Lets say that in a browser based game, completing some action (for simplicity lets say someone clicks on a link that increases their score by 100) clicking on this link which would have a url for example increase_score.pl?amount=100 what kind of prevention is there from someone simply sending requests to the web server to execute this command:
Over and over again without actually doing the task of clicking on the link and
Sending a false request to the server where amount is set to something rediculus like 100000.
I am aware of checking HTTP_REFERER however I know people can get around that (not sure how exactly) and other than some bounds checking for the 2nd option I'm kind of stumped. Anyone ever experience similar problems? Solutions?
Nothing can stop them from doing this if you implement your game how you propose.
You need to implement game logic on the server and assign points only once the server validates the action.
For example: on SO when someone votes your question up, this isn't sent as a command to increase your reputation. The web-app just says to the server user X voted question Y up. The server then validates the data and assigns the points if everything checks out. (Not to say SO is a game, but the logic required is similar.)
Short version: you can't. Every piece of data you get from the client (browser) can be manually spoofed by somebody who knows what they're doing.
You need to fundamentally re-think how the application is structured. You need to code the server side of the app in such a way that it treats every piece of data coming from the client as a pack of filthy filthy lies until it can prove to itself that the data is, in fact, plausible. You need to avoid giving the server a mindset of "If the client tells me to do this, clearly it was allowed to tell me to do this."
WRONG WAY:
Client: Player Steve says to give Player Steve one gazillion points.
Server: Okay!
RIGHT WAY:
Client: Player Steve says to give Player Steve one gazillion points.
Server: Well, let me first check to see if Player Steve is, at this moment in time, allowed to give himself one gazillion points ... ah. He isn't. Please display this "Go Fsck Yourself, Cheater" message to Player Steve.
As for telling who's logged-in, that's a simple matter of handing the client a cookie with a damn-near-impossible-to-guess value that you keep track of on the server -- but I'll assume you know how to deal with session management. :-) (And if you don't, Google awaits.)
The logic of the game (application) should be based on the rule to not trust anything that comes from the user.
HTTP_REFERER can be spoofed with any web client.
Token with cookie/session.
You could make the link dynamic and have a hash that changed at the end of it. Verify that the hash is correct given that period of time.
This would vary in complexity depending on how often you allowed clicks.
A few things to note here.
First, your server requests for something like this should be POST, not GET. Only GET requests should be idempotent, and not doing so is actually a violation of the HTTP specification.
Secondly, what you're looking at here is the classic Client Trust Problem. You have to trust the client to send scores or other game-interval information to the server, but you don't want the client to send illegitimate data. Preventing disallowed actions is easy - but preventing foul-play data in an allowed action is much more problematic.
Ben S makes a great point about how you design the communication protocols between a client and a server like this. Allowing point values to be sent as trusted data is generally going to be a bad idea. It's preferable to indicate that an action took place, and let the server figoure out how many points should be assigned, if at all. But sometimes you can't get around that. Consider the scenario of a racing game. The client has to send the user's time and it can't be abstracted away into some other call like "completedLevelFour". So what do you do now?
The token approach that Ahmet and Dean suggest is sound - but it's not perfect. Firstly, the token still has to be transmitted to the client, which means it's discoverable by the potential attacker and could be used maliciously. Also, what if your game API needs to be stateless? That means session-based token authentication is out. And now you get into the deep, dark bowels of the Client Trust Problem.
There's very little you can do make it 100% foolproof. But you can make it very inconvenient to cheat. Consider Facebook's security model (every API request is signed). This is pretty good and requires the attacker to actually dig into your client side code before they can figure out how to spoof a reqeust.
Another approach is server replay. Like for a racing game, instead of just having a "time" value sent to the server, have checkpoints that also record time and send them all. Establish realistic minimums for each interval and verify on the server that all this data is within the established bounds.
Good luck!
It sounds like one component of your game would need request throttling. Basically, you keep track of how fast a particular client is accessing your site and you start to slow down your responses to that client when their rate exceeds what you think is reasonable. There are various levels of that, starting at the low-level IP filters up to something you handle in the web server. For instance, Stackoverflow has a bit in the web application that catches what it thinks are too many edits too close together. It redirects you to a captcha that you need to respond to if you want to continue.
As for the other bits, you should validate all input not just for its form (e.g. it's a number) but also that the value is reasonable (e.g. less than 100, or whatever). If you catch a client doing something funny, remember that. If you catch the same client doing something funny often, you can ban that client.
Expanding on Ahmet's response, every time they load a page, generate a random key. Store the key in the user session. Add the random key to every link, so that the new link to get those 100 points is:
increase_score.pl?amount=100&token=AF32Z90
When every link is clicked, check to make sure the token matches the one in the session, and then make a new key and store it in the session. One new random key for every time they make a request.
If they give you the wrong key, they're trying to reload a page.
I would suggest making a URL specific to each action. Something along the lines of:
/score/link_88_clicked/
/score/link_69_clicked/
/score/link_42_clicked/
Each of these links can do two things:
Mark in the session that the link has been clicked so that it wont track that link again.
Add to their score.
If you want the game to only run on your server, you can also detect where the signal is sent from in your recieving trick, and ignore anything not coming from your domain. It will be a real pain to tamper with your codes, if you have to run from your dedicated domain to submit scores.
This also blocks out most of CheatEngine's tricks.
Related
A little background: I am going to be constructing a webserver, likely the most up to date version of apache when I get around to it. It is going to be updated with sensory information from a makeshift security system I have.
As a counterpart, I am designing an app to go along with it, that will automatically contact the webserver and pull the sensory information about once every 1.5 minutes.
I want to have an authentication method so that the average Bob can't see this information, mostly due to the fact that there will be some command and control as part of the server as well.
The question: I feel like a simple username and password is the wrong way to go about this since it isn't dynamic and theoretically seeing the same credentials sent that frequent could be dangerous, so is there any other authentication method that could mitigate this?
The question pt. 2: Obviously I want an encrypted channel, will https stumble over itself if it tries to renegotiate every minute and a half?
I haven't begun this project yet much less chosen any language to write it in, meaning I am super open minded to suggestions, any help is greatly appreciated.
The question: I feel like a simple username and password is the wrong
way to go about this since it isn't dynamic and theoretically seeing
the same credentials sent that frequent could be dangerous, so is
there any other authentication method that could mitigate this?
You could use Google Sign-In to allow log on via a Google account.
Or you could implement two factor authentication with say Google Authenticator or via SMS to prove that the user logging in has more than one factor of authentication. These factors could be:
Something you know (e.g. password)
Something you have (e.g. phone that provides a One Time Password)
Edit: Having re-read your question - yes you are fine to authenticate with username and password (over HTTPS), however you should then store a session identifier client-side and simply send this in future rather than the username/password each time. This is more secure as it can be stored safely client-side, and if exposed the identifier can be easily revoked.
The question pt. 2: Obviously I want an encrypted channel, will https
stumble over itself if it tries to renegotiate every minute and a half?
Nope, this is what it is designed for. Browsers will keep open an HTTPS connection for a length of time. Additionally, they will use session resumption rather than executing a full HTTPS handshake in the case that a new connection needs to be established. Session resumption is much quicker than establishing a completely new session. See this article on the CloudFlare blog for more info.
I'm in the process of adopting DDD concepts for designing our next projects, and more specifically CQRS.
After reading a LOT of stuff I'm now trying to implement a simple Proof Of Concept.
The thing is I'm stuck right after I started :p
I'm trying to apply this approach to a simple user registration process, where steps are:
User fills the registration form & submit the request
The app creates the user
The app authenticates the user (auto log in)
The app sends a verification email to the user
The app redirect the user somewhere else with a confirmation message
From an implementation point of view, what I get so far is:
The controller action maps the request data to a RegisterCommand object
The controller action asks the Command Bus to handle the RegisterCommand
The command handler (UserService) "register" method creates a new User object (whether by a new command or a factory object)
The model raises a RegisterEvent
The command handler asks the repository to store the new user object
That's it, the controller action doesn't know about any of that.
So, my guess is, since everything in this context HAS TO be done synchronously (except for the email sending), I can use a direct/synchronous command bus, and in the controller action, right after the command bus invocation, I can query for a read only User (query database) and if it exists assume that everything went well, so I can give the user a confirmation message.
The automatic log in process being handled by an Event Handler.
Assuming that this is correct, what if something goes wrong, how to inform the user with the correct information ?
A common example is often used in articles we can find over the internet: A customer pays his order by using an expired credit card. The system accepts the request, informs the user that everything is OK, but the user receives an email a few minutes later telling him that his order could not be processed.
Well, this scenario is acceptable in many cases, but for some other it is just not possible. So where are the examples dealing with these use cases ? :p
Thank you !
I think this registration use case is closer to the paying for an order use case than you think.
Most of the CQRS thought leaders suggest validating on the read side before issuing a command, thus giving your command a higher probability of success.
If the validation fails on the read side, you know how to handle this - make the user pick another name before you even send off the registration command. If validation succeeds, send the command - now you're talking probably a few hundred microseconds AT MOST where another user could've come in and taken the same username between the time you validated the command and sent it off. Highly unlikely.
And in the very rare case when that does happen, you act in the same as way as the expired credit card example - the next time the user logs in, you present them with an explanation and a form to submit a new username - or send them an email saying "hey - someone else has that username, please click here to select a new one". Why does this work? Because you have a unique ID for that user.
Look at a user registration page like Twitter. As soon as you enter a username, it does a little Ajax call and says "nope, this is taken" or "this one is good!" That's pre-validation.
I hope this helps!
The problem with contrived examples is that you can change your mind about how the "domain" functions, so there's little use in discussing this example in particular. The basic premise you seem to forego is that we must assume that things are just going to work. Everything else is about risk and mitigating it. Taking this example, if I ask you, what if I lost 1 user registration in 100000? What if I lost 1 out of 10? Why would that happen? Do I have bigger problems at that point in time? Would future users be likely to register again when the system comes back online and works as expected? When would that be? What if we monitored our quality of service and prevent users from registering because we can't assure the quality they've come to associate with our brand? What if the server exploded, or the datacenter got nuked? Do we want to protect against that? You see, there is no right answer. Just various shades of grey. So how do we mitigate the risk? We could make things synchronous but that is only a guarantee at that limited point in time. What if I had to restore a backup that's 2 hours old (e.g. because the disk corrupted)? That's 2 hours of registered users lost (maybe). These things happen ... I just wanted to point out the relativity of what I consider a false sense of security. Mitigate it, invest in what you can't afford to lose, make sure you have a good audit trail. Probably not the answer you were looking for ...
I want to create a portal website for log-in, news and user management. And another web site for a web app that the portal redirects to after login.
One of my goals is to be able to host the portal and web-app on different servers. The portal would transmit the user's id to the web-app, once the user had successfully logged in and been redirected to the web app. But I don't want people to be able to just bypass the login, or access other users accounts, by transmitting user ids straight to the web app.
My first thought is to transmit the user id encrypted as a post variable or query string value. Using some kind of public/private key scenario, and adding a DateTime stamp to key to make it vary everytime.
But I haven't done this kind of thing before, so I'm wondering if there aren't better ways to do this.
(I could potentially communicate via database, by having the portal store the user id with a key in a database and passing that key to the web app which uses it to get the user id from that database. But that seems crazy.)
Can anyone give a way to do this or advice? Or is this a bad idea all-together?
Thanks for your time.
Basically, you are asking for a single-sign-on solution. What you describe sounds a lot like SAML, although SAML is a bit more advanced ;-)
It depends on how secure you want this entire thing to be. Generating an encrypted token with embedded timestamp still leaves you open to spoofing - if somebody steals the token (i.e. through a network sniffing) he will be able to submit his own request with the stolen token. Depending on the time to live you will give your token this time can be limited, but a determined hacker will be able to do this. Besides you cannot make time to live to small - you will be rejecting valid requests.
Another approach is to generate "use once" tokens. This is 'bullet proof' in terms of spoofing, but it requires coordination among all the servers within the server farm servicing your app, so that if one of them processed the token the other ones would reject it.
To make it really secure for the failover scenarios, etc. it would require some additional steps, so it all boils down to how secure you need it to be and how much you want to invest in building it up
I suggest looking at SAML
PGP would work but it might get slow on a high-traffic site
One thing I've done in the past is used a shared secret method. Some token that only myself and the other website operator knows concatenated to something identifying the user (like their user name), then hash that with a checksum algorithm such as SHA256 (you can use MD5 or SHA1 which usually are more available but they are much easier to break)
The other end should do the same thing as above. Take the passed identifying information and checksum it. Compare that to the passed checksum, if they match the login is valid.
For added security you could also concat the date or some other rotating key. Helps to run SSL on both sides as well.
In general, the answer resides somewhere in SHA256 / MD5 / SHA1 plus shared secret based on human actually has to think. If there is money somewhere, we may assume there are no limits to what some persons will do - I ran with [ a person ] in High School for a few months to observe what those ilks will do in practice. After a few months, I learned not to be running with those kind. Tediously avoiding work, suddenly at 4 AM on Saturday Morning the level of effort and analytical functioning could only be described as "Expertise" ( note capitalization ) There has to be a solution else sites like Google and this one would not stand the chance of a dandelion in lightning bolt.
There is a study in the mathematical works of cryptography whereby an institution ( with reputable goals ) can issue information - digital cash - that can exist on the open wire but does not reveal any information. Who would break them? My experience with [ person ]
shows that it is a study in socialization, depends on who you want to run with. What's the defense against sniffers if the code is already available more easily just using a browser?
<form type="hidden" value="myreallysecretid">
vis a vis
<form type="hidden" value="weoi938389wiwdfu0789we394">
So which one is valuable against attack? Neither, if someone wants to snag some Snake Oil from you, maybe you get the 2:59 am phone call that begins: "I'm an investor, we sunk thousands into your website. I just got a call from our security pro ....." all you can do to prepare for that moment is use established, known tools like SHA - of which the 256 variety is the acknowledged "next thing" - and have trace controls such that the security pro can put in on insurance and bonding.
Let alone trying to find one who knows how those tools work, their first line of defense is not talking to you ... then they have their own literature - they will want you to use their tools.
Then you don't get to code anything.
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'm in charge of an app that uses the internet to transfer data between sites, and some customers are being awkward about paying, so we need a mechanism that will allow us to cut off the service of non-payers. I'd like to protect against the admin people using firewalls to block off our checks, but conversely I'd like to give some allowance for our company web site disappearing for some reason and not being accessible.
The scheme I'm imagining is:
server makes twice daily check to web page using a URL like:
http://www.ourcompany.com/check.php?myID=GUID&Code=MyCode
This then returns a response that contains either nothing of interest, or the GUID and a value.
GUID=0
That zero indicates that the server should stop operation. To make it work again, the server will check every 5 mins for the same info, until the value matches what it thinks the code that it passed in should be transformed to.
This scheme makes sense to me, but the question really is how to protect against blocking. Given we know we must have internet access, how long should we continue to operate without being able to get the response from our web server? Is something like 14 days and then we just shut it off anyway the best way?
The solution I used in the end was pretty much as I suggested. Yes, it is defeatable using tools outlined here, but it is better than nothing.
The app checks daily to access a web site that contains a control file encrypted using public key encryption. It decrypts in memory, and if it finds its GUID, then it must match a code. To disable the operation, the code is set to 0 (zero) which will always fail. When disabled, it checks every two minutes to allow rapid restoration. There is also a manual mechanism to generate a code that will work for a week in case of server trouble.
The code will allow up to 14 days without connecting to the server before it takes this as a deliberate attempt to block it. After 10 days, it shows an error message which asks them to contact support.
This method is really easy to circumvent: just use a local dns server to point www.ourcompany.com to the local machine, or use a http proxy. Then the user can return whatever response they want to the program.
Assuming the user hasn't circumvented the check, how long you are to continue to operate without confirmation is a business decision and not a programming decision.
A user can use a tool such as OWASP WebScarab to change values on the fly to subvert your security model. You need to include something more difficult such as requiring a secure channel, comparing public key and so on.