If I append an HMAC to the auth token then the token cannot be tampered with. I notice many articles also recommend encrypting the token (which contains user id, expiration date and hash). What is the point of encrypting? Isn't that a waste of CPU time? (You have to decrypt the token for each request.) If it is not encrypted, anyone can see the user id and expiration date. What is the harm there?
Using only HMAC is a viable option: http://c2.com/cgi/wiki/wiki?HmacUserAuthentication
But: Note from disadvantages
No privacy. If you need privacy, you need full encryption: use SSL.
HmacUserAuthentication is for security of service provision, not
privacy.
So encryption is a requirement if you use a plain connection. In case of SSL the additional encryption is needed only if you want to prevent the end user from reading the token.
Related
JWT is used as user authentication in my project.
If someone intercepts packets(using wireshark, etc), takes the user's jwt token, and then tries to log request in using the jwt token(replay attack)
how can i defend using jwt? (my project is using https)
ps. English is not my native language, so I am not good at it, so please understand the awkward sentences.
A JWT literally IS your access token. So you have to keep it secure and especially transfer it securely by all means. If an attacker was able to obtain a JWT (for example by sniffing an unencrypted HTTP connection) he can always* use it to perform any action the user (respectively the token) is authorized to. So it's more of a use than a "replay attack".
Therefore you cannot directly defend using a JWT. You can only make sure to send it always over an encrypted HTTPS connection and to prevent Cross-Site-Scripting attacks, which could allow an attacker to steal the JWT.
* Because of this, a JWT generally has an expiration time. So if you keep the expiration time short an attacker could use the stolen JWT only in a small time period. However, also a small time period may be sufficient to achieve permanent access. And the attacker could possibly steal a fresh JWT via the initial source.
I am working on an application where scalability is a big concern. In the past I've used session-based authentication, but decided to go with a stateless server this time around in order to facilitate horizontal scaling.
I am not security expert, but in researching JWTs, it began to seem like these are very insecure. The whole reason we hash passwords is so that if our database is compromised, the attacker cannot impersonate a user. With JWT, we store a secret on the server. If the attacker gains access to the secret, can't they impersonate any user they want? Doesn't this mean that using JWTs would have the same level of security as storing plain text passwords?
I have read that people will sometimes use reddis to cross reference JWTs, but then the server isn't stateless, and I fail to see the benefit of using JWTs at all.
Could someone help clarify this issue for me?
Session based authentication systems, at least any that are worth using, also store a secret on the server. Just like the JWT, the secret is used to sign the data stored in the cookie that session based authentication uses. So this is no different than a JWT.
All of this is totally unrelated to password storage, as the password is only used when you don't have a cookie/JWT.
EDIT:
Not sure what to say about using Redis in conjunction with a JWT... What is being stored in Redis, the token? That seems pointless, as all the server needs to know is the secret to decode the token.
Here are some of the benefits to a using a JWT:
It's stateless, as you've already mentioned
It's not subject to CSRF/XSRF attacks. These attacks work by tricking your browser into sending the cookie to a server that didn't generate the cookie. This can't happen w/a JWT b/c the browser doesn't send the JWT automatically like it does w/cookies.
JWT's are standardized. There is a well defined way to generate them, which means that JWT's are more portable and the process has been vetted by the security community.
The server consuming a JWT token (resource server) does not need access to any secret. All it needs is the public key that belongs to the private key with which the token is digitally signed.
The authorization server that issues the token needs to keep its signing key secret obviously. But the nice thing about token based authentication is that this server can be created by an external party with much more resources/expertise to keep these things secret (Google, Facebook, Microsoft etc).
The resource server does not need to check the database to validate the token as you would need in case of username and password. This helps the scalability of the system and takes away a single point of failure.
If a client/user loses the JWT token, an attacker can impersonate the client/user until the token expires. A good reason to keep the lifetime of tokens short.
I don't see the point of storing JWT tokens in in a Reddis cache. There's no need to share tokens between servers as each call comes with a token in the Authorization HTTP header. Storing them in a cache only increases the risk of tokens being stolen.
I'm implementing a REST web service using C# which will be hosted on Azure as a cloud service. Since it is a REST service, it is stateless and therefore no cookies or session states.
The web service can only be accessed over HTTPS (Certificate provided by StartSSL.com).
Upon a user successfully logging into the service they will get a security token. This token will provide authentication in future communications.
The token will contain a timestamp, userid and ip address of the client.
All communication will only happen over HTTPS so I'm not concerned about the token being intercepted and used in replay attacks; the token will have an expiry anyway.
Since this is a public facing service I am however concerned that someone could register with the service, login and then modifying the token that they receive to access the accounts of other users.
I'm wondering how best to secure the content of the token and also verify that it hasn't been tampered with.
I plan on doing the following to secure the token:
The client successfully logs into the service and the service does:
Generate a random value and hash it with SHA256 1000 times.
Generate a one-time session key from private key + hashed random value.
Hash the session key with SHA256 1000 times and then use it to encrypt the token
Use private key to sign the encrypted token using RSA.
Sends the encrypted token + the signature + the hashed random value to the client in an unencrypted JSON package.
When the client calls a service it sends the encrypted token and signature in an unencrypted JSON package to the service. The service will
Recreate the session key from the private key + the hashed random value
Use the private key to verify the signature
Use the hashed session key to decrypt the token
Check that the token hasn't expired
Continue with the requested operation...
I don't really know anything about encryption so I have some questions:
Is this sufficient or is it overkill?
I read that to detect tampering I should include an HMAC with the token. Since I am signing with the private key, do I still need an HMAC?
Should I be using Rijndael instead of RSA?
If Rijndael is preferred, is the generated IV required for decrypted? i.e. can i throw it away or do I need to send it will the encrypted token? e.g. Encrypted Token + HMAC + IV + hashed random value.
Since all communication happens over HTTPS the unencrypted JSON package isn't really unencrypted until it reaches the client.
Also I may want to re-implement the service in PHP later so this all needs to be doable in PHP as well.
Thanks for your help
You are really over-thinking the token. Truthfully, the best token security relies on randomness, or more accurately unpredictability. The best tokens are completely random. You are right that a concern is that a user will modify his/her token and use it to access the accounts of others. This is a common attack known as "session stealing." This attack is nearly impossible when the tokens are randomly generated and expired on the server side. Using the user's information such as IP and/or a time stamp is bad practice because it improves predictability. I did an attack in college that successfully guessed active tokens that were based on server time stamps in microseconds. The author of the application thought microseconds would change fast enough that they'd be unpredictable, but that was not the case.
You should be aware that when users are behind proxy servers, the proxy will sometimes view their SSL requests in plain text (for security reasons, many proxies will perform deep packet inspection). For this reason it is good that you expire the sessions. If you didn't your users would be vulnerable to an attack such as this, and also possible XSS and CSRF.
RSA or Rijndael should be plenty sufficient, provided a reasonable key length. Also, you should use an HMAC with the token to prevent tampering, even if you're signing it. In theory it would be redundant, since you're signing with a private key. However, HMAC is very well tested, and your implementation of the signing mechanism could be flawed. For that reason it is better to use HMAC. You'd be surprised how many "roll your own" security implementations have flaws that lead them to compromise.
You sound pretty savvy on security. Keep up the good work! We need more security conscious devs in this world.
EDIT:
It is considered safe to include timestamps/user IDs in the token as long as they are encrypted with a strong symmetric secret key (like AES, Blowfish, etc) that only the server has and as long as the token includes a tamper-proof hash with it such as HMAC, which is encrypted with the secret key along with the user ID/timestamp. The hash guarantees integrity, and the encryption guarantees confidentiality.
If you don't include the HMAC (or other hash) in the encryption, then it is possible for users to tamper with the encrypted token and have it decrypt to something valid. I did an attack on a server in which the User ID and time stamp were encrypted and used as a token without a hash. By changing one random character in the string, I was able to change my user ID from something like 58762 to 58531. While I couldn't pick the "new" user ID, I was able to access someone else's account (this was in academia, as part of a course).
An alternative to this is to use a completely random token value, and map it on the server side to the stored User ID/time stamp (which stays on the server side and is thus outside of the clients control). This takes a little more memory and processing power, but is more secure. This is a decision you'll have to make on a case by case basis.
As for reusing/deriving keys from the IV and other keys, this is usually ok, provided that the keys are only valid for a short period of time. Mathematically it is unlikely someone can break them. It is possible however. If you want to go the paranoid route (which I usually do), generate all new keys randomly.
Am I correct that OAuth 1.0a credentials need to be stored in plaintext (or in a way that can be retrieved as plaintext) on the server, at least when doing 2-legged authentication? Isn't this much less secure than using a username and salted+hashed password, assuming you're using HTTPS or other TLS? Is there a way to store those credentials in such a way that a security breach doesn't require every single one to be revoked?
In more detail: I'm implementing an API and want to secure it with OAuth 1.0a. There will possibly be many different API clients in the future, but the only one so far has no need for sensitive user data, so I'm planning to use "2-legged" OAuth.
As I understand it, this means I generate a consumer key and a shared secret for each API client. On every API request, the client provides both the consumer key, and a signature generated with the shared secret. The secret itself is not sent over the wire, and I definitely understand why this is better than sending a username and password directly.
However, as I understand it, both the consumer and the provider must explicitly store both the consumer key and the shared secret (correct me if I'm wrong), and this seems like a major security risk. If an attacker breached the provider's data store containing the consumer keys and shared secrets, every single API client would be compromised and the only way to re-secure the system would be to revoke every single key. This is in contrast to passwords, which are (ideally) never stored in a reversible fashion on the server. If you're salting and hashing your passwords, then an attacker would not be able to break into any accounts just by compromising your database.
All the research I've done seems to just gloss over this problem by saying "secure the credentials as you would with any sensitive data", but that seems ridiculous. Breaches do occur, and while they may expose sensitive data they shouldn't allow the attacker to impersonate the user, right?
You are correct. oAuth allows you however to login on the behalf of a user, so the target server (the one you access data from) needs to trust the token you present.
Password hashes are good when you are the receiver of the secret as keyed-in by the user (which, by the way, is what effectively what happens when oAuth presents the login/acceptance window to the user to generate afterwards the token). This is where the "plaintext" part happens (the user inputs his password in plaintext).
You need to have an equivalent mechanism so that the server recognizes you; what oAuth offers is the capacity to present something else than a password - a limited authorization form the use to login on his behalf. If this leaks then you need to invalidate it.
You could store these secrets in more or less elaborated ways, at the end of the day you still need to present the "plaintext" version t the server (that server, however, may use a hash to store it for checking purposes, as it just needs to verify that what you present in plain text, when hashed, corresponds to the hash they store)
Some time ago we needed a solution for Single Sign On authentication between multiple web services. At least at that time we considered OpenID protocol too complicated and we were not convinced about the Ruby on Rails plugins for it. Therefore we designed a protocol of our own instead of implementing an OpenID provider and OpenID consumers.
I have two questions:
Was it a bad thing not to create
our own OpenID provider and setup
our OpenID consumers accept only it?
Public login or registration are not
allowed and we wanted to keep
authentication simple.
Can you spot a crucial error or a vulnerability in the following design?
If you as a commune can approve this design, I will consider extracting this code into a Ruby on Rails plugin.
Please look at the flowchart and sequence diagram.
Details:
Authentication Provider ("AP"):
Central service which holds all data
about the users.
Only one "AP" exists in this setup.
It could be possible to have multiple "AP"s, but that should not be relevant in this context.
"AP" knows each "S" beforehand.
Authentication Client (Service "S"):
There exists several internal and external web services.
Each service knows "AP" and its public key beforehand.
Actor ("A"):
The end user who authenticates
herself with AP by a username and password
May request directly any URI of "S" or "AP" prior to her login
Connections between "A", "S" and "AP" are secured by HTTPS.
Authentication logic described briefly:
These are a description for the graphical flowchart and sequence diagram which were linked at the top of this post.
1) Auth Provider "AP"
"AP" makes a server-to-server HTTP POST request to "S" to get a nonce.
"AP" generates an authentication token.
Authentication token is an XML entity which includes:
an expiration date (2 minutes from now),
the previously requested nonce (to prevent replay),
identifying name of "S" (token for Service_1 is not good for Service_2),
information about the end user.
Authentication token is encrypted with AES256 and the encryption key and initialization vector are signed by AP's private RSA key.
Resulting strings ("data", "key" and "iv") are first Base64 encoded and then URL encoded to allow them be delivered in the URL query string.
End user "A" is HTTP-redirected to service "S" (HTTPS GET request).
2) Service "S"
Receives authentication token in URL parameters from user agent.
Decrypts authentication token with AP's pre-shared public key.
Accepts one authentication token only once (token includes a nonce which is valid only once).
Checks that identifying name in authentication token corresponds to service's name.
Checks that authentication token is not expired.
Remarks:
It is not a problem if somebody else can also decrypt the authentication token, because it contains no confidential information about the user. However, it is crucial that nobody else than AP is able to generate a valid authentication token. Therefore the RSA key pair is involved.
RSA private key is used only for signing the token, because it cannot encrypt data which is longer than the actual key length. Therefore AES is used for encryption.
Since the authentication token is delivered as an HTTP GET request, it will be stored e.g. in Apache's log file. Using a disposable nonce and an expiration date should minimize the possibility of a replay attack. POST request would need an HTML page with a form which is submitted automatically by Javascript, which is why GET is used.
Service "S" generates a nonce only in a server-to-server API request. Therefore unauthenticated generation requests should not pose a DoS-vulnerability.
You're confusing authentication ("I am who I say I am") and authorization/access control ("I am allowed to access this"). You can just implement OAuth, and then query a server over HTTPS with "is this OAuth identity allowed to access me?". You don't have to worry about replay attacks, since you're using HTTPS.
"Security is hard, so I'll design my own."
Authentication token is encrypted with AES256 and the encryption key and initialization vector are signed by AP's private RSA key.
AES-256 and AES-192 have weak key schedules. But you're not using it for confidentiality; you're using it as some sort of "integrity" check. It doesn't work: Attacker gets a "signed" authentication token. Attacker recovers the key and IV. Attacker encrypts a different authentication token with the same key and IV, and uses the same "signature".
What's wrong with hashing it and signing the hash? Also note that if you're going to use custom signing, you need to be careful about padding (IIRC PKCS-whatever adds at least 11 bytes).
EDIT: And if you're using a cipher where you should be using a hash/MAC, you really shouldn't be designing a security protocol!
Here are a few quick thoughts about question 1:
Designing a working security protocol is very hard, so on general principle I would favor using an existing one.
However, I appreciate that OpenID might not have been very established at the time. Also OpenID is still relatively new and might not have all of its limitations figured out yet.
Still, you'd be using OpenID in a restricted scenario where the big issue of OpenID (involvement of multiple actors) doesn't come into play. You'd only be using the “technical core” of OpenID, which is easier to understand.
Your requirements and the overview of your protocol remind me of Kerberos. I'm also tempted to push towards LDAP + single sign on, but I don't know what concrete solutions exist for that.
A point in favor of your protocol is that you've taken the time to describe it in detail. Just that puts you above than most self-made security protocol designers!
In short I find this protocol to be over engineered in the wrong places and ultimately vulnerable to attack.
So What is the vulnerability?
End user "A" is HTTP-redirected to service "S" (HTTPS GET request).
This is likely to be a violation of OWASP A9. At no point can a user's session ID be passed over an insecure channel such as http. Even if the session id hasn't been authenticated yet, an attacker is patient he can sniff the wire looking for session id's and then periodically check if they have been authenticated and then use them to access your system.
"Complexity is the worst enemy of security."
--Bruce Schneier
Authentication token is encrypted with
AES256 and the encryption key and
initialization vector are signed by
AP's private RSA key.
First of all RSA can be used to encrypt a message, so aes is unnecessary. HTTPS on the other hand is going to be more efficient and proven to be secure. I don't understand why you have to pass an authentication token to the client, when you already have a secure server-to-server communication channel. A server could just say "Hey someone has been redirected to me with this session id, what is his state information?". Its a matter of the weakest link in the chain, and your session id should be strong enough. This would require the session id to be sent as a GET or POST request by the client when the hand off occures which could open the door to Session Fixation. You could check the ip address before and after the handoff, sometimes the ip address of the client can change legitimately but the handoff is going to be a very narrow window in which this can happen, and most importantly it is stops Session Fixation altogether.
In general you should avoid re-inventing the wheal. Especially when it comes to security problems like this which have already been solved. Kerberos is beautiful especially if you need to tie in non-http authentication. Using LDAP for session management is another possibility.
Do you really just sign AES key and then send encrypted token, RSA signature of key and then key-iv in PLAINTEXT?
It's a fail. Attacker can use this key to decrypt a token, change it in any needed way and encrypt back. Your server will never find a difference.
If you want to check token integrity, just make a hash of it and sign this hash. This is what hashes used for. No need to use encryption here.