I am looking for something like https, but backwards. The user generates their own private key (in advance) and then (only later) provides the web application with the associated public key. This part of the exchange should (if necessary) occur out-of-band. Communication is then encrypted/decrypted with these keys.
I've thought of some strange JavaScript approaches to implement this (From the client perspective: form submissions are encrypted on their way out while (on ajax response) web content is decrypted. I recognize this is horrible, but you can't deny that it would be a fun hack. However, I wondered if there was already something out there... something commonly implemented in browsers and web/application servers.
Primarily this is to address compromised security when (unknowingly) communicating through a rogue access point that may be intercepting https connections and issuing its own certificates. Recently (in my own network) I recreated this and (with due horror) soon saw my gmail password in plain text! I have a web application going that only I and a few others use, but where security (from a learning stand point) needs to be top notch.
I should add, the solution does not need to be practical
Also, if there is something intrinsically wrong with my thought process, I would greatly appreciate it if someone set me on the right track or directed me to the proper literature. Science is not about finding better answers; science is about forming better questions.
Thank you for your time,
O∴D
This is already done. They're called TLS client certificates. SSL doesn't have to be one-way; it can be two-party mutual authentication.
What you do is have the client generate a private key. The client then sends a CSR (Certificate Signing Request) to the server, who signs the public key therein and returns it to the client. The private key is never sent over the network. If the AP intercepts and modifies the key, the client will know.
However, this does not stop a rogue AP from requesting a certificate on behalf of a client. You need an out-of-band channel to verify identity. There is no way to stop a man in the middle from impersonating a client without some way to get around that MITM.
If a rogue access point can sniff packets, it can also change packets (an ‘active’ man-in-the-middle attack). So any security measure a client-side script could possibly provide would be easily circumvented by nobbling the script itself on the way to the client.
HTTPS—and the unauthorised-certificate warning you get when a MitM is trying to fool you—is as good as it gets.
SSL and there for HTTPS allows for client certificates. on the server side you can use these environment variables to verify a certificate. If you only have 1 server and a bunch of clients then a full PKI isn't necessary. Instead you can have a list of valid client certificates in the database. Here is more info on the topic.
Implementing anything like this in JavaScript is a bad idea.
I don't see, why you are using assymetric encryption here. For one, it is slow, and secondly, it is vulnerable to man in the middle anyhow.
Usually, you use an asymmetric encryption to have a relatively secure session negotiation, including an exchange of keys for a symmetric encryption, valid for the session.
Since you use a secure channel for the negociation, I don't really understand why you even send around public keys, which themselves are only valid for one session.
Asymmetric encryption makes sense, if you have shared secret, that allows verifying a public key. Having this shared secret is signifficantly easier, if you don't change the key for every session, and if the key is generated in a central place (i.e. the server and not for all clients).
Also, as the rook already pointed out, JavaScript is a bad idea. You have to write everything from scratch, starting with basic arithmetic operations, since Number won't get you very far, if you want to work with keys in an order of magnitude, that provides reasonable security.
greetz
back2dos
Related
I'm building a desktop application that connects to a web server and communicates through a socket-based API. I want to ensure I only talk to my application, and not any third party hacker. Communication is encrypted over https. In addition, a private/public key pair are used for authentication. Basically the time, private, and public key are hashed together and sent to the server with the current time and public key to the server.
I'm concerned that if others reverse engineer the application, they will discover the hashing function, connecting url, and private key, as normally strings are stored in clear text in compiled applications.
I have two thoughts to mitigate this:
Create a function that generates the application-specific private key using a series of mathematical operations
Create a complex (long) secret and then take some modulo of that secret to send to the server (like the Diffie–Hellman key exchange algorithm).
Am I on the right track? How do I keep the secret key secret?
Encryption is not the correct solution. No matter how well you hide the implementation, a determined attacker with a sufficient amount of time can reverse-engineer it.
At the very least, an attacker can determine where the encryption/hashing is done and dump the memory of the process right before that to examine the secrets in plaintext.
Your best bet would be to a) obfuscate the code and add anti-debugging defenses (not perfect, but it will discourage script kiddies and slow down determined attackers) and b) hardening as much as you can server-side
Basically, you can never rely on the client because you don't control it. Your best bet is to make sure any critical processing is done server-side so a custom client can't do anything malicious.
For example, if you were making a multiplayer chess game, you'd want the client to just submit basic actions (a move) and you'd track board state on the server. It doesn't matter if the client is hacked because if an illegal action is submitted, you just return an error.
Are there any protocols which would allow 2 visitors to communicate securely through my website, without the possibility of me reading their messages?
Ask Google for End-to-End encryption like PGP/GPG. For a client-side browser-based implementation you might want to check out GPG encryption in JavaScript.
I just googled it and cannot tell if its really secure (not sending your private key to anyone). I just want to give you a point to start with.
EDIT: Looks like it does send the clients private key to your server to perform a server-based encryption. This is not what you want. But I am sure that a JavaScript implementation of GPG is possible even though I don't know if somebody has done it yet.
Yes; for example, this is what would happen if your server was a link in a communication protected by SSL/TLS.
The participants use a public-key encryption scheme to agree upon a secret, symmetric key; that is then used to encrypt their communication.
It's also possible for the participants to simply encrypt their messages with the public key of the intended receiver. That way, only the intended receiver can decrypt the message. This is not a very advanced scheme and probably vulnerable. (Among others, if an eavesdropper can guess exactly what is sent, he can encrypt that message with the intended recipient's public key and see if the result matches with what is being sent).
There is a lot of literature available on cryptographic protocols; for starters, here's a Wikipedia article on Key Agreement Protocols.
If we're talking about not possible then the second part to S.L. Barth's answer will achieve this with the exception that the key exchange must be done by some other means. This can be the phone or email or even another website but if it's done via your website then it's open to a man-in-the-middle attack. You can tell your users to do this, you just can't actually help them do it.
There is probably a javascript library somewhere that will implement GPG encryption so that all you have to do is make sure that every message is encrypted in the browser before it's sent to your web server. You can store the messages as long as you like, they're encrypted. Only the user with the correct private key will be able to decrypt it.
SSL and TLS as they are used by websites everywhere are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks. The reason we don't hear much about these sorts of attacks is that most of the people in the middle are trustworthy so the attacks simply don't happen. The recent revoking of the CA certificates of DigiNotar and others was precisely because the Iranian Government were caught acting as a man-in-the-middle and decrypting their own citizen's SSL traffic.
If you're happy with preventing casual snooping by curious sysadmins, the key exchange can be done through your website as well.
One more thing: Security is hard.
Even if you do this with well-known encryption techniques, the chances of there being a flaw in the implementation will be very close to 1. This doesn't mean that those curious sysadmins will be able to accidentally read messages but it does mean that a determined and skilled adversary will be able to find a way in. As soon as you can afford it you should hire an expert to redesign or at the very least examine your protocol and implementation.
In general, such a secure link between your users without you being able to read and/or modify their messages is only possible if they have some way of identifying each other (or at least in one direction).
This might be a shared secret (like a passphrase) or a public key known to one (or certified by a CA known to one), where the other one has the corresponding private key.
On this one can build a secure protocol (using a key exchange and then symmetric encryption with MACs in both directions), like TLS does. (Another way, used often for instant messaging, is OTR, the Off-the-Record messaging protocol.)
Without a way to identify the other end point, you end up with a way of allowing man-in-the-middle attacks. SSL/TLS without certificates, or with certificates where the man-in-the-middle knows the corresponding private key, is insecure, as is every other similar encryption scheme.
Another issue is that you said visitors of my website. This looks like you would implement client-side cryptography in JavaScript, delivered from your website. Don't do this ... if the visitors do not trust you not to read their data, they also should not trust you to feed them non-malicious JavaScript, which might implement something else than you are claiming it does, again allowing a MITM, or even directly sending a copy of the data to you.
More details about this are discussed in Javascript Cryptography Considered Harmful (from a slightly different perspective).
I'm designing a web service that clients connect to in order to retrieve some private data. Each client has a unique ID and a secret key (generated by the server) that are sent as parameters to the web service in order to authenticate itself. In addition, all communications are done over HTTPS.
I'm also planning to use HMAC-SHA256, in order to avoid sending the secret key over the wire.
However, I'm wondering whether this is strictly necessary. Since HTTPS gives me a secure channel between client and server, why would I really mind sending the secret key over that channel?
The only reason I managed to come up with is that an unknowledgeable developer might add a service in the future and not reject non-HTTPS connections, so hashing the secret key is a sort of insurance against the realities of corporate software development, an extra line of defense if you will.
Am I missing something more significant? Is this a real vulnerability that some attack vector could take advantage of?
An attacker installs a fake trusted certificate into a browser and hijacks the session.
A link to your site is sent, but the redirection to SSL is intercepted and a non-SSL session commences.
There are others, but the story is this: SSL is complicated and often attacked in inventive ways. If your connection is secure, then the hashing has little value compared to the complexity in code for humans and the cost in cpu time. However, if the SSL session is compromised, then you've still saved your key. Much as we hash passwords in databases despite the fact that nobody undesirable should have access, hashing your key despite SSL would be wise.
The channel may be secure, but that doesn't tell you anything about endpoints: depending on the browser in question (and its plugins/extensions/...), your key could very well end up in a disk-based cache somewhere on the user's computer, and it could sit there until the end of forever.
That is not a very interesting vulnerability ... until you realize that various malware already goes trawling through the disks, looking for anything valuable - and with the current rates, some of your users will be infected (unless your website only has twenty users ;)).
So: don't throw away a pretty powerful crypto mechanism to save a few CPU cycles; that's a potentially dangerous microoptimization IMNSHO.
Despite all the advices to use SSL/https/etc. I decided to implement my own security layer on top of http for my application... The concept works as follows:
User registers -> a new RSA Keypair is generated
the Private Key gets encrypted with AES using the users login Password
(which the server doesnt know - it has only the sha256 for authentication...)
Server stores the hash of the users password
and the Encrypted Private Key and Public Key
User logs in -> authenticates with nickname+password hash
(normal nick/password -> IP-bound sessionid authentication)
Server replies: sessionid, the Encrypted RSA Private Key
and an Encrypted randomly generated Session Communication Password
Client decrypts the RSA Private Key with the users Password
Client decrypts the Session Communication Password with the RSA Private Key
---> From this point on the whole traffic gets AES-encrypted
using that Session Password
I found no hole in that chain - neither the private key nor the login password get ever sent to the server as plaintext (I make no use of cookies, to exclude the possibility of the HTTP Cookie header to contain sensitive information)... but I am biased, so I ask - does my security implementation provide enough... security?
Why does everyone have to come up with their secure transport layer? What makes you think you've got something better than SSL or TLS? I simply do not understand the motivation to re-invent the wheel, which is a particularly dangerous thing to do when it comes to cryptography. HTTPS is a complex beast and it actually does a lot of work.
Remember, HTTPS also involves authentication (eg: being able to know you are actually talking to who you think you are talking to), which is why there exists a PKI and browsers are shipped with Root CA's. This is simply extremely difficult (if not impossible) to re-invent and prone to security holes. To answer you question, how are you defending against MITM attacks?
TLDR: Don't do it. SSL/TLS work just fine.
/endrant.
I'm not a crypto or security expert by any means, but I do see one serious flaw:
There is no way the client can know that it is running the right crypto code. With SSL/TLS there is an agreed upon standard that both your browser vendor and the server software vendor have implemented. You do not need to tell the browser how SSL works, it comes built in, and you can trust that it works correctly and safely. But, in your case, the browser only learns about the correct protocol by receiving plain-text JavaScript from your server.
This means that you can never trust that the client is actually running the correct crypto code. Any man-in-the-middle could deliver JavaScript that behaves identically to the script you normally serve, except that it sends all the decrypted messages to the attacker's servers. And there's no way for the client to protect against this.
That's the biggest flaw, and I suspect it's a fatal flaw for your solution. I don't see a way around this. As long as your system relies on delivering your crypto code to the client, you'll always be susceptible to man-in-the-middle attacks. Unless, of course, you delivered that code over SSL :)
It looks like you've made more complexity than is needed, as far as "home-grown" is concerned. Specifically, I see no need to involve assymetric keys. If the server already knows the user's hashed password, then just have the client generate a session id rolled into a message digest (symmetrically) encrypted via the client's hashed password.
The best an attacker might do is sniff that initial traffic, and attempt a reply attack...but the attacker would not understand the server's response.
Keep in mind, if you don't use TLS/SSL, then you won't get hardware-accelerated encryption (it will be slower, probably noticeably so).
You should also consider using HMAC, with the twist of simply using the user's password as the crypto key.
SSL/TLS provide transport layer security and what you've done does nothing but do that all over again for only the authorization process. You'd be better served to focus on authorization techniques like client certificates than to add an additional layer of line-level encryption. There's a number of things you could also introduce that you haven't mentioned such as encrypted columns in SQL Server 2008, IPSec, layer 4 & 7 hardware solutions and even setting up trusts between the server and client firewalls. My biggest concern is how you've created such a deep dependency on the username and password, both which can change over time in any system.
I would highly recommend that you reconsider using this approach and look to rely on more standard techniques for ensuring that credentials are never stored unencrypted on the server or passed in the clear from the client.
While I would also advocate the use of SSL/TLS for this sort of thing, there is nothing wrong with going re-inventing the wheel; it leads to innovation, such as the stack exchange series of websites.
I think your security model is quite sufficient and rather intelligent, although what are you using on the client-side? I'm assuming javascript since you tagged this post with 'web-development'? Or are you using this to communicate with a plug-in of sorts? How much overhead does your implementation produce?
Some areas of concern:
-How are you handling initial communication, such as: user login, registration?
-What about man-in-the-middle attacks (assuring the client that it is talking to the authorized server)?
The major problem you have is that your client crypto code is delivered as Javascript over unauthenticated HTTP.
This gives the Man-In-The-Middle plenty of options. He can modify the code so that it still authenticates with your server, but also sends the password / private key / plaintext of the conversation to him.
Javascript encryption can be enough when your adversary is an eavesdropper that can see your traffic but not modify it.
Please note that I am not referring to your specific idea (which I did not take the time to fully understand) but to the general concept of Javascript encryption.
I currently have a roll-your-own application security service that runs in my enterprise and is - for the most part - meeting business needs.
The issue that I currently face is that the service has traditionally (naively) relied on the user's source IP remaining constant as a hedge against session hijacking - the web applications in the enterprise are not directly available to the public and it was in the past perfectly acceptable for me to require that a users' address remain constant throughout a given session.
Unfortunately this is no longer the case and I am therefore forced to switch to a solution that does not rely on the source IP. I would much prefer to implement a solution that actually accomplishes the original designer's intent (i.e. preventing session hijacking).
My research so far has turned up this, which essentially says "salt your authentication token hash with the SSL session key."
On the face of it, this seems like a perfect solution, however I am left with a nagging suspicion that real-world implementation of this scheme is impractical due to the possibility that the client and server can at any time - effectively arbitrarily - opt to re-negotiate the SSL session and therefore change the key.
this is the scenario I am envisioning:
SSL session established and key agreed upon.
Client authenticates to server at the application level (i.e. via username and password).
Server writes a secure cookie that includes SSL session key.
Something occurs that causes a session re-negotiation. For example, I think IE does this on a timer with or without a reason.
Client submits a request to the server containing the old session key (since there was no application level knowledge of the re-negotiation there was no opportunity for a new, updated hash to be written to the client).
Server rejects client's credential due to hash match failure, etc.
Is this a real issue or is this a misapprehension on my part due to a (to say the least) less-than-perfect understanding of how SSL works?
See all topics related to SSL persistence. This is a well-researched issue in the load-balancer world.
The short answer is: you cannot rely on the SSLID -- most browsers renegotiate, and you still have to use the source IP. If the IP address is likely to change mid-session then you can force a soft-reauthentication, or use the SSLID as a bridge between the two IP changes (and vice-versa, i.e. only assume hijacking if both IP address and SSLID change at the same time, as seen by the server.)
2014 UPDATE
Just force the use of https and make sure that that you are not vulnerable to session fixation or to CRIME. Do not bother to salt your auth token with any client-side information because if an attacker was able to obtain the token (provided that said token was not just trivial to guess) then whatever means were used to obtain it (e.g. cross-site scripting, or the full compromising of the client system) will also allow the attacker to easily obtain any client-side information that might have gone into the token (and replicate those on a secondary system if needed).
If the client is likely to be connecting from only a few systems, then you could generate an RSA keypair in the browser for possibly every new client system the client connects from (where the public part is submitted to your server and the private part remains in what is hopefully secure client storage) and redirect to a virtual host that uses two-way (peer/client certificate) verification in lieu of password-based authentication.
I am wondering why it would not be just enough to simply
require ssl in your transport
encode inputs (html/url/attribute) to prevent cross-site scripting
require only POSTs for all requests that change information and
prevent CSRF as best you can (depending on what your platform supports).
Set your cookies to HTTPOnly
Yes, but there are several things you can do about it. The easiest it to simply cache the session key(s) you use as salt (per user), and accept any of them. Even if the session is renegotiated you'll still have it in your cache. There are details--expiration policy, etc.--but nothing insurmountable unless you are running something that needs to be milspec hardened, in which case you shouldn't be doing it this way in the first place.
-- MarkusQ