I'm a little paranoid about storing sensitive information in global variables on the browser; who wouldn't be. Enter AMD! My question is, can we confidently use require.js to completely isolate variables, to help mitigate unwanted manipulation of variables from the console? Has anyone found a backdoor, or maybe a better way to put it is, has anyone witnessed any security issues with the require.js library?
Thanks!
No you can't. Even if you don't have any global variable the user can still go through your source code and add break points, then when the code reach the breakpoint he can manipulate all the variables that are accessible in the actual scope.
Take a look at this gamedev question which has some advices on how to make it harder (but not impossible) for users to cheat your code.
Yeah, the attacker can always view the source.
But if you size and shape the payload, minifying and modularize parts/regions of the client, serving them in accordance with use-case narratives on-demand, you effectively add a layer of security that exists due to the assumption of human-play.
A bot cannot simply traverse directories on a server, but instead must (via JavaScript) navigate the application intelligently, only getting code at a uniquely specified point in the app. It must know when certain payloads are essential to the use-case (say offering up credit card info N screens into a process).
Moreover, client code and be obfuscated w/r/t IP address or along continuous, periodic release cycles.
Related
Very closely related: How to protect strings without SecureString?
Also closely related: When would I need a SecureString in .NET?
Extremely closely related (OP there is trying to achieve something very similar): C# & WPF - Using SecureString for a client-side HTTP API password
The .NET Framework has class called SecureString. However, even Microsoft no longer recommends its use for new development. According to the first linked Q&A, at least one reason for that is that the string will be in memory in plaintext anyway for at least some amount of time (even if it's a very short amount of time). At least one answer also extended the argument that, if they have access to the server's memory anyway, in practice security's probably shot anyway, so it won't help you. (The second linked Q&A implies that there was even discussion of dropping this from .NET Core entirely).
That being said, Microsoft's documentation on SecureString does not recommend a replacement, and the consensus on the linked Q&A seems to be that that kind of a measure wouldn't be all that useful anyway.
My application, which is an ASP.NET Core application, makes extensive use of API Calls to an external vendor using the HttpClient class. The generally-recommended best practice for HttpClient is to use a single instance rather than creating a new instance for each call.
However, our vendor requires that all API Calls include our API Key as a header with a specific name. I currently store the key securely, retrieve it in Startup.cs, and add it to our HttpClient instance's headers.
Unfortunately, this means that my API Key will be kept in plaintext in memory for the entire lifecycle of the application. I find this especially troubling for a web application on a server; even though the server is maintained by corporate IT, I've always been taught to treat even corporate networks as semi-hostile environments and not to rely purely on corporate firewalls for application security in such cases.
Does Microsoft have a recommended best practice for cases like this? Is this a potential exception to their recommendation against using SecureString? (Exactly how that would work is a separate question). Or is the answer on the other Q&A really correct in saying that I shouldn't be worried about plaintext strings living in memory like this?
Note: Depending on responses to this question, I may post a follow-up question about whether it's even possible to use something like SecureString as part of HttpClient headers. Or would I have to do something tricky like populate the header right before using it and then remove it from memory right afterwards? (That would create an absolute nightmare for concurrent calls though). If people think that I should do something like this, I would be glad to create a new question for that.
You are being WAY too paranoid.
Firstly, if a hacker gets root access to your web server, you have WAY bigger problems than your super-secret web app credentials being stolen. Way, way, way bigger problems. Once the hackers are on your side of the airtight hatchway, it is game over.
Secondly, once your infosec team detects the intrusion (if they don't, again, you've got WAY bigger problems) they're going to tell you and the first thing you're going to do is change every key and password you know of.
Thirdly, if a hacker does get root access to your webserver, their first thought isn't going to be "let's take a memory dump for later analysis". A dumpfile is rather large (will take time to transfer over the wire, and the network traffic might well be noticed) and (at least on Windows) hangs the process until it's complete (so you'd notice your web app was unresponsive) - both of which are likely to raise some red flags.
No, hackers are there to grab as much valuable information in the least amount of time, because they know their access could be discovered at any second. So they're going to go for the low-hanging fruit first - usernames and passwords. Then they'll move on to trying to find out what's connected to that server, and since your DB credentials are likely in a config file on that server, they will almost certainly switch their attentions to that far more interesting target.
So all things considered, your API key is pretty darn unlikely to be compromised - and even if it is, it won't be because of something you did or didn't do. There are far more productive ways of focusing your time than trying to secure something that already is (or should be) incredibly secure. And, at the end of the day, no matter how many layers of security you put in place... that API or SSL key is going to be raw, in memory, at some stage.
I wrote a node application which will be embedded in the client. I would like to protect my code so the client will not be able to modify it (license check for example).
I already read (and try) this one but obfuscation (and minification) can be reversed and I can't move critical code to an external service (the node application may not have external internet connections).
Is there a (native) mechanism to sign a node application? Something which will prevent the app to run if the code is changed?
There is not a native mechanism to sign JavaScript code. This has been attempted in the past but scrapped quickly.
Checkout this question and its answers on how difficult this is. User Mason Wheeler sums it up well:
It's been tried. Many, many times. There's an entire sub-industry dedicated to attempting to use encryption to keep users from accessing a program as they see fit. And it never works.
If you want to attempt this anyways, I recommend a commercial product like jscrambler.com for trying to 'defend' your code with encryption and self-defense techniques. There are so many drawbacks to doing this yourself that it isn't worth it.
Also - keep in mind that for every change you make to your code (minify, obfuscate, encryption, etc.), you increase the possibility that your code will not function properly. One more reason to avoid it and/or use an commercial/supported product.
I am working on a personal project and I have being considering the security of sensitive data. I want to use API for accessing the Backend and I want to keep the Backend in a different server from the one the user will logon to. This then require a cross domain accessing of data.
Considering that a lot of accessing and transaction will be done, I have the following questions to help guide me in the right path by those who have tried and tested cross domain access. I don't want to assume and implement and run into troubles and redesign when I have launched the service thereby losing sleep. I know there is no right way to do many things in programming but there are so many wrong ways.
How safe is it in handling sensitive data (even with https).
Does it have issues handling a lot of users transactions.
Does it have any downside I not mentioned.
These questions are asked because some post I have read this evening discouraged the use of cross-domain access while some encouraged it. I decided to hear from professionals who have actually used it in a bigger scale.
I am actually building a Mobile App, using Laravel as the backend.
Thanks..
How safe is it in handling sensitive data (even with https).
SSL is generally considered safe (it's used everywhere and is considered the standard). However, it's not any less safe by hitting a different server. The data still has to traverse the pipes and reach its destination which has the same risks regardless of the server.
Does it have issues handling a lot of users transactions.
I don't see why it would. A server is a server. Ultimately, your server's ability to handle volume transactions is going to be based on its power, the efficiency of your code, and your application's ability to scale.
Does it have any downside I not mentioned.
Authentication is the only thing that comes to mind. I'm confused by your question as to how they would log into one but access data from another. It seems that would all just be one application. If you want to revise your question, I'll update my answer.
I have a doubt concerning how to store a password for usage in my application. I need to encrypt/decrypt data on the fly, so the password will need to be somewhere. Options would be to have it hard-coded in my app or load it from a file.
I want to encrypt a license file for an application and one of the security steps involves the app being able to decrypt the license (other steps follow after). The password is never know to the user and only to me as e really doesn't need it!
What I am concerned is with hackers going through my code and retrieving the password that I have stored there and use it to hack the license breaking the first security barrier.
At this point I am not considering code obfuscation (eventually I will), so this is an issue.
I know that any solution that stores passwords is a security hazard but there's no way around it!
I considered assembling the password from multiple pieces before really needing it, but at some point the password is complete so a debugger and a well place breakpoint is all that is needed.
What approaches do you guys(and galls), use when you need to store your passwords hard-coded in your app?
Cheers
My personal opinion is the same as GregS above: it is a waste of time. The application will be pirated, no matter how much you try to prevent it. However...
Your best bet is to cut down on casual-piracy.
Consider that you have two classes of users. The normal user and the pirate. The pirate will go to great lengths to crack your application. The normal user just wants to use your application to get something done. You can't do anything about the pirate.
A normal user isn't going to know anything about cracking code ("uh...what's a hex editor?"). If it is easier for this type of person to buy the application than it is to pirate it, then they are more likely to buy it.
It looks like the solutions you have already considered will be effective against the normal user. And that's about all that you can do.
Decide now how much time/effort you want to spend on preventing piracy. If someone is determined, they're probably going to get your application to work anyway.
I know you don't want to hear it, but it's a waste of time, and if your app needs a hardcoded password then that is a flaw.
I don't know that there is any approach to solving this problem that would deter a hacker in any meaningful way. Keeping the secret a secret is one of cryptography's great problems.
An approach I have done in the past was to generate an unique ID during the install, it would get the HDD and MCU's SN and use it in a complex structure, then the user will send this number for our automated system and we reply back with another block of that, the app will now decrypt and compare this data on the fly during the use.
Yes I works but it still have the harded password, we have some layers for protection (ie. there are some techniques that prevents a mid-level hacker to understand our security system).
I would just recommend you to do a very complex system and try to hack it on your own, see if disassembly can lead to an easy path. Add some random calls to random subroutines, make it very alleatory, try to fake the use of registry keys and global variables, turn the hacker life in a hell so he will eventually give up.
My logic of APT (Anti-Paching Technology) is as follows...
1) Store on the MSSQL server the md5 hash of the executable for protection.
2) Perform an md5 comparison (within my application startup) the hash found on the server, with the executable itself.
3) If comparison fails exit application silently.
And all these above before it is finally pached!
I mean what is your best way to protected a file from being patched?
Without using ready tools (.net reactor, virtualizer etc)
Edit: Something else just came into my mind.
Is there any way of checking the application integrity on server side?
I mean my app works only online. Could i execute something on the server (my domain) that could check the application integrity?
The thing is a cracker would patch the application precisely on step 2, removing the hash check code.
So I wouldn't call that very effective against serious crackers.
EDIT: I guess your best bet is defense in depth, given that your app has to be online I'd:
Require authentication: Authenticate users, hopefully via a cryptographic key, and require a key check to receive/send data.
Obfuscation: It makes things harder for crackers.
Continued checks: Besides checking who is sending data, validate the application each time a request is sent.
These all can still be circumvented, but they make things a lot harder and might disuade some if your app is not worth that much to them.
A patched application means the 'cracker' has complete control over the machine the code is running on (at least enough control to patch the executable). So patch prevention however smart it might be is working against the flow of control.
Complicating your binary file might be enough to discourage patching so obfuscators are propably your best bet.
you can't. once someone else has your file they can do what they like with it - first thing would be to patch out your anti-patching code.
If the application is running on someone else's machine, you cannot prevent them from patching it. You can make it harder, but it's a shell game: you cannot win. Regardless of how complicated you make it, some guy somewhere will see it as an interesting challenge to break your protection, and he will succeed. Then, everyone else just has to download his version. The most extreme form of patch-protection today is Skype (that I know of). It's insanely complicated, and yet it has been broken.
Since your application apparently runs online, you can ask yourself why you want to prevent patches in the first place (maybe it's to prevent the user from entering some bad values? Or to prevent them from seeing some information that's present in the program?), and then architect your program so that whatever you want to keep hidden or checked happens on the server.
For example if it's a game and you want to prevent players from hacking the game to know where the other players are: change the server so it only sends coordinate information for the players that you can already see.
Another example: if it's an online store and you want to make sure users don't submit purchase orders with incorrect prices, check the prices at the server.
The only exception there is if you control the hardware that the program's running on. But even there, it's very hard to do it right (see: XBox, PS3, and the many other consoles that tried to do that and failed). It's probably still better to leverage the client/server architecture rather than betting on "trusted computing".
Crackers nowadays don't bother patching your executable file; they simply change your program's variables in-memory to make its behaviour more amenable to their requirements. Defending against this is very difficult and reasonably pointless; most games' crack-protection works only by searching for signatures of known crack programs (like an AV engine does).
Everyone nailed it, you can't stop someone but you can make it harder for them, you could even go off the deep end and make some in-memory validation stuff like World Of Warcrafts Warden system.
If you tell us what language you are writing in we might be able to suggest some simple obfuscation methods.