I've got a requirement to detect if a webpage is being served on the internet or intranet, i.e. assuming a url of https://accessibleanyway.com, is the phone connected to the work wifi or to something else like their home wifi or the phone network?
What different ways are there to do this?
(1) Use WebRTC to get the local ip address. Not widely supported
(2) Try to access a local web page using jsonp/cors/iframe
The problem with 2 is that the webpage is https and the local resource is likely to be http which you can't do in IE afaik. If I make the local resource https then it's via a self cert which means installing CAs on the phones (can you buy certificates for the intranet anymore?)
Any suggestions?
The problem with (2) was that the same page was trying to use http and https, and even with an iframe you get issues.
What you could do instead is start on a http loading page, use an iframe to access a local resource which you can only access if you are on the intranet, jsonp will work fine for this. Once that's worked or failed, redirect to your start page with some token in the querystring to indicate that you are on the intranet or not
NB jumping from http to https would probably have some security issues if you are on the same website (authentication cookies being initially visible), but I would have thought it would be fine if you are going to a different one
Obviously there'll be some security needed around the token as otherwise the user could just generate their own but that's a different matter which depends on individual setups. It would obviously have to be generated by a server call, otherwise someone could just read the client code.
NB I think the IP address approach is never going to work as you have no way of knowing what a companies intranet setup looks like until you go there, so it's not a generic answer
I work on an application where users can embed their website within surrounding content by loading it in an iframe. This obviously relies on the X-Frame-Options not being set on the users website to work. I was asked by a client to create a reverse proxy because they didn't want to remove the X-Frame-Options header from their site for security concerns.
I setup the proxy and everything works but what's the point of the X-Frame-Options header if its as simple as creating a proxy to circumvent?
I understand the header exists to prevent clickjacking but if anyone can just make a proxy to workaround it... does it really increase security?
I don't come from the enterprise dev world, can you help me understand the reasoning behind why the IT department would be resistant to removing the header?
I noticed google.com and facebook.com also set the header, so it can't be completely pointless can it?
Thanks
Any site served over http can have its content altered by using a proxy for example. So yes this is fairly pointless on http sites since it's so easily defeated.
Serving a site over https prevents this unless you have a proxy server which also intercepts https traffic. This is only possible by the proxy acting as a man-in-the-middle (MITM) so it decrypts the traffic at the proxy and then re-encrypts the traffic to send on to the server and same in way back. For this to work the proxy server either needs to know the server private key or, more likely, replaces the cert presented to its client with its own copy.
While MITM is usually associated with attacks there are some legitimate scenarios (though many argue even these are not legitimate and https should be secure!):
Anti-virus software can do this to scan requests to protect your computer. If you run Avast for example and have SSL scanning turned on (think it's on by default) and go to https://www.google.com and look at the cert you will notice it's been issued by Avast instead of by Google as usual. To do this requires the antivirus software to have installed an issuer certificate on your PC from which it can issue these replacement certs which your browser will still accept as real certs. Installing this issuer cert requires Admin access which you temporarily give when installing the anti-virus software.
Corporate proxies do a similar process to allow them to monitor https traffic from its employees. Again it requires an issuer installed on the PC using admin rights.
So basically it's only possible to use a proxy like you suggest for https traffic if you already have, or have had in the past, Admin rights in the PC - at which case all bets are off anyway.
The only other way to do this is to keep traffic on http using a proxy. For example if you request www.google.com then this normally redirects to https://www.google.com but your proxy can intercept that redirect request and instead keep the client->proxy connection on https, allowing the proxy to amend the request to strip out headers. This depends on the users not typing https, not noticing there is no green padlock and can be defeated with technologies like HSTS (which is automatically preloaded in some browsers for some sites like google.com). So not really reliable way to intercept traffic.
Many secure sites use X-Frame-Options to prevent clickjacking
Clickjacking
Clickjacking Defense Cheat Sheet
This prevents attackers from tricking users through transparent layers from performing actions they are unaware of on sites they didn't even know they loaded. Furthermore, this attack only works with frames that are directly served from the attacked/victim site's domain in the user's browser.
You may think that you can just reverse proxy the site and remove the frame busting header. But your proxy is not receiving or sending the end users cookies to the victim site. These secure sites rely on an active session, and as such will interpret the request from the proxy as coming from an unauthenticated user completely defeating the point of clickjacking.
I apologize for my lack of knowledge on how the intricacies of the web work ahead of time.
I run a fairly large deal site (lets call it dealsite.com) and we send a lot of traffic to Amazon.com. Is there anyway for me to hide from Amazon that the users are are coming from dealsite.com? I do not want Amazon to know that we (dealsite.com) are the ones sending the traffic.
Maybe strip certain cookies?
Send outbound traffic through a proxy?
I am not doing anything illegal and these are real users not bots.
By using the noreferrer tag on your links, you can prevent Amazon from learning their traffic is coming from your site, and you don't need to set up a proxy, vpn, or cookie redirects.
HTTP generally sends the referring page along with its request for the new page as part of the HTTP referer section of the request header, and that's how sites track where their visitors come from. So for example, a user would click through to Amazon.com from Dealsite.com, and the request would include an HTTP referer telling Amazon.com that the user was linked from Dealsite.com.
To prevent web sites like Amazon from learning that their traffic came from your site, prevent your links from sending the HTTP referer. In HTML5, just add rel="noreferrer" to your links, and then referral information will not be sent to the site that was linked. The noreferrer link type is only suppported in new browsers, so I suggest using the knu's noreferrer polyfill to make sure it works on older browsers too.
So far this will prevent referrer information from being sent from 99.9% of your users - the only users that will send referral information will be users that are both using old browsers and have JavaScript disabled. To make it 100%, you could require users have JavaScript enabled to be able to click on those particular links.
Disclaimer: This is not the thorough idea you're looking for. I ran out of space in the comments so posted it as an answer. A couple of possible solutions come to my mind.
Proxy servers: Multiple distributed proxy servers to be specific. You can round robin your users through these servers and and hit Amazon so that the inbound traffic to Amazon from dualist.com keeps revolving. Disadvantage is that this will be slow depending on where the proxy server resides. So not the most ideal solution for an Ecommerce site but it works. And the major advantage is that implementation will be very simple.
VPN tunneling: Extremely similar to proxy server. VPN tunnel to another server and send redirect to Amazon from there. You'll get a new (non dealsite.com) IP from the VPN server of this network and your original IP will be masked
Redirects from user (Still in works) For this one I was thinking of if you could store the info you need from dealsite.com in a cookie and then instruct the host to redirect to Amazon by itself. Hence the inbound traffic to Amazon will be from the users IP and not dealsite.coms. If you need to get back to the dealsite session from Amazon, you could use the previously saved cookie to do so.
Ill add to this answer if I find something better.
Edit 1 A few hours more hours researching brought me to the Tor project. This might be useful but be wary, Many security experts advise against using Tor. See here
One of customers have reported that they can see the password being transferred as clear text, they probably tried tool like a fiddler to capture the HTTP request/response. So my question is is it possible using fiddler or any other tool is it possible for someone to monitor the http traffic on that local computer at the moment the user entered the password and clicked to login ?
If the user is accessing the website without using SSL (i.e. by going to "http://" instead of "https://"), then it is possible to see all of the traffic between the website and the browser, and not only on the local computer but also on the network that the computer is connected to.
If the user is accessing the website via HTTPS, Fiddler is able to act as a proxy and decrypt the traffic between the browser and the server by using a special SSL certificate (thanks to #user18044 for clarification in the comments below).
In your case Fiddler is NOT accessing browser memory directly to get to the password in clear text.
First, let me admit that what I know about HTTPS is pretty rudimentary. I don't know much about session security, encryption, or how either of those things is supposed to be done.
What I do know is that web security is important; that horror stories of XSS, CSRF, and database injections pop up over and over again. I know that a preventative stance against such exploits is better than a reactive one.
But the motivation for this question comes from a different point of view. I work at a site that regularly accepts payment from users. Obviously, the payments are sent over a secure channel (HTTPS). I mainly work on the CSS, HTML, and JavaScript of the site. What I've been told is that it is necessary to duplicate CSS, JavaScript, and image files before they can be called over HTTPS. So assume I have the following files:
css/global.css
js/global.js
images/
logo.png
bg.png
The way I understand it, these files need to be duplicated before they can be "added" to the HTTPS. So a file can either be under security (HTTPS) or not.
If this is true, then this is a major hindrance. In even the smallest site, it would be a major pain to duplicate files and then have to maintain them every time you make a CSS or JS change. Obviously this could be alleviated by moving everything into the HTTPS.
So what I want to know is, what are the pros and cons of a site that is completely behind HTTPS? Does it cause noticeable overhead? Is it just foolish to place the entire site under encryption? Would users feel safer seeing the "secure" notifications in their browser during their entire visit? And last but not least, does it truly make for a more secure site? What can HTTPS not protect against?
You can serve the same content via HTTPS as you do via HTTP (just point it to the same document root).
Cons that may be major or minor, depending:
serving content over HTTPS is slower than serving it via HTTP.
certificates signed by well-known authorities can be expensive
if you don't have a certificate signed by a trusted authority (eg, you sign it yourself), visitors will get a warning
Those are pretty basic, but just a few things to note. Also, personally, I feel much better seeing that the entire site is HTTPS if it's anything related to financial stuff, obviously, but as far as general browsing, no, I don't care.
Noticeable overhead? Yes, but that matters less and less these days as clients and servers are much faster.
You don't need to make a copy of everything, but you do need to make those files accessible via HTTPS. Your HTTPS and HTTP services can use the same doc root.
Is it foolish to put the whole site under encryption? Typically no.
Would users feel safer? Probably.
Does it truly make for a more secure site? Only when dealing with the communication channel between the client and the server. Everything else is still up for grabs.
You've been misinformed. The css, js, and image files need not be duplicated assuming you've set up the http and https mapping to point to the same physical website on the server. The only important thing is that these files are referenced with https when the page you're looking at is also under https. This will prevent the dreaded security message that says that some objects on the page are not secured.
For every other page where you're running the site under http (unsecured) you can reference those same files in the same locations, but with an http address.
To answer your other question, there would indeed be a performance penalty to put the entire site under https. The server has to work hard to encrypt everything it sends over the wire. And then some not-so-old browsers won't cache https content to disk by default, which of course will result in an even heavier load on the server.
Because I like my sites to be as responsive as possible, I'm always selective about which sections of a site I choose to be SSL-encrypted. In most typical e-commerce sites, the only pages that need SSL encryption are the login, registration, and checkout pages.
The traditional reason for not having the entire site behind SSL is processing time. It does take more work for both the client and the server to use SSL. However, this overhead is fairly small compared to modern processors.
If you are running a very large site, you may need to scale slightly faster if you are encrypting everything.
You also need to buy a certificate, or use a self signed one which may not be trusted by your users.
You also need a dedicated IP address. If you are on a shared hosting system, you need to have an IP that you can dedicate to only having SSL on your site.
But if you can afford a certificate and private ip and don't mind needed a slightly faster server, using SSL on your entire site is a great idea.
With the number of attacks that SSL mitigates, I would say do it.
You do not need multiple copies of these files for them to work with HTTPs. You may need to have 2 copies of these files if the hosting setup has been configured in such that you have a separate https directory. So to answer your question - no duplicate files are not required for HTTPs but depending on the web hosting configuration - they may be.
In regards to the pros and cons of https vs http there are already a few posts addressing that.
HTTP vs HTTPS performance
HTTPS vs HTTP speed comparison
HTTPs only encrypts the data between the client computer and the server. It does not software holes or issues such as remote javascript includes. HTTPs doesn't make your application better - it only helps secure the data between the user and your app. You need to make sure your app has no security holes, practice filtering all data, SQL, and review security logs frequently.
However if you're only responsible for the frontend part of the site I wouldn't worry about it but would bring up concerns of security with the main developer for the backend.
One of the concerns is that https traffic could be blocked, for example on Apple computers if you set parental control on it blocks https traffic because it can't read the encrypted content, you can read here:
http://support.apple.com/kb/ht2900
https note: For websites that use SSL
encryption (the URL will usually begin
with https), the Internet content
filter is unable to examine the
encrypted content of the page. For
this reason, encrypted websites must
be explicitly allowed using the Always
Allow list. Encrypted websites that
are not on the Always Allow list will
be blocked by the automatic Internet
content filter.
An important "pro" for more https at your site is the following:
a user connecting thru an unencrypted WiFi, like at an airport, can give their password in https, but if the site then switches back to http after the password page, the session cookie becomes exposed and can be immediately used by an eavesdropper.
See this article http://steve.grc.com/2010/10/28/why-firesheeps-time-has-come/#comment-2666