I have a client who is requesting that we add a link to the system admin area on the main (public) website so that they can just go to the site and click the URL.
Would you consider this to be a bad idea? I find it a bit odd that they cant remember to go to /admin - seems pretty much like you're inviting someone to try and break in, does it not?
I've been trying to come up with some other method. If it was me, I'd just bookmark it, however my client is a consortium of...'old gentlemen' with little computing know-how.
Any thoughts on how this should be tackled?
Whilst I can't imagine that this could really be described as "good practice", it would seem that the additional "security" afforded to you by not linking the administrative area publicly is relatively minimal.
Since there are a limited number of common "admin-area" type paths - /admin, /administrator, /admincp etc., and (assuming your question hasn't been censored) you are indeed using one of them, you're probably only keeping out the most amateur of attackers by not linking to it, and you'd hope that they would be defeated by the login mechanism you surely have on the administrative area anyway.
The remainder of the more determined adversaries will no doubt manage to find the admin. area by simply probing common paths whether you link to it or not.
Having a link to the admin area is not a security risk in itself. If you have done a good job at securing the admin area, then it really does not matter to make the address public. If making the URL private increases the security, it means that you are at risk.
Related
I was wanting to show a video of my python code working to someone but in this video I need to show my folders. C:\Users\etc\etc. Is giving the users bit a risk (obviously it's my windows name in place of 'users') because I often see tutorials blocking this name.
Short answer, yes it is a security risk, you are telling someone the username for your system. However, the better question is, should you go to the effort of hiding it based on the security risk?
Unfortunately this question is much harder to answer with a simple yes / no answer and depends a lot on your personal (and your organisations) attitude to risk.
If someone is trying to hack into their system having valid credentials for the system is obviously a good way to go, hence the amount of effort that goes into phishing style e-mails, websites etc. By showing your username you have given the attacker half the things they need (assuming no MFA etc.).
That being said often usernames are often very easy to guess. Built in accounts e.g. Administrator in Windows and root in Linux have been targets in the past, although they are better protected from Network logins these days. In corporate environments, usernames are often e-mail addresses or the user part of the address (the bit before the # symbol).
As well as considering how available your username is in the public domain already you need to consider where is the video going to be shared. For example if you are in a corporate environment where usernames are firstname.lastname and this video is only going to be shared on the company intranet. Well, quite honestly, anyone with access to the video can guess your username.
Based on the hints above you can make your mind up about whether or not you need to hide your username. Let's look at this from another angle, how hard is it to hide the username. Assuming that your demonstration works just as well from any directory on your computer, why not put everything you need in C:\temp and then there is no need to show a path with your username in?
In summary, the choice is yours and I hope you this gives you a guide to how to consider the risks and make an informed choice. Personally (sorry SO rule followers, I will give a quick opinion here) I would avoid showing it as generally it is easy to build a video from a temp directory rather than one off C:\Users\<username> equally when using a Linux system I don't lose any sleep over the fact that the prompt shows my username.
Is showing TCM ID on the SiteEdit instruction on the public website a security issue? My thoughts are it should not be an issue since Tridion is behind the firewall. I want to know the experts opinion.
I think you're asking the wrong question here. It is not important whether those SiteEdit instructions are a security risk, they should only be present on the publishing target(s) where you use SiteEdit. On any other target they just needlessly increase the size and expose implementation details that are not relevant to the visitors of that target.
So unless you enable SiteEdit on your public web site (highly unlikely), the SiteEdit instructions should not be in the HTML.
It depends on the level of security you require. In principle, your security should be so good that you don't rely on "security by obscurity". You should have modelled every threat, and understood it, and designed impregnable defences.
In real life, this is a little harder to achieve, and the focus is more on what is usually described as "security in depth". In other words, you do your best to have impregnable defences, but if some straightforward disciplines will make it more difficult for your attacker, you make sure that you go to that effort as well. There is plenty of evidence that the first step in any attack is to try to enumerate what technology you are using. Then if there are any known exploits for that technology, the attacker will attempt to use them. In addition, if an exploit becomes known, attackers will search for potential victims by searching for signatures of the compromised technology.
Exposing TCM URIs in your public-facing output is as good as telling an attacker that you are using Tridion. So, for that matter, is exposing SiteEdit code. If you use Tridion, it is utterly unnecessary to do either of these things. You can simply display a web site that gives no clues about its implementation. (The ability to avoid giving these clues will be a hard requirement for many large organisations choosing a WCMS, and Tridion's strength in this regard may be one of the reasons why the organisation you work for chose to use it.)
So while there is nothing in a TCM URI which of itself causes a security problem, it unnecessarily gives information to potential attackers, so yes, it is a security issue. Financial institutions, government organisations, and large corporations in general, will expect you to do a clean implementation that gives no succour to the bad guys.
I would argue that it does not really present an issue. If there are holes in the firewall that can be breached, an attacker may find a way to get through regardless. The fact that there is a Tridion CMS installation behind the firewall is somewhat irrelevant.
Whether you have the URIs in your source code or not, your implementation should be secured well enough that the knowledge gained by knowing that you have a Tridion CMS is of no value to a hacker.
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".
For the sake of simplicity I want to use admin links like this for a site:
http://sitename.com/somegibberish.php?othergibberish=...
So the actual URL and the parameter would be some completely random string which only I would know.
I know security through obscurity is generally a bad idea, but is it a realistic threat someone can find out the URL? Don't take the employees of the hosting company and eavesdroppers on the line into account, because it is a toy site, not something important and the hosting company doesn't give me secure FTP anyway, so I'm only concerned about normal visitors.
Is there a way of someone finding this URL? It wouldn't be anywhere on the web, so Google won't now it about either. I hope, at least. :)
Any other hole in my scheme which I don't see?
Well, if you could guarantee only you would ever know it, it would work. Unfortunately, even ignoring malicious men in the middle, there are many ways it can leak out...
It will appear in the access logs of your provider, which might end up on Google (and are certainly read by the hosting admins)
It's in your browsing history. Plugins, extensions etc have access to this, and often use upload it elsewhere (i.e. StumbleUpon).
Any proxy servers along the line see it clearly
It could turn up as a Referer to another site
some completely random string
which only I would know.
Sounds like a password to me. :-)
If you're going to have to remember a secret string I would suggest doing usernames and passwords "properly" as HTTP servers will have been written to not leak password information; the same is not true of URLs.
This may only be a toy site but why not practice setting up security properly as it won't matter if you get it wrong. So hopefully, if you do have a site which you need to secure in future you'll have already made all your mistakes.
I know security through obscurity is
generally a very bad idea,
Fixed it for you.
The danger here is that you might get in the habit of "oh, it worked for Toy such-and-such site, so I won't bother implementing real security on this other site."
You would do a disservice to yourself (and any clients/users of your system) if you ignore Kerckhoff's Principle.
That being said, rolling your own security system is a bad idea. Smarter people have already created security libraries in the other major languages, and even smarter people have reviewed and tweaked those libraries. Use them.
It could appear on the web via a "Referer leak". Say your page links to my page at http://entrian.com/, and I publish my web server referer logs on the web. There'll be an entry saying that http://entrian.com/ was accessed from http://sitename.com/somegibberish.php?othergibberish=...
As long as the "login-URL" never posted anywhere, there shouldn't be any way for search engines to find it. And if it's just a small, personal toy-site with no personal or really important content, I see this as a fast and decent-working solution regarding security compared to implementing some form of proper login/authorization system.
If the site is getting a big number of users and lots of content, or simply becomes more than a "toy site", I'd advice you to do it the proper way
I don't know what your toy admin page would display, but keep in mind that when loading external images or linking to somewhere else, your referrer is going to publicize your URL.
If you change http into https, then at least the url will not be visible to anyone sniffing on the network.
(the caveat here is that you also need to consider that very obscure login system can leave interesting traces to be found in the network traces (MITM), somewhere on the site/target for enabling priv.elevation, or on the system you use to log in if that one is no longer secure and some prefer admin login looking no different from a standard user login to avoid that)
You could require that some action be taken # of times and with some number of seconds of delays between the times. After this action,delay,action,delay,action pattern was noticed, the admin interface would become available for login. And the urls used in the interface could be randomized each time with a single use url generated after that pattern. Further, you could only expose this interface through some tunnel and only for a minute on a port encoded by the delays.
If you could do all that in a manner that didn't stand out in the logs, that'd be "clever" but you could also open up new holes by writing all that code and it goes against "keep it simple stupid".
From a usability perspective, is it better to integrate admin section on the main website or have a separate section to manage content?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.
EDIT: the application is a CMS for very non-techno friendly staff.
It depends on the project and part you want to administer, imho.
For example comments on newsposts should be administered in the website itself by showing a "delete" linkbutton for each comment. Otherwise the mods would have to look up the comment in the admin section => not very user friendly.
But in general I think a seperate admin section will usually be more clear to your client. You'd want them to see the site as a normal user would see it.
At the very least I would recommend moving all your administration files to a separate folder. That way if you're using a platform like .NET you can very easily control folder access though role and user-based web.config permissions.
Having your administration files all segregated allows you to do other things easily too, like delete them if you decide to move them to another server later. Also you can exclude them in your robots.txt file (although by putting it in the robots.txt file you will be telling other people this section exists, and robots don't have to mind this file).
Edit:
I feel like my answer missed the mark a little considering your question. Of course in-line editing is easier than going to a separate page from a usability perspective, but whenever I hear of mixing admin users with regular users giant alarm bells go off in my head.
I think that it depends on the function of the site and how intrusive it will be to your staff. Does it make sense for them to make changes while browsing the site and will they eventually become discouraged with your system because it forces them to inject unnecessary steps into their process? How long will the edits take? Does it make sense to show a completely different interface to administrators? I think an answer to this question requires a lot more understanding of what specific function you're trying to accomplish and will vary on a case by case basis.
I have never liked adding administration pages into the main site. It seems like it is too much of a risk from someone accidently getting access to the administration portion of the site. Even if you review the security over and over, there is always that possibility that something unexpected will happen, and it is a huge mess to clean up (what was modified, who accessed what etc. etc.). In my opinion keeping it as a seperate site is the easiest way to go.
While there is a level of convenience in being able to login to the main part of a site as a privileged user, and then clicking on parts of a page to edit/alter it, there is also a measure of security in having it in a separate area.
I have found that having a separate section of the website that is devoted specifically to administrative tasks makes the tasks easier to organize and use. Just look at Wordpress (especially the new 2.7 release), Drupal (a very popular cms), and Joomla (another very popular cms). If you would like to test these feature out to see why I think the separate section is better, you can go to www.opensourcecms.com and test out both Drupal and Joomla.
From a usability, the more integrated the better but it tends to add severely to the complexity. Its always best if you can perform the action within the context in which it occurs - lock out a bad user, trim a log thats too big etc. however since these tend to have significant side effects the security aspect trumps this a lot of the time out of fear.
I think you need to look at doing a risk assessment with regards to integrating the administration capabilities right into the application.
What would be the implication for the system if someone were able to escalate privelages and gain access to the admin functions. if every user was locked out maliciously - damage to the site, the reputation, SLA etc?
What destructive functions can an admin perform from this section ? delete lots of data? crash the app? alter costs that have material impact on users/customers?
Are the admin functions integrated in the app or isolated into specific admin functions?
Does the application have a public face or is it an intranet that is assumed secure?
I personally have never felt at ease integrating the admin section with the site out of fear that a security breach caused by my ineptness or something beyond my control like bad defaults, unpatched exploit. However, when the client is writing the cheque I tend to do what they feel is best.
I come from the school of Usability that says "minimise guess work". So, what kind of information did you get from your user group sessions?
Remember, you're not (and we're not) typical users of your system. Anything we say is going to be a guess. What's worse is that any opinion shown here is likely to be ill informed for your situation (but probably awesome at what they do). The only way you'll have an informed opinion on what to do is by going out and asking your users in intelligent ways.
Because this is a security issue some of your user mix should be people who specialise in security. Just because it's easier to use doesn't mean it's the most appropriate.