WebRTC traffic is encrypted using DTLS - ok. But what about traffic that's relayed over a TURN server?
I'm looking for a reliable resource which confirms that the traffic is truly end-to-end encrypted (because "end-to-end" can sometimes mean several things). So I mean
NOT that there's an "end-to-end" encryption between a peer and the TURN server.
But rather,
that it is end-to-end between the peers
such that it is not decrypted/re-encrypted on the TURN server
AND that there is no way for the TURN server to get access to the secret
I haven't been able to find a definite answer to this.
The place to look is the TURN proposed standard, RFC 5766. The standard provides a means for relaying UDP packets containing application data between a client and a peer:
Once an allocation is created, the client can send application data to the server along with an indication of to which peer the data is to be sent, and the server will relay this data to the appropriate peer. The client sends the application data to the server inside a TURN message; at the server, the data is extracted from the TURN message and sent to the peer in a UDP datagram. In the reverse direction, a peer can send application data in a UDP datagram to the relayed transport address for the allocation; the server will then encapsulate this data inside a TURN message and send it to the client along with an indication of which peer sent the data.
The highest layer that TURN parses is the UDP layer. It does not understand or modify the application data layer (in your case, the WebRTC protocol). The standard says:
An application wishing to ensure that its data is not altered or forged must integrity-protect its data at the application level.
This implies that you can integrity-protect your application data, and TURN will relay it without modification. You can also look at the details of the TURN protocol (which I won't repeat here) that show that it merely wraps and forwards application data.
Finally, the standard says this on eavesdropping:
Confidentiality for the application data relayed by TURN is best
provided by the application protocol itself, since running TURN over
TLS does not protect application data between the server and the
peer. If confidentiality of application data is important, then the
application should encrypt or otherwise protect its data. For
example, for real-time media, confidentiality can be provided by
using SRTP.
The recommendation in this excerpt is to protect confidentiality by encrypting application data with a protocol such as DTLS-SRTP, which WebRTC uses.
Because TURN does not interpret or modify application data, it doesn't add any security vulnerabilities to WebRTC application data traffic that wouldn't be present without using TURN. WebRTC data is encrypted between WebRTC endpoints.
Now, no one can guarantee that there is "no way for the TURN server to get access to the secret." A rogue TURN server could attempt a man-in-the-middle attack on your connection just as easily as anyone else who can intercept your network packets. It's only true that using a TURN relay doesn't weaken WebRTC security.
As long as DTLS is implemented and used properly and assuming the DTLS algorithms and ciphers are secure, WebRTC traffic should be secured end-to-end. Part of using any SSL-based scheme requires verifying the certificate of the other endpoint, just like HTTPS. And just like HTTPS, this will require a prior out-of-band exchange of certificate identity or use of a trusted third-party. And just like HTTPS, if certificates are not properly verified then the door will be open for a MITM attack (by anyone, not just TURN servers).
Related
Once a webpage is served over HTTPS, we can be fairly certain that they are who we intended.
At this point, the only security risk left is that the website itself is malicious or has a security vulnerability.
For example, you may enter your credit card details which are sent to their server, and their server could release those details to the public.
I'm now trying to figure out the reasons why browsers do not allow non-SSL connections when the webpage was already served over HTTPS?
For example, browsers will stop allowing non-SSL HTTP and WS content, and don't expose UDP or TCP socket APIs.
To me there is the exact same risk that they don't use SSL on their server anyway. If anything, HTTPS could now be giving a false sense of security.
I could only identify two reasons:
To prevent webpages from accidentally using non-SSL connections. So I can understand that a form or image should only allow HTTPS. But I believe that browsers should allow, for example, UDP sockets but must be created like so (confirming that the programmer is aware of security risks):
udp = new SomeBrowserAPI.CreateUDPSocket()
udp.amAwareThat("Nothing is encrypted over UDP and I should not send any sensitive data here")
udp.amAwareThat("I cannot confirm the identity of who I am sending data to or receiving data from")
A client-side developer should not have to worry about security risks, but rather UI etc. By being forced to communicate to the server over SSL, it is up to the backend developers to worry about security only. However, this is already not the case anyway. If you are a client-side developer, you could easily write malicious client-side code that reads password input and sends it to your own server, as long as your own server is also over SSL (although SSL might at least allow you to identify who was responsible).
Are there any other reasons? Are my reasons / solutions / info correct?
There is a basic post in Google's Web Fundamentals: What is mixed content?
It is very basic, but lists three major threats: data authentication, data integrity and data confidentiality.
When you connect over UDP, you don't know
who actually serves your connection. It might have been intercepted by enemies;
whether the data received is actually the data sent. It might have been tampered by a man-in-the-middle;
who else have read your messages. Big brother is watching you.
Mixed content ruins the concept of secure webpages.
There is such a windows application that communications with the server through https protocol, it is an auction tool and works only several hours per month. I have captured network packets (by windows network monitor) during one auction.
I am wondering whether it is possible to mimic this client, by analyzing the the packets I collected (or any packets I could collect in future auctions). I know from this wireshark artical "Secure Socket Layer (SSL)" that it should be possible (and without much effort) to descypt the entrypted messages from server, but how? And is it possible to dectrypt the messages sent by client to server, too?
So the whole reasoning behind SSL is that third party listeners who are trying to receive and decrypt packets between your client and the server won't be able to do so. The packets that your clients send will be encrypted and the server will need the appropriate key to decrypt the message which you could then analyze using wireshark. This article does a good job of explaining how HTTPS works. To answer your questions:
Is it possible to mimic the client of a https web service
Yep, this is available in a lot of different tools. A popular tool you could implement this with is called Jmeter. This article explains how you can send HTTPS requests to your server. Once you exchange the key pairs between your client (JMeter in this case) you will be able to decrypt messages on both ends which have been sent in an encrypted format over the wire.
Please let me know if you have any questions!
I have an interesting network security challenge that I can't figure out the best way to attack.
I need to provide a way to allow two computers (A and B) that are behind firewalls to make a secure connection to each other using only a common "broker" untrusted server on the internet (somewhere like RackSpace). (the server is considered untrusted because the customers behind the firewalls won't trust it since it is on an open server) I can not adjust the firewall settings to allow the networks to directly connect to each other because the connections are no known ahead of time.
This is very similar to a NAT to NAT connection problem like that handled by remote desktop help tools (crossloop, copilot, etc).
What I would really like to find is a way to open an SSL connection between the two hosts and have the public server broker the connection. Preferably when host A tries to connect to host B, it should have to provide a token that the broker can check with host B before establishing the connection.
To add another wrinkle to this, the connection mechanism needs to support two types of communication. First, HTTP request/response to a REST web service and second persistent socket connection(s) to allow for real-time message passing.
I have looked at the techniques I know about like OpenSSL using certificates, OAuth, etc, but I don't see anything that quite does what I need.
Has anyone else handled something like this before? Any pointers?
You can solve your problem with plain SSL.
Just have the untrusted server forward connections between the client hosts as opaque TCP connections. The clients then establish an end-to-end SSL connection over that forwarded TCP tunnel - with OpenSSL, one client calls SSL_accept() and the other calls SSL_connect().
Use certificates, probably including client certificates, to verify that the other end of the SSL connection is who you expect it to be.
(This is conceptually similar to the way that HTTPS connections work over web proxies - the browser just says "connect me to this destination", and establishes an SSL connection with the desired endpoint. The proxy just forwards encrypted SSL data backwards and forwards, and since it doesn't have the private key for the right certificate, it can't impersonate the desired endpoint).
In general, SSL is packet-based protocol (for the purpose of solving your task). If you can have the host forward the packets back and forth, you can easily have SSL-secured communication channel. One thing you need is something like our SSL/TLS components, which allow any transport and not just sockets. I.e. the component tells your code "send this packet to the other side" or "do you have anything for me to receive?" and your code communicates with your intermediate server.
According to the following quote, SSL provides point-to-point security:
Transport security is used to provide
point-to-point security between the
two endpoints (service and client).
If there are intermediary systems
between the client and the server,
each intermediate point must forward
the message over a new SSL connection.
a) What is meant by SSL providing point-to-point security?
b) Is SSL communication still possible between client and server, if intermediary system ( located between the client and the server ) forwards the message over a non-SSL connection?
c) Assuming it is possible ... I don't see why intermediary system forwarding messages over a non-SSL connection would provide less security, since messages are already encypted by original sender ( which is either client or server ) and thus can't be decrypted by an intermediary systems?
thank you
EDIT:
One limitation of transport security
is that it relies on every “step” and
participant in the network path having
consistently configured security. In
other words, if a message must travel
through an intermediary before
reaching its destination, there is no
way to ensure that transport security
has been enabled for the step after
the intermediary (unless that interme-
diary is fully controlled by the
original service provider). If that
security is not faithfully reproduced,
the data may be compromised
downstream. In addition, the
intermediary itself must be trusted
not to alter the message before
continuing transfer. These
considerations are especially
important for services available via
Internet-based routes, and typically
less important for systems exposed and
consumed within a corporate intranet.
Message security focuses on ensuring
the integrity and privacy of individ-
ual messages, without regard for the
network. Through mechanisms such as
encryption and signing via public and
private keys, the message will be
protected even if sent over an
unprotected transport (such as plain
HTTP).
I think the context of that quote is different than you seem to be assuming; by 'intermediate system', I think that quote means a system that must access the message in the middle (intentionally or not)... not just a router, but something actually decrypting, viewing and/or modifying the message.
Therefore, because SSL is 'point to point', the above is actually not possible without another, separate connection being made.
The messages are encrypted at the endpoints. The only way to have a non-SSL connection in the middle would be to emulate both endpoints somewhere in the middle, which would be extraordinarily difficult barring flaws in the SSL implementations on either of the endpoints.
This question already has answers here:
Is a HTTPS query string secure?
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Suppose I setup a simple php web server with a page that can be accessed by HTTPS. The URL has simple parameters, like https://www.example.com/test?abc=123.
Is it true that the parameter here in this case will be safe from people sniffing the packets? And would this be true if the server does not employ any SSL certificate?
Yes your URL would be safe from sniffing; however, one hole that is easily overlooken is if your page references any third party resources such as Google Analytics, Add Content anything, your entire URL will be sent to the third party in the referer. If its really sensitive it doesn't belong in the query string.
As for your second part of the question, you can't use SSL if you don't have a certificate on the server.
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/758002.html
HTTPS Establishes an underlying SSL
connection before any HTTP data is
transferred. This ensures that all URL
data (with the exception of hostname,
which is used to establish the
connection) is carried solely within
this encrypted connection, and is
protected from man-in-the-middle
attacks in the same way that any HTTPS
data is.
All HTTP-level transactions within an
HTTPS connection are conducted within
the established SSL session, and no
query data is transferred before the
secure connection is established.
From the outside the only data that is
visible to the world is the hostname
and port you are connecting to.
Everything else is simply a stream of
binary data which is encrypted using a
private key shared only between you
and the server.
In the example you provide your
browser would do this:
Derive
hostname (and port if present)
from URL.
Connect to host.
Check certificate (it must be 'signed'
by a known authority, applied specifically
to correct IP address and port, and be
current).
The browser and server
exchange cryptographic data and the
browser receives a private key.
The
HTTP request is made, and encrypted with
established cryptography.
HTTP response is received. Also encrypted.
HTTP is an 'Application Layer'
protocol. It is carried on top of the
secure layer. According to the SSL
specification, drawn up by Netscape,
it dictates that no application layer
data may be transmitted until a secure
connection is established - as
outlined in the following paragraph:
"At this point, a change cipher spec
message is sent by the client, and the
client copies the pending Cipher Spec
into the current Cipher Spec. The
client then immediately sends the
finished message under the new
algorithms, keys, and secrets. In
response, the server will send its own
change cipher spec message, transfer
the pending to the current Cipher
Spec, and send its finished message
under the new Cipher Spec. At this
point, the handshake is complete and
the client and server may begin to
exchange application layer data."
http://wp.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/draft302.txt
So yes. The data contained in the URL
query on an HTTPS connection is
encrypted. However it is very poor
practice to include such sensitive
data as a password in a 'GET'
request. While it cannot be
intercepted, the data would be logged
in plaintext server logs on the
receiving HTTPS server, and quite
possibly also in browser history. It
is probably also available to browser
plugins and possibly even other
applications on the client computer.
At most a HTTPS URL could be
reasonably allowed to include a
session ID or similar non-reusable
variable. It should NEVER contain
static authentication tokens.
The HTTP connection concept is most
clearly explained here:
http://www.ourshop.com/resources/ssl_step1.html
The requested URI (/test?abc=123) is sent to the web server as part of the HTTP request header and thus encrypted.
However URLs can leak in other ways, usually web browser toolbars, bookmarks, and sending links to friends. POSTing data may be more appropriate depending on the context/sensitivity of the data you're sending.
I believe an HTTPS connection requires an SSL certificate, even a self-generated one if you don't want to buy one.
Hope that helps a bit!
depends on what you mean by safe
SSL encrypts the entire HTTP request/response, so the URL in the GET portion will be encrypted. This does not stop MITM attacks and corruption of the integrity of the SSL session itself. If a non-authoritative certificate is used, this makes potential attack vectors simpler.
Are REST request headers encrypted by SSL?
Is a similar question.
The url:s will be stored both in the server logs and in the browser history so even if they aren't sniffable they are far from safe.
On the wire, yes. At the end points (browser and server) not necessarily. SSL/TLS is transport layer security. It will encrypt your traffic between the browser and the server. It is possible on the browser-side to peek at the data (a BHO for example). Once it reaches the server-side, it is available to the recipient of course and is only as secure as he treats it. If the data needs to move securely beyond the initial exchange and protected from prying eyes on the client, you should also look at message layer security.
The SSL/TSL is a Transport Layer Security, yes the data can be picked with BHO (as #JP wrote) or any add on but also with "out of browser" HTTP sniffers. They read messaging between winsock32 and the application. The encryption takes place in the winsock32 not in the browser.
Take a look (this part was taked from the page of IEinspector):
IEInspector HTTP Analyzer is such a handy tool that allows you to monitor, trace, debug and analyze HTTP/HTTPS traffic in real-time.