I'm currently assessing the pros and cons of going native vs. PhoneGap for an app I have in mind, and thus far, PhoneGap seems to be the ideal option since most of the data processing will be done on the server-side, while the app will merely be a means to get inputs from the user.
But I've been reading a lot about how all the PhoneGap .html and .js files would be easily accessible on a rooted/jailbroken phone. My concern is that my app will be using a couple of third party APIs, particularly Last.fm and Parse. Both these APIs come with an API secret. Would this not cause a security concern? While the maximum damage one could inflict with my Last.fm API secret key would be to exhaust the API limits, with Parse, it could be much more serious, especially if I plan to store user logins, passwords, emails etc. Anyone could simply grab my Parse Application ID and JavaScript Key and start querying away on Parse (and possibly (but not probably) a competitor or a troll (more likely) could push up the requests/second from my Application ID so that I end up with a big, fat US $10,000 bill).
Are there any methods to protect/encrypt/obfuscate these API secret keys while developing apps in PhoneGap? Does this problem go away if you go native?
First of all, I think the security issues you mention are not related to Phonegap only, same problems exist for native apps as well. I admit, it is harder to find these keys in native apps, but it's doable.
On a side note, both Android apk and Apple ipa files are actually zip archives, so you don't need a rooted phone to open up and peek inside. You can already do it for all the apps (not only Phonegap but native ones), open the archive, see the resources. But in native apps, you have a binary executable instead of html/js files. That's why it's not easy to figure out the data (keys), and app logic inside.
One approach is to implement a special scheme that will encrypt your js files during packaging (development), distribute it with the app and decrypt during runtime. It is totally possible (we did it in a project successfully), your Phonegap app becomes as difficult to hack as native apps. Note that I am not saying impossible, because you still have the problem of hiding the decryption key somewhere in your code/resources. Beware though, writing such a framework is not easy and requires some modification to Phonegap source code as well.
I think the safest solution to hide keys for Parse, etc. is to use your own server, implement server to server authentication and just pass a token to your client for client-server communication. In all other cases, you have to send the keys with the app, and however you hide it, there will be some guy who will find a way to unhide it.
Related
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: /
I apologize for the question but I don't have the resources to figure it out myself.
I'm looking for features my next iOS / android app should have and as you can imagine, I'm interested on a "pinch of social" that's why getsream seems to be my saver.
After reading the getting started section and the documentation, I found this warning http://getstream.io/docs/#mobile that confuses me.
I supposed getstream is a managed service that takes care of everything letting me use the REST API to build my mobile community within their phones.
Could you please tell me where I'm wrong?
Many thanks
There are two main reasons we do not recommend integrating Getstream client side (i.e. in the browser or on mobile). First, it is hard to guarantee security when you integrate from the client-side, you have to somehow provision tokens for each user's feed (and feeds they want to target with activities http://getstream.io/docs/#targetting), you could also generate an application wide (read/write) token and ship this to all clients but this is also a bad idea for obvious reasons. Second, we do not recommend using Getstream to store all your activity data, you store references to objects in your local database and enrich the activities from getstream at read time (have a look at our integration libraries for Django/Rails).
I'm doing a hobby project Windows 8 app in WinJS. As I'm calling an external api, which requires an api key and oauth authentication, I've got a number of keys that I need to keep "secret".
I've seen places around the web with detailed descriptions on how to get access to and also modify the source code for WinJs (and C#) apps on your computer. But I think those were in the beta/preview time frame?
My Google skills don't seem to be able to tell me if this has been fixed since, does anyone know?
If it wasn't fixed, how do people handle these situations?
Any tips and suggestions welcome :)
You have a couple options here.
Integrate Azure Mobile Services and have it do the oAuth if possible. Your keys remain secret in the cloud.
Store the main key encrypted in your WinJs application. The secret then is also encrypted and stored locally. I use https://github.com/cauld/winjs-oauth-for-twitter and have a slight revision that when I get the key back I store it in the credential manager.
Any local application compiled from any computer language can be tampered with, all you need is a debugger. If you encrypt everything I in theory can just load up a debugger, attach to the http stack library and watch the data go out (excluding even easier techniques like Fiddler to watch this data) and extract whatever I want - fairly easily. So the question is what are you trying to prevent?
If your app could be facilitated to launch a man-in-the-middle attack, you should not keep confidential data in plain form for a long time, in memory or on disk. Also, storing encrypted data locally, alongside with the algorithm and the algorithm key/hash is a recipe for security incidents.
There is no silver bullet to protect your code or data from probing by the end user (or someone who has physical access to the end user's machine), see the amount of game save editors and game trainers out there. Don't put your business logic or important data (e.g. in-app purchases) in plain text or similar, at least add some obfuscation
I've got an app that's been started on the Microsoft stack as a smart client (notionally WCF/WS enabled) with a small client app that gets deployed and the rest of the app running in our private cloud. It's only real dependency is internet connectivity, .net 4 and a windows operating system.
I am under pressure to convert over to a browser based architecture for all future development. Based on other web apps I've worked on, I'm concerned that the way that client IT organizations can control the browser, it will cause more problems down the line than what I really want to deal with.
Do you have experience making this kind of decision? What technical factors did you consider when deciding to go smart-client vs. browser? What resources were helpful in making this decision?
My app is a healthcare app targeted at healthcare providers (eg. hospitals), so everywhere I go, I have to worry about the Healthcare CIO looking over my shoulder.
Interesting. Originally I'm from C# winform and WPF Desktop programmer, and later being assigned to do web development. Haven't touch Smart Client yet but I think it should almost be the same with Native app. Based on experience, the technical things to consider are:
Multi browser support
Especially for reporting and graphic processing, without some library / plugins / framework for your component, it will be insanely hard to keep your app multibrowser. Especially in css style and less in javascript.
Client programming(javascript)
You will lose the ability to create controls and animation using C# controls. Instead you must using javascript (jquery or other library) in exchange. Javascript is not fully OOP, and intepret language (no compile error), making it harder (maybe there is some framework like coffeeScript which I haven't yet explore). In addition, it is harder to make since it will need server request / response activity in between the process, which I will describe later.
Request / Response Client-Server Architecture
This means that most process in client will need to request for the server (request for data to display, request to modify the data, etc). It also means that you lose the ability of control event, even if you use asp.net webform (it still need some tweaks for the event to work). However I assume you already used the WCF so this kind of architecture must be that hard.
Security
Don't keep important information such as password, etc in client (hidden field, javascript variable, etc). The concept should be the same with multitenant client, however in browser, user has free access to debug your webpage.
Concurrent and Multithreading
In browser, it is easier for multitab page and concurrent process will be very highly to occur. Your code must able to handle the multi threading for client side. For server side, you can still use your WCF to handle concurrencies.
My 2 cents.
Obviously the web application has its own challenges. I hope this link can help you in some aspects: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee658099.aspx
Along with those you need to focus on non-function requirements like extensibility and scalability etc. too.
Here is my requirements:
Usable by any mobile application I'm developing
I'm developing the mobile application, therefore I can implement any securing strategies.
Cacheable using classical HTTP Cache strategy
I'm using Varnish with a very basic configuration and it works well
Not publicly available
I don't want people be able to consume my API
Solutions I think of:
Use HTTPS, but it doesn't cover the last requirements because proxying request from the application will show the API KEY used.
Is there any possibility to do this? Using something like a private/public key for example?
Which fits well with HTTP, Apache, and Varnish.
There is no way to ensure that the other end of a network link is your application. This is not a solvable problem. You can obfuscate things with certificates, keys, secrets, whatever. But all of these can be reverse-engineered by the end user because they have access to the application. It's ok to use a little obfuscation like certificates or the like, but it cannot be made secure. Your server must assume that anyone connecting to it is hostile, and behave accordingly.
It is possible to authenticate users, since they can have accounts. So you can certainly ensure that only valid users may use your service. But you cannot ensure that they only use your application. If your current architecture requires that, you must redesign. It is not solvable, and most certainly not solvable on common mobile platforms.
If you can integrate a piece of secure hardware, such as a smartcard, then it is possible to improve security in that you can be more certain that the human at the other end is actually a customer, but even that does not guarantee that your application is the one connecting to the server, only that the smartcard is available to the application that is connecting.
For more on this subject, see Secure https encryption for iPhone app to webpage.
Even though it's true there's basically no way to guarantee your API is only consumed by your clients unless you use a Hardware secure element to store the secret (which would imply you making your own phone from scratch, any external device could be used by any non official client App as well) there are some fairly effective things you can do to obscure the API. To begin with, use HTTPS, that's a given. But the key here, is to do certificate pinning in your app. Certificate pining is a technique in which you store the valid public key certificate for the HTTPS server you are trying to connect. Then on every connection, you validate that it's an HTTPS connection (don't accept downgrade attacks), and more importantly, validate that it's exactly the same certificate. This way you prevent a network device in your path to perform a man in the middle attack, thus ensuring no one is listening in in your conversation with the server. By doing this, and being a bit clever about the way you store the API's parameters general design in your application (see code obfuscation, particularly how to obfuscate string constants), you can be fairly sure you are the only one talking to your server. Of course, security is only a function of how badly does someone want to break in your stuff. Doing this doesn't prevent a experienced reverse-engineer with time to spare to try (and possibly succeed) to decompile your source code and find what it is looking for. But doing all of this will force it to look at the binary, which is a couple of orders of magnitude more difficult to do than just performing a man in the middle attack. This is famously related to the latest snap chat flurrry of leaked images. Third party clients for snapchat exist, and they were created by reverse engineering the API, by means of a sniffer looking at the traffic during a man in the middle attack. If the snapchat app developers would have been smarter, they would've pinned their certificate into their app, absolutely guaranteeing it's snapchat's server who they're talking to, and the hackers would need to inspect the binary, a much more laborious task that perhaps given the effort involved, would not have been performed.
We use HTTPS and assign authorized users a key which is sent in and validated with each request.
We also use HMAC hashing.
Good read on this HMAC:
http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-authentication/