While there is a lot of discussion about Captcha implementation, I couldn't find any details on what circumstances one should ask for Captcha especially for a financial app serving consumers.
Some of the rules I think of:
If 3 failed login/registrations attempts
If 3 duplicate calls if user already logged in.
I believe these rules are driven through security risk and is there a better way to manage this? Any library, which helps to solve this problem?
Unfortunately, in situations like this, you'll always have to make a compromise somewhere between security and convenience. I think the specific number you chose are fine; a human probably won't do those things and if something does, it's probably not a legitimate user. I would suggest that after you start to require CAPTCHAs to continue, you also continue counting those cases and log an alert at some point and eventually ban the IP address if their actions get out of hand.
One place you'll have to compromise is on how you track users. If you do it by cookies, it will be more accurate, but a bot can just not send cookies in most cases, eluding your tracking. The only real solution, then, is to track by IP addresses. The problem with this is that any users behind a shared IP address would look the same, so if three users all fail a single login, it would look the same (mostly) as one users failing three times. Also, if someone gets legitimately banned for abusing your site and is behind a shared IP address, it is possible that other legitimate customers could be affected.
To sum it up, you'll need to find the balance you need between security and convenience.
Related
Below is a proposal for dealing with a situation of website security. I am wondering whether it seems feasible, from both a technical and usability point of view. I want to make sure that the proposal does contain any glaring errors.
A. THE WEBSITE
The website in question is a school website where students may purchase various items. These students get an account on the website with a username and password, which they can use to login. Once they login, they have access to protected pages with private content which are unavailable to the public at large.
B. THE SECURITY CONCERN
The owners of the website wish to prevent a situation where a single student signs up on the website, obtains a username and password, and then circulates those credentials to a circle of friends who are then able to login to the website and illegally view the private content.
C. THE SOLUTION
The central idea we have come up with to deal with this security problem is to permit each student to login to the website on two devices only. Once a student logs in on two different devices, they are restricted to those two devices. If they then attempt to login on a third device, the system would simply not permit them to do so. It is our understanding that other websites offering private content, such as Netflix, use such an approach.
D. IMPLEMENTATION
Two ideas come to mind to implement the above security measure: a. IP address. b. Cookies. We rule out IP addresses, which can change, and choose cookies. Websites such as amazon.com allow their customers to login once, and then whenever they return to the website, they are always recognized. This is almost certainly achieved through cookies.
Thus each time a student logs in, we will store on their device a cookie. And we will also store this cookie in our database under that student's account. Thus each time a student logs in on any device, we will check whether the device they are currently logging in on contains the cookie we have stored for that student. If it does not, we will know that the student is logging in on a different device. We will thus be able to know how many devices the student is trying to login on.
E. DRAWBACKS
We have identified at least three possible drawbacks to this approach:
Clearing Cookies. People can, for a variety of reasons, choose to clear the cookies from their computer.
A bona fide person may occasionally not have access to their usual device, and wish to login on a different computer.
People do purchase new devices from time to time.
These are examples of situations where a bona fide user, for legitimate reasons, wishes to login, but will be unable to, due to the website's security restriction of two devices.
We have some ideas as to how to build logic into the system to deal with such situations, which we may implement in the future, but for the time being, we feel that such situations are sufficiently rare that we do not need to handle them programmatically.
Rather, for now, in the event that a student is locked out, they will get a screen with a message explaining why we have not allowed them into the system, and a button which they can click on which will automatically generate an email to the site administrators.
The email will inform them that a student wishes to login on a third device. The administators can then contact the student, and, if they are satisfied that the need is bona fide, they will be able to take steps from the CMS to allow that student in.
The size of the student body is sufficiently manageable that the above approach should be feasible.
F. FAIR WARNING
We will inform the students of these security measures when their account is activated, in order to prevent unpleasant surprises.
This is a typical example of trying to fix via IT a real-world policy problem; in this case, forbidding students to share their credentials.
The solution you are proposing limits usability (for the reasons which you already listed under Drawbacks) and does not ensure security because cookies - and especially content - can be copied around. In short, it is feasible, but can easily be circumvented. It's up to you to decide whether it is worth to implement it. It would probably be better to enforce the "no sharing credentials" rule e.g. set up random checks and send any student caught violating the rule to the Dean.
I'm currently developing a web application that has one feature while allows input from anonymous users (No authorization required). I realize that this may prove to have security risks such as repeated arbitrary inputs (ex. spam), or users posting malicious content. So to remedy this I'm trying to create a sort of system that keeps track of what each anonymous user has posted.
So far all I can think of is tracking by IP, but it seems as though it may not be viable due to dynamic IPs, are there any other solutions for anonymous user tracking?
I would recommend requiring them to answer a captcha before posting, or after an unusual number of posts from a single ip address.
"A CAPTCHA is a program that protects websites against bots by generating and grading tests >that humans can pass but current computer programs cannot. For example, humans can read >distorted text as the one shown below, but current computer programs can't"
That way the spammers are actual humans. That will slow the firehose to a level where you can weed out any that does get through.
http://www.captcha.net/
There's two main ways: clientside and serverside. Tracking IP is all that I can think of serverside; clientside there's more accurate options, but they are all under user's control, and he can reanonymise himself (it's his machine, after all): cookies and storage come to mind.
Drop a cookie with an ID on it. Sure, cookies can be deleted, but this at least gives you something.
My suggestion is:
Use cookies for tracking of user identity. As you yourself have said, due to dynamic IP addresses, you can't reliably use them for tracking user identity.
To detect and curb spam, use IP + user browser agent combination.
Our team have built a web application using Ruby on Rails. It currently doesn't restrict users from making excessive login requests. We want to ignore a user's login requests for a while after she made several failed attempts mainly for the purpose of defending automated robots.
Here are my questions:
How to write a program or script that can make excessive requests to our website? I need it because it will help me to test our web application.
How to restrict a user who made some unsuccessful login attempts within a period? Does Ruby on Rails have built-in solutions for identifying a requester and tracking whether she made any recent requests? If not, is there a general way to identify a requester (not specific to Ruby on Rails) and keep track of the requester's activities? Can I identify a user by ip address or cookies or some other information I can gather from her machine? We also hope that we can distinguish normal users (who make infrequent requests) from automatic robots (who make requests frequently).
Thanks!
One trick I've seen is having form fields included on the login form that through css hacks make them invisible to the user.
Automated systems/bots will still see these fields and may attempt to fill them with data. If you see any data in that field you immediately know its not a legit user and ignore the request.
This is not a complete security solution but one trick that you can add to the arsenal.
In regards to #1, there are many automation tools out there that can simulate large-volume posting to a given url. Depending on your platform, something as simple as wget might suffice; or something as complex (relatively speaking) a script that asks a UserAgent to post a given request multiple times in succession (again, depending on platform, this can be simple; also depending on language of choice for task 1).
In regards to #2, considering first the lesser issue of someone just firing multiple attempts manually. Such instances usually share a session (that being the actual webserver session); you should be able to track failed logins based on these session IDs ang force an early failure if the volume of failed attempts breaks some threshold. I don't know of any plugins or gems that do this specifically, but even if there is not one, it should be simple enough to create a solution.
If session ID does not work, then a combination of IP and UserAgent is also a pretty safe means, although individuals who use a proxy may find themselves blocked unfairly by such a practice (whether that is an issue or not depends largely on your business needs).
If the attacker is malicious, you may need to look at using firewall rules to block their access, as they are likely going to: a) use a proxy (so IP rotation occurs), b) not use cookies during probing, and c) not play nice with UserAgent strings.
RoR provides means for testing your applications as described in A Guide to Testing Rails Applications. Simple solution is to write such a test containing a loop sending 10 (or whatever value you define as excessive) login request. The framework provides means for sending HTTP requests or fake them
Not many people will abuse your login system, so just remembering IP addresses of failed logins (for an hour or any period your think is sufficient) would be sufficient and not too much data to store. Unless some hacker has access to a great many amount of IP addresses... But in such situations you'd need more/serious security measurements I guess.
i'd like to prevent bots from hacking weak password-protected accounts. (e.g. this happend to ebay and other big sites)
So i'll set a (mem-) cached value with the ip, amount of tries and timestamp of last try (memcache-fall-out).
But what about bots trying to open any account with just one password. For example, the bot tries all 500.000 Useraccounts with the password "password123". Maybe 10 will open.
So my attempt was to just cache the ip with tries and set max-tries to ~50. The i would delete it after a successful login. So the good-bot would just login with a valid account every 49 tries to reset the lock.
Is there any way to do it right?
What do big platforms do about this?
What can i do to prevent idiots from blocking all users on a proxy with retrying 50 times?
If there is no best practice - does this mean any platform is brute-forceable? At least with a hint on when counters are resetted?
I think you can mix your solution with captchas:
Count the number of tries per IP
In case there are too many tries from a given IP address within a given time, add a captcha to your login form.
Some sites give you maybe two or three tries before they start making you enter a captcha along with your username/password. The captcha goes away once you successfully log in.
There was a relatively good article on Coding Horror a few days ago.
While the code is focused on Django there is some really good discussion on the best practice methods on Simon Willison’s blog. He uses memcached to track IPs and login failures.
You could use a password strength checker when a user sets their password to make sure they're not using an easily brute-forced password.
EDIT: Just to be clear, this shouldn't be seen as a complete solution to the problem you're trying to solve, but it should be considered in conjunction with some of the other answers.
You're never going to be able to prevent a group of bots from trying this from lots of different IP addresses.
From the same IP address: I would say if you see an example of "suspicious" behavior (invalid username, or several valid accounts with incorrect login attempts), just block the login for a few seconds. If it's a legitimate user, they won't mind waiting a few seconds. If it's a bot this will slow them down to the point of being impractical. If you continue to see the behavior from the IP address, just block them -- but leave an out-of-band door for legitimate users (call phone #x, or email this address).
PLEASE NOTE: IP addresses can be shared among THOUSANDS or even MILLIONS of users!!! For example, most/all AOL users appear as a very small set of IP addresses due to AOL's network architecture. Most ISPs map their large user bases to a small set of public IP addresses.
You cannot assume that an IP address belongs to only a single user.
You cannot assume that a single user will be using only a single IP address.
Check the following question discussing best practices against distibuted brute force and dictionary attacks:
What is the best Distributed Brute Force countermeasure?
Obviously some sort of mechanism for limiting login attempts is a security requisite. While I like the concept of an exponentially increasing time between attempts, what I'm not sure of storing the information. I'm also interested in alternative solutions, preferrably not including captchas.
I'm guessing a cookie wouldn't work due to blocking cookies or clearing them automatically, but would sessions work? Or does it have to be stored in a database? Being unaware of what methods can/are being used so I simply don't know what's practical.
Use some columns in your users table 'failed_login_attempts' and 'failed_login_time'. The first one increments per failed login, and resets on successful login. The second one allows you to compare the current time with the last failed time.
Your code can use this data in the db to determine how long it waits to lock out users, time between allowed logins etc
Assuming google has done the necessary usability testing (not an unfair assumption) and decided to use captchas , I'd suggest going along with them.
Increasing timeouts is frustrating when I'm a genuine user and have forgotten my password (with so many websites and their associated passwords that happens a lot , especially to me)
Storing attempts in the database is the best solution IMHO since it gives you the auditing records of the security breach attempts. Depending on your application this may or may not be a legal requirement.
By recording all bad attempts you can also gather higher level information, such as if the requests are coming from one IP address (i.e. someone / thing is attempting a brute force attack) so you can block the IP address. This can be VERY usefull information.
Once you have determined a threshold, why not force them to request the email to be sent to their email address (i.e. similar to 'I have forgotten my password'), or you can go for the CAPCHA approach.
Answers in this post prioritize database centered solutions because they provide a structure of records that make auditing and lockout logic convenient.
While the answers here address guessing attacks on individual users, a major concern with this approach is that it leaves the system open to Denial of Service attacks. Any and every request from the world should not trigger database work.
An alternative (or additional) layer of security should be implemented earlier in the req/ res cycle to protect the application and database from performing lock out operations that can be expensive and are unnecessary.
Express-Brute is an excellent example that utilizes Redis caching to filter out malicious requests while allowing honest ones.
You know which userid is being hit, keep a flag and when it reaches a threshold value simply stop accepting anything for that user. But that means you store an extra data value for every user.
I like the concept of an exponentially increasing time between attempts, [...]
Instead of using exponentially increasing time, you could actually have a randomized lag between successive attempts.
Maybe if you explain what technology you are using people here will be able to help with more specific examples.
Lock out Policy is all well and good but there is a balance.
One consideration is to think about the consruction of usernames - guessable? Can they be enumerated at all?
I was on an External App Pen Test for a dotcom with an Employee Portal that served Outlook Web Access /Intranet Services, certain Apps. It was easy to enumerate users (the Exec /Managament Team on the web site itself, and through the likes of Google, Facebook, LinkedIn etc). Once you got the format of the username logon (firstname then surname entered as a single string) I had the capability to shut 100's of users out due to their 3 strikes and out policy.
Store the information server-side. This would allow you to also defend against distributed attacks (coming from multiple machines).
You may like to say block the login for some time say for example, 10 minutes after 3 failure attempts for example. Exponentially increasing time sounds good to me. And yes, store the information at the server side session or database. Database is better. No cookies business as it is easy to manipulate by the user.
You may also want to map such attempts against the client IP adrress as it is quite possible that valid user might get a blocked message while someone else is trying to guess valid user's password with failure attempts.