Related
I have a hapijs application and checking some logs I have found some entries for automated site scanners and hits to entries to /admin.php and similar.
I found this great article How to Block Automated Scanners from Scanning your Site and I thought it was great.
I am looking for guidance on what the best strategy would be to create honey pots for a hapijs / nodejs app to identify suspicious requests, log them, and possibly ban the IPs temporarily.
Do you have any general or specific (to node and hapi) recommendations on how to implement this?
My thoughts include:
Create the honeypot route with a non-obvious name
Add a robots.txt to disallow search engines on that route
Create the content of the route (see the article and discussions for some of the recommendations)
Write to a special log or tag the log entries for easy tracking and later analysis
Possibly create some logic that if traffic from this IP address receives more traffic than certain threshold (5 times of honeypot route access will ban the IP for X hours or permanently)
A few questions I have:
How can you ban an IP address using hapi.js?
Are there any other recommendations to identify automated scanners?
Do you have specific suggestions for implementing a honeypot?
Thanks!
Let me start with saying that this Idea sounds really cool but I'm not if it is much practical.
First the chances of blocking legit bots/users is small but still exisits.
Even if you ignore true mistakes the option for abuse and denial of service is quite big. Once I know your blocking users who enter this route I can try cause legit users touch it (with an iframe / img / redirect) and cause them to be banned from the site.
Than it's effectiveness is small. sure your going to stop all automated bots that scan your sites (I'm sure the first thing they do is check the Disallow info and this is the first thing you do in a pentest). But only unsophisticated attacks are going to be blocked cause anyone actively targeting you will blacklist the endpoint and get a different IP.
So I'm not saying you shouldn't do it but I am saying you should think to see if the pros outwaite the cons here.
How to actually get it done is actually quite simple. And it seem like your looking for a very unique case of rate limiting I wouldn't do it directly in your hapi app since you want the ban to be shared between instances and you probably want them to be persistent across restarts (You can do it from your app but it's too much logic for something that is already solved).
The article you mentioned actually suggests using fail2ban which is a great solution for rate limiting. you'll need to make sure your app logs to afile it can read and write a filter and jail conf specifically for your app but it should work with hapi with no issues.
Specifically for hapi I maintain an npm module for rate limiting called ralphi it has a hapi plugin but unless you need a proper rate limiting (which you should have for logins, sessions and other tokens) fail2ban might be a better option in this case.
In general Honey pots are not hard to implement but as with any secuiry related solution you should consider who is your potential attacker and what are you trying to protect.
Also in general Honey pots are mostly used to notify about an existing breach or an imminent breach. Though they can be used to also trigger a lockdown your main take from them is to get visibility once a breach happend but before the attacker had to much time to abuse the system (You don't want to discover the breach two months later when your site has been defaced and all valuable data was already taken)
A few ideas for honey pots can be -
Have an 'admin' user with relatively average password (random 8 chars) but no privileges at all when this user successfully loges in notify the real admin.
Notice that your not locking the attacker on first attempt to login even if you know he is doing something wrong (he will get a different ip and use another account). But if he actually managed to loggin, maybe there's an error in your login logic ? maybe password reset is broken ? maybe rate limiting isn't working ? So much more info to follow through.
now that you know you have a semi competent attacker maybe try and see what is he trying to do, maybe you'll know who he is or what his end goal is (Highly valuable since he probably going to try again).
Find sensitive places you don't want users to play with and plant some canary tokens in. This can be just a file that sites with all your other uploads on the system, It can be an AWS creds on your dev machine, it can be a link that goes from your admin panel that says "technical documentation" the idea is that regular users should not care or have any access to this files but attackers will find them too tempting to ignore. the moment they touch one you know this area has been compromised and you need to start blocking and investigating
Just remember before implementing any security in try to think who you expect is going to attack you honey pots are probably one of the last security mesaures you should consider and there are a lot more common and basic security issues that need to be addressed first (There are endless amount of lists about node.js security best practices and OWASP Top 10 defacto standard for general web apps security)
I remember a site closed due to misuse and i wonder if bots have a part of it. If the bot is POSTing something to my site what are ways i can combat it? I was thinking of setting some cookies and having the cookies changed via javascript + timestamp and sign (so yesterdays cookies cant be used today and next week).
I'm sure most people/bots would just use another site instead of enabling JS in their bot.
What else can i do? I'm thinking daily POST limit and a honeypot for generic bots who just randomly post spam
If you want to get fancy, you can combine a honeypot with IP bans. Anyone who posts to your honeypot gets their IP stuck in /etc/hosts.deny or similar for the next N days.
The most popular method to prevent abuse by bots currently is CAPTCHA. It tends to work pretty well for most bots, since computers can't read very well yet. A slight downside is that some people (myself included) don't like having to constantly prove they're not bots. But it's one of the very few common ways of preventing abuse that's not trivial to defeat, if implemented properly.
There are CAPTCHA plugins for most blog, wiki and e-commerce frameworks.
You could also look into akismet:
http://akismet.com/faq/
It offers spam detection services.
this question can be associated to a subjective question, but this is not a really one.
When you develop a website, there is several points you must know: XSS attacks, SQL injection, etc.
It can be very very difficult (and take a long time to code) to secure all potential attacks.
I always try to secure my application but I don't know when to stop.
Let's take the same example: a social networking like Facebook. (Because a bank website must secure all its datas.)
I see some approaches:
Do not secure XSS, SQL injection... This can be really done when you trust your user: back end for a private enterprise. But do you secure this type of application?
Secure attacks only when user try to access non owned datas: This is for me the best approach.
Secure all, all, all: You secure all datas (owner or not): the user can't break its own datas and other user datas: this is very long to do and is it very useful?
Secure common attacks but don't secure very hard attacks (because it's too long to code comparing to the chance of being hacked).
Well, I don't know really what to do... For me, I try to do 1, 2, 4 but I don't know if it's the great choice.
Is there an acceptable risk to not secure all your datas? May I secure all datas but it takes me double time to code a thing? What's the enterprise approach between risk and "time is money"?
Thank you to share this because I think a lot of developers don't know what is the good limit.
EDIT: I see a lot of replies talking about XSS and SQL injection, but this is not the only things to take care about.
Let's take a forum. A thread can be write in a forum where we are moderator. So when you send data to client view, you add or remove the "add" button for this forum. But when a user tries to save a thread in server side, you must check that user has the right to dot it (you can't trust on client view security).
This is a very simple example, but in some of my apps, I've got a hierarchy of rights which can be very very difficult to check (need a lot of SQL queries...) but in other hand, it's really hard to find the hack (datas are pseudo encrypted in client view, there is a lot of datas to modify to make the hack runs, and the hacker needs a good understanding of my app rules to do a hack): in this case, may I check only surface security holes (really easy hack) or may I check very hard security holes (but it will decrease my performances for all users, and takes me a long time to develop).
The second question is: Can we "trust" (to not develop a hard and long code which decreases performance) on client view for very hard hack?
Here is another post talking of this sort of hack: (hibernate and collection checking) Security question: how to secure Hibernate collections coming back from client to server?
I think you should try and secure everything you can, the time spent doing this is nothing compared to the time needed to fix the mess done by someone exploiting a vulnerability you left somewhere.
Most things anyway are quite easy to fix:
sql injections have really nothing to do with sql, it's just string manipulation, so if you don't feel comfortable with that, just use prepared statements with bound parameters and forget about the problem
cross site exploit are easily negated by escaping (with htmlentities or so) every untrusted data before sending it out as output -- of course this should be coupled with extensive data filtering, but it's a good start
credentials theft: never store data which could provide a permanent access to protected areas -- instead save a hashed version of the username in the cookies and set a time limit to the sessions: this way an attacker who might happen to steal this data will have a limited access instead of permanent
never suppose that just because a user is logged in then he can be trusted -- apply security rules to everybody
treat everything you get from outside as potentially dangerous: even a trusted site you get data from might be compromised, and you don't want to fall down too -- even your own database could be compromised (especially if you're on a shared environment) so don't trust its data either
Of course there is more, like session hijacking attacks, but those are the first things you should look at.
EDIT regarding your edit:
I'm not sure I fully understand your examples, especially what you mean by "trust on client security". Of course all pages with restricted access must start with a check to see if the user has rights to see the content and optionally if he (or she) has the correct level of privilege: there can be some actions available to all users, and some others only available to a more restricted group (like moderators in a forum). All this controls have to be done on the server side, because you can never trust what the client sends you, being it data through GET, POST and even COOKIES. None of these are optional.
"Breaking data" is not something that should ever be possible, by the authorized user or anybody else. I'd file this under "validation and sanitation of user input", and it's something you must always do. If there's just the possibility of a user "breaking your data", it'll happen sooner or later, so you need to validate any and all input into your app. Escaping SQL queries goes into this category as well, which is both a security and data sanitation concern.
The general security in your app should be sound regardless. If you have a user management system, it should do its job properly. I.e. users that aren't supposed to access something should not be able to access it.
The other problem, straight up XSS attacks, has not much to do with "breaking data" but with unauthorized access to data. This is something that depends on the application, but if you're aware of how XSS attacks work and how you can avoid them, is there any reason not to?
In summary:
SQL injection, input validation and sanitation go hand in hand and are a must anyway
XSS attacks can be avoided by best-practices and a bit of consciousness, you shouldn't need to do much extra work for it
anything beyond that, like "pro-active" brute force attack filters or such things, that do cause additional work, depend on the application
Simply making it a habit to stick to best practices goes a long way in making a secure app, and why wouldn't you? :)
You need to see web apps as the server-client architecture they are. The client can ask a question, the server gives answers. The question is just a URL, sometimes with a bit of attached POST data.
Can I have /forum/view_thread/12345/ please?
Can I POST this $data to /forum/new_thread/ please?
Can I have /forum/admin/delete_all_users/ please?
Your security can't rely only on the client not asking the right question. Never.
The server always needs to evaluate the question and answer No when necessary.
All applications should have some degree of security. You generally don't ask for SSL on intranet websites, but you need to take care of SQL/XSS attacks.
All data your user enters into your application should be under your responsibility. You must make sure nobody unauthorized get access to it. Sometimes, a "not critical" information can pose a very security problem, because we're all lazy people.
Some time ago, a friend used to run a games website. Users create their profiles, forum , all that stuff. Then, some day, someone found a SQL injection open door somewhere. That attacker get all user and password information.
Not a big deal, huh? I mean, who cares about a player account into a website? But most users used same user/password to MSN, Counter Strike, etc. So become a big problem very fast.
Bottom line is: all applications should have some security concern. You should take a look into STRIDE to understand your attack vectors and take best action.
I personally prefer to secure everything at all times. It might be a paranoid approach, but when I see tons of websites throughout internet, that are vulnerable to SQL injection or even much simpler attacks, and they are not bothered to fix it until someone "hacks" them and steal their precious data, it makes me pretty much afraid. I don't really want to be the one responsible for leaked passwords or other user info.
Just ask someone with hacking experiences to check your application / website. It should give you a fair idea what's wrong and what should be updated.
You want to have strong API side ACL. Some days ago I saw a problem where a guy had secured every single UI, but the website was vulnerable through AJAX, just because his API (where he was sending requests) just trusted every single request to be checked. I could basically pull whole database through this bug.
I think it's helpful to distinguish between preventing code injection and plain data authorization.
In my opinion, all it takes is a few good coding habits to completely eliminate SQL injection. There is simply no excuse for it.
XSS injection is a little bit different - i think it can always be prevented, but it may not be trivial if your application features user generated content. By that I simply mean that it may not be as trivial to secure your app against XSS as it is compared to SQL injection. So I do not mean that it is ok to allow XSS - I still think there is no excuse for allowing it, it's just harder to prevent than SQL injection if your app revolves around user generated content.
So SQL injection and XSS are purely technical matters - the next level is authorization: how thoroughly should one shield of access to data that is no business of the current user. Here I think it really does depend on the application, and I can imagine that it makes sense to distinguish between: "user X may not see anything of user Y" vs "Not bothering user X with data of user Y would improve usability and make the application more convenient to use".
I'm planning to add some vote up/vote down buttons to a website I run. This seems easy enough but I want to stop people voting multiple times. One solution would be to make them register before allowing them to vote but I'd prefer not to have to force them to register.
Is there are a reasonably straightforward way of doing this? Checking the IP address doesn't seem like a good solution, since it's possible that multiple users may come from the same IP address.
Cookies might be the answer, but a savvy user could delete the cookie. Any better ideas?
Sorry I don't have a useful answer, I just want to share my experience.
About 8 years ago I worked for a site that ran online polls. We once got hacked by some bots voting on some of our questions several hundred votes a minute.
I had to implement some emergency checks: IP address, cookies, and I really don't remember what else.
At the end of the day we decided to take the polls down. Those damn robots just didn't care. IP adresses were spoofed, cookies were being deleted, etc.
If you really really need the polls to be unhackeable I don't see any other way that requiring registration and using captchas to avoid bots signing up for new accounts.
And the sad thing is that this was just an entertainment site with polls on what's your favorite color and things like that.
The only thing we didn't tried was using captchas because they didn't exist at the time. That might have reduced non-human cheating a good deal.
Don't take this as any kind of expert advice on the matter, because that was the only time I had anything to do with online polls, but I remembered my story and wanted to share.
I think it really comes down to the nature of your website, and how accurate your results needed to be.
Using a cookie seems like the best option, but it depends on the target audience of your website. Would they be tech-savvy enough to try and beat the system to allow them to vote multiple times? If not, the risk should be fairly low and this would seem like the best approach.
Checking against an IP address, as you said, may be too restrictive. But if it's critical for all votes to be from unique individuals, this might be the better approach even if it means some legitimate voters won't get to vote.
I thought of another option, but I'm not sure if it's possible or feasible. If you could combine the IP address approach with a hardware based check (e.g. MAC address of NIC) this would eliminate the IP address approach being too restrictive due to NAT within a LAN. But it wouldn't help the situation where you have a computer in an Internet cafe used by different individuals.
You should also use captcha (for non registered accounts) to reduce the likelihood of voting bots. If someone wants to maliciously cast multiple votes, making it more difficult for them to automate the voting process through bots will help to hopefully reduce the occurrence of such behaviour.
So, you want to have each unique person have only one vote on each item. When a person tries to vote who has already voted before, you want to detect this. This means that you have to identify the person. There are no tricks to get around that.
Now, since persons can log in from any computer, identifying the computer doesn't help. This rules out IP checks and cookies, as well as anything else based on the user's hardware.
How to identify a person? You can't. You can only force them to identify themselves, by providing unique credentials, like a social security number (I think this is often used in Korea), a passport number, or similar. This, of course, doesn't help if you don't check it, since anyone can make up a 10 digit number with little chance of collision.
Even having the user register doesn't really help per se -- they can just register another account.
I wonder if you could make it a multi-step process, to make it more difficult for BOTs.
Registering, or some similar task, gets you Cookie-A, and then when you vote you get Cookie-B, but if you have Cookie-B and don't have a suitable matching Cookie-A your vote doesn't count. If you try to re-register on the same machine that can be detected by you already having Cookie-A. Going through the steps too fast is treated as a BOT.
We had a psychometric test, with many questions, and users had to make thoughtful answers. An answer in sub-N seconds was someone just pressing buttons to get through it. We never told them that their answer was too quick, we just marked the data as "suspect".
So anyone trying to go straight to the Vote Button won't work. They would have to do Step-A, then Step-b then Step-C in order.
To re-vote I would have to clear cookies, re-register, read the blurb-page (whatever) and finally re-vote, all in the right order, and not too fast.
Requiring JavaScript to be enabled may help, as may a Captcha system. Captcha could have some sort of delay - "Please watch as the two words appear" so that there are two words, shown one after another, but "real words" so that they can be easily memorised, and then typed in. Any response that is "too fast" is not valid.
At some point people will just become annoyed and not bother though.
Obviously you need to identify the user so he can only vote once. But identify the user does'nt mean you have to pop up a login screen. As said above you can ask for the email
address, ans use it as an identfier.
No one mention the way stackoverflow works, if the user has something to win (here reptutation) when becoming a register user and if the login process is as simple as giving an email address, then that's a win-win situation in wich the user is happy to login and vote, and you're happy to have him registered and voting things (and only once per question).
Jeff Atwood wrote an article about the "login barrier", wich may give you clues.
I once created a voting system for a contest. I was restricted from limiting votes by IP due to the fact that multiple people would be legitimately voting from the same IPs. As such, I went with the email confirmation method, requiring each voter to input an email address which a confirmation link was sent to, which, once clicked, would activate their vote and prevent additional votes using that address.
It did not work well. People created hundreds of false email addresses on various free sites.
What did work in the runoff vote, somewhat surprisingly, was adding the email address/vote pairs to a database but not immediately sending the confirmation emails out. Instead, I had a cron job send the batch of them every 15 minutes or so. This adds an additional complication for people registering many addresses, as they have to either leave them all open or remember the login info for each of them at some point in the future.
Of course, still easily bypassed for someone motivated enough, but it seemed to work well in this case.
I've never used a system like this, but try to identify a user by their browser's fingerprint. This jQuery plugin combines screen size, color depth, user timezone, and installed plugins to create a unique ID of a user. Definitely not foolproof, but it's a different approach.
There's no accurate way to avoid multiple votes from the same user, even if they don't delete cookies, they can use another browser, or another computer.
I think you should register user before he up / down vote. You can get a little piece of information from the user to get registered, so he does not bored or break his registeration. Afterwards he can update his account if he wants. IMHO this is the best solution.
As has been said there is no 'perfect' solution.
As an attempt at an imperfect solution, how about storing a hash of the IP address and the User agent.
This would mean that different users from a given IP, which have different browser user agents, can still vote.
Use a cookie-based approach, it is accurate enough for most entertainment-grade polls on the web. Stay away from IP restrictions. This would mean that only one person from larger companies gets to vote and that only one person in a family gets to vote.
Also a possibility:
let the user vote and fill out his emailaddress.
The user receives a confirmationemail with a link he needs to click in order to confirm his vote.
But this way, the user also has quite some overhead.
Or do this in combination with registered userss (who will not be forced to confirm)
I know that this is an old thread. In any case I suggest to use evercookie (http://samy.pl/evercookie/) to track a user that have already voted!
It's matter of how many identities a single person can control. The more harder you make for a single person to control multiple identities the more secure your poll will be.
For entertainment grade polls where the results doesn't matter, single cookie approach is enough. Very easy to circumvent if the user opens icognito windows.
Better protection can be obtained if you put a registration barrier, you can use OAuth based logins for seamless authentication, it would take some effort to switch accounts for more votes. But this doesn't stop the desperate ones to vote multiple times.
Even better if you send confirmation code in SMS. Though people may own multiple phone numbers, it's not common to have a considerable number of phone numbers to execute a fraud. But this approach costs money for you and can be abused by DoSing the server to exhaust all the SMSes.
If you want goverment-grade polls, where the votes can decide an election.
Then you should have the voters show up in the registration office to apply for the poll and let them choose one from the prepared PIN envelopes, which contains a long hash they can enter when casting the vote.
So unless the organizers commit a fraud then voters can't. This also ensures anonymity.
An old question but for to touch on new ways - these days there are many Poll services out there who work tirelessly to implement numerous measures to avoid dupe votes, and constantly tweak their systems to counter new ways people introduce to circumvent etc. Doing this yourself is a job in itself.
They even offer branding. And large corporations use them, so it's not like your company will look bad for outsourcing a poll.
If you need to do it yourself.
As has been said, registration is the only sure fire way. If it's really important to avoid dupe votes (i.e. it's not just fave colour or something trivial/fun) then you can also limit voting to a link you send to their email they registered with.
While still not fool proof (nothing is) at least you force them to have a genuine email address which they have access to.
This isn't too much trouble for users voting, but makes it fiddly to make many dupe votes - registering, waiting for email, using the link, etc.
You already named all usable solutions. ;) It's your task to decide now.
I'd recommend combining an IP and cookie check.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What's the best way to close the loop and have a desktop app "call home" with customer feedback? Right now our code will login to our SMTP server and send me some email.
The site GetSatisfaction has been an increasingly popular way to get customer feedback.
http://getsatisfaction.com/
GetSatisfaction is a community based site that builds a community around your application. Users can post questions, comments, and feedback about and application and get answers to their questions either from other members or from members of the development team themselves.
They also have an API so you can incorporate GetSatifaction into your app, and/or your site.
I've been playing with it for a couple of weeks and it is pretty cool. Kind of like stackoverflow, but for customer feedback.
Feedback from users and programmers simply is one of the most important points of development in my opinion. The whole web2.0 - beta - concept more or less is build around this concept and therefore there should be absolutely no pain involved whatsoever for the user. What does it have to do with your question? I think quite a bit. If you provide a feedback option, make it visible in your application, but don't annoy the user (like MS sometimes does with there feedback thingy on there website above all elements!!). Place it somewhere directly! visible, but discreet. What about a separate menu entry? Some leftover space in the statusbar? Put it there so it is accessible all the time. Why? People really liking your product or who are REALLY annoyed about something will probably find your feedback option in any case, but you will miss the small things. Imagine a user unsure about the value of his input "should I really write him?". This one will probably will not make the afford in searching and in the end these small things make a really outstanding product, don't they? OK, the user found your feedback form, but how should it look and what's next? Keep it simple and don't ask him dozens questions and provoke him with check- and radioboxes. Give him two input fields, one for a title and one for a long description. Not more and not less. Maybe a small text shortly giving him some info what might be useful (OS, program version etc., maybe his email), but leave all this up to him. How to get the message to you and how to show the user that his input counts? In most cases this is simple. Like levand suggested use http and post the comment on a private area on your site and provide a link to his input. After revisiting his input, make it public and accessible for all (if possible). There he can see your response and that you really care etc.. Why not use the mail approach? What about a firewall preventing him to access your site? Duo to spam in quite some modern routers these ports are by default closed and you certainly will not get any response from workers in bigger companies, however port 80 or 443 is often open... (maybe you should check, if the current browser have a proxy installed and use this one..). Although I haven't used GetSatisfaction yet, I somewhat disagree with Nick Hadded, because you don't want third parties to have access to possible private and confidential data. Additionally you want "one face to the customer" and don't want to open up your customers base to someone else. There is SOO much more to tell, but I don't want to get banned for tattling .. haha! THX for caring about the user! :)
You might be interested in UseResponse, open-source (yet not free) hosted customer feedback / idea gathering solution that will be released in December, 2001.
It should run on majority of PHP hosting environments (including shared ones) and according to it's authors it's absorbed only the best features of it's competitors (mentioned in other answers) while will have little-to-none flaws of these.
You could also have the application send a POST http request directly to a URL on your server.
What my friend we are forgetting here is that, does having a mere form on your website enough to convince the users how much effort a Company puts in to act on that precious feedback.
A users' note to a company is a true image about the product or service that they offer. In Web 2.0 culture, people feel proud of being part of continuous development strategy always preached by almost all companies nowadays.
A community engagement platform is the need of the hour & an entry point on ur website that gains enuf traction from visitors to start talking what they feel will leave no stone unturned in getting those precious feedback. Thats where products like GetSatisfaction, UserRules or Zendesk comes in.
A company's active community that involves unimagined ideas, unresolved issues and ofcourse testimonials conveys the better development strategy of the product or service they offer.
Personally, I would also POST the information. However, I would send it to a PHP script that would then insert it into a mySQL database. This way, your data can be pre-sorted and pre-categorized for analysis later. It also gives you the potential to track multiple entries by single users.
There's quite a few options. This site makes the following suggestions
http://www.suggestionbox.com/
http://www.kampyle.com/
http://getsatisfaction.com/
http://www.feedbackify.com/
http://uservoice.com/
http://userecho.com/
http://www.opinionlab.com/content/
http://ideascale.com/
http://sparkbin.net/
http://www.gri.pe/
http://www.dialogcentral.com/
http://websitechat.net/en/
http://www.anymeeting.com/
http://www.facebook.com/
I would recommend just using pre built systems. Saves you the hassle.
Get an Insight is good: http://getaninsight.com/