure way of implementing a client side rendered single-page-application that uses/accesses information on sessions for authentication, either via cookies, without severe compromise in security. I was mainly looking to building a React app, but it seems as if I will need to build it with SSR for a relatively secure version of authentication.
The use case that I'm especially thinking of is where the user logs in or registers and then gets a cookie with the session id. From there, in a server side implementation, I can simply set up conditional rendering depending on whether the server stored session has an associated user id or not and then pull the user information from there and display it.
However, I can't think of a client-side rendered solution where the user can use the session id alone on the cookie that isn't easily spoofable. Some of the insecure implementations would include using browser storage (local/session). Thanks.
I think the major issue here is that you are mixing the two parts of a web page (at least according to what HTML set out achieve) and treating them both as sensitive information.
You have two major parts in a web page - the first being the display format and the second being the data. The presumption in client side rendering / single page applications is that the format itself is not sensitive, and only the data needs to be protected.
If that's the case you should treat your client-side redirect to login behavior as a quality of life feature. The data endpoints on your server would still be protected - meaning that in theory an unauthenticated user could muck about the static HTML he is being served and extract page layouts and templates - but those would be meaningless without the data to fill them - which is the protected part.
In practice - your end product would be a single page application that makes requests to various API endpoints to fetch data and fill in the requested page templates. You wouldn't even need to go as far as storing complex session states - a simple flag notifying the client if it is authenticated or not would suffice (that is beyond what you would normally use for server-side authentication such as cookies or tokens)
Now let's say I'm a malicious user who is up to no good - I could "spoof" - or really just open the browser dev tools and set the isAuthenticated flag to true letting me skip past the login screen - now what would I do? I could theoretically navigate to my-service/super-secret without being redirected locally back to the login page on the client side - and then as soon as the relevant page tries to load the data from the server with the nonexistent credentials it would fail - best case displaying an error message, worst case with some internal exception and a view showing a broken template.
So just to emphasize in short:
A. If what you want to protect is your TEMPLATE then there is no way to achieve this clientside.
B. If what you want to protect is your DATA then you should treat gating/preventing users from navigating to protected pages as a quality of life feature and not a security feature, since that will be implemented on the server when serving the data for that specific page.
Im using GWT, GAE to make a web app.
I looked at a bunch of tutorials regarding implementing a login system but most of those tutorials implement it so it's mandatory to login to access the web app. How would I go about making it so that anyone can access the app but if they want to use account specific functionality, they they have the option of signing up for an account.
There are two parts to it.
First, in your client code you check if a user is logged in. If so, you allow access to the "closed" parts of the app. If not, you show a link/button to login and hide tabs/views that are accessible to authorized users.
Second, in your server code you specify which requests do not require authentication and which do require it. This is necessary if a user somehow figures out how to send a request without using your client code.
For example, in my code some requests have checkSession() called at the very beginning. If no authentication object is found for this user in session, this method throws LoginException to the client. If the authentication object is present, the request continues to execute normally and returns requested data to the client.
Further to Andrei's answer, if you want a framework to manage the sessions for you, you can use GWT-Platform, which has an excellent Gatekeeper feature.
I use it for mine and I have a LoggedInGatekeeper class. Simply add #UseGatekeeper(LoggedInGatekeeper.class) to the constructor of each presenter proxy and it checks if the user is logged in. If you want anyone to be able to access that page simply annotate with #NoGatekeeper. Easy!
It takes a bit of setting up but it's a great MVP framework. There are maven archetypes and samples etc.
Hope this helps.
wkhtmltopdf allows to make a screenshot of a browser view with a webkit browser.
I have a Symfony 1.4 application that requires login, which I would like to use wkhtmltopdf to create a "print this page" function.
How can I securely facilitate this. I'm thinking of creating a one-off token on each screen for the print button that allows wkhtmltopdf to login without using the password of the user.
Any suggestions for how to structure this?
We'vbe come to the conclusion to use the built in "keep me logged in" functionality for this problem.
Would you consider a different printing framework ?
What about jquery plugin (e.g. https://github.com/ianoxley/jqueryprintpage#readme) ?
That way you won't have to allow access to the restricted area from outside the session.
If you still want to use wkhtmltopdf, you can easily create an action that receives a url and a user_id and creates a unique token, I might save this token in your DB or in a Key-Value cache (depends what is your system architecture). I wouldn't create the unique token in advance, I think its better creating it on demand (When your user is asking a print).
You have couple of options in order to enable printing in secured actions,
1) Create a custom security filter. In the filter, in addition to authenticated request, you have to allow requests that contain "token" parameter with right combination of url and user
2) Change the action to unsecured. If you don't want the change the security filter, you would have to change each action to "unsecured" and create a function that verifies if either the request is authenticated or it has a proper token parameter.
It would be smart to remove each token after you used it once to make it even harder to guess a token.
In addition you might want to create a periodic worker that clears old tokens that were never in use.
Even though you already decided on an approach, I would still like to add one more alternate option that might help others viewing this issue.
Another alternate route might be to grab the current source of the page being viewed and post that into your printer backend using something like
$.post("/printer", document.documentElement.outerHTML);
This way you can also preprocess the HTML in an easy way. Your backed could first store the HTML and then parse it to for example convert images or perhaps remove some parts of the page that will not be used when printing.