Assuming I've securely exchanged keys with another computer (using Diffie-Hellman perhaps), here's my tentative solution:
packet number + encrypted data + message authentication code (MAC)
The packet number is an incrementally-increased number starting at 0. After that is the encrypted data itself, followed by a MAC of them both. If someone attempts a MITM attack, the MAC should fail to compute. If they attempt a replay attack, the recipient will notice it has already received that packet number.
Is there any flaw in my reasoning here?
Assuming I've securely exchanged keys with another computer (using Diffie-Hellman perhaps)
This is where you face the biggest danger - if the man-in-the-middle manages to control the key exchange (for example, by establishing one key with the client and itself, and establishing another key with server and itself), then the MITM can decrypt (and re-encrypt) everything. Once you've established the secure key exchange, you should be invulnerable to the MITM attack. But the hard part is ensuring that the key exchange is truly secure.
Consult Practical Cryptography (or at Amazon) by Ferguson and Schneier for information about this.
You're not describing a man in the middle attack, but a replay attack.
With a MITM attack the key exchange is intercepted and you say that you already have exchanged keys securely - so it is not the problem.
Replay attacks are easy enough to mitigate against, you include a unique message ID and then check it for uniqueness on the receiving side. Generally each message has an expiry date and time so you don't need to keep an ever growing list of message IDs to validate.
Your approach for protecting against replay attacks seems reasonable to me. You are essentially describing a method called timestamping. Your packet number is a "virtual time" that is used by the recipient to verify that the message was not sent before.
Once the keys have been exchanged then the data cannot be intercepted or spoofed by a third party. (Except when your packet # counter loops. Hypothetically packets from the old window could be replayed as being from the new window.) The solution to this problem is timestamping (as others have mentioned.) Again, though, this can be sabotaged if the attacker is able to compromise in some way the system time. (If they are a man in the middle, they could hypothetically imitate an NTP server and in that way modify a client's system time.)
What an eavesdropper COULD do however is to insert himself between the two parties and disrupt the channel. This would likely cause a new key exchange to occur which could be observed. In order to make key exchange truly secure, you must use 3rd party validation or a pre shared key which only the two communicators know.
Related
As far as encryption protocols go, Whisper Systems has the gold standard - but ultimately, if you had complete access to the server, couldn't you just intercept the very first exchange (of keys) and create a man-in-the-middle receiver and sender to both parties?
After keys have been exchanged, then all future exchanges sent to the server are encrypted (and so interception at that point is not a major concern) - but my question is really about that first key exchange: Isn't that an inescapable vulnerability for anything passing through external equipment (short of meeting people and confirming keys in person)?
I am pretty new in this kind of things.
I have a local area network, accessed by some users via cable some and via wifi others.
I have developed a local application in php which receives only some of the LAN clients as authentic users; they can be identified by the system with an algorithm of key exchange similar to Diffie–Hellman's, to estabilish a secret key. The client then asks to be identified throug such a channel.
The problem is, MITM attack is possible in this kind of situation. I read wikipedia about how such an attack is executed: somebody listens the messages of the two, and puts himself between them creating two different secret keys for the client and server.
This attack is reality, so it must be possible; but I do not understand how it happens in a LAN:
the attacker can listen to the messages, and inject message of his own, impersoning the two subjects of the communications by forging https' IP fields if necessary...
But he can't prevent the original unforged message to reach, concurrently (but also later, because of forging process taking the attacker computer some time) with his malevolent forged one, the recipient! Especially in a wifi connection, which cannot be cut off for a single user, for example cutting his cable.
So, client and server receive two different http requests from each other, a true and a forged one; isn't this a way for them to recognize that such an attack is in progress?
Maybe this question is newby-ous; as I said, I am pretty new at this.
I think that is a scenario where you would use a digital signature (which also uses the idea that asymmetric encryption/Diffie-Hellman uses, that is "public and private key") to sign your messages.
The MITM attacker can not forge a message with a bad "from" and then sign it with the private signature of the original sender. The recipient uses the public part of the signature/certificate to validate the message. So that way he will not only know he is being attacked but also which message is genuine.
I'm in the designing stages of a custom tcp/ip protocol for mobile client-server communication. When not required (data is not sensitive), I'd like to avoid using SSL for overhead reasons (both in handshake latency and conserving cycles).
My question is, what is the best practices way of transmitting authentication information over an unencrypted connection?
Currently, I'm liking SRP or J-PAKE (they generate secure session tokens, are hash/salt friendly, and allow kicking into TLS when necessary), which I believe are both implemented in OpenSSL. However, I am a bit wary since I don't see many people using these algorithms for this purpose. Would also appreciate pointers to any materials discussing this topic in general, since I had trouble finding any.
Edit
Perhaps the question should have been: is there a best practices approach for secure passwords over unencrypted tcp/ip? If not, what are the reasons for selecting a particular method over others? (The Rooks answer is closest in spirit to this question so far, even if it does violate the letter).
Edit, part deux
I'm primarily interested in the case of client-server authentication, where there is an expectation that both parties have a shared secret (password) a priori.
You should have a look at "Diffie-Hellman key exchange":
Diffie–Hellman key exchange (D–H) is a cryptographic protocol that allows two parties that have no prior knowledge of each other to jointly establish a shared secret key over an insecure communications channel. This key can then be used to encrypt subsequent communications using a symmetric key cipher.
Once you have exchanged a key, you can encrypt your password with this key and transmit it over the insecure protocol.
I still think that SSL is by far your best choice, after all why reinvent the wheal when so much can go wrong? You don't have to buy an expensive certificate if your have a list of "good" and "bad" (compromised) certificates. openSSL is completely free, and i don't see a good reason not to use it.
Some things you might not know: ssl handshakes can be resumed.
Also you can use SSL/TLS over UDP to reduce overhead its called DTLS.
You could use a challenge-response algorithm. The algorithm goes like this:
The server sends a random string to the client.
The client combines this string with the password (by combining, you can xor them or just append them).
The client calculates a hash (for example, SHA1) of the result, and sends it to the server.
The server calculates the same hash using this random number and the real password.
The server compares the two hashes.
Since you shouldn't store a password in plain text, but as a hash instead, the client should calculate this hash at the very beginning.
There are possibly several libraries implementing this, so you probably don't need to code it yourself.
Is there any brief explanation for IP security? And Why do we use it?
If you mean IPsec It encrypts network traffic at the IP packet level. You use it to prevent other people -- in general -- from extracting the data travelling through your network -- especially sensitive data that is meant to be encrypted, however the application in question doesn't support encryption.
Encryption is just one aspect of security. Sometimes, you don't really care if the data can be read by anyone --- you just want to ensure that no one has tampered with it. In this case, the sender can use IP security (IPSec) to just integrity protect the data. The data is now tamper-evident: that is, any attempt to tamper with the data will be discovered by the receiver as integrity verification will fail. In this case NULL algo for encryption (i.e. no encryption) and SHA1 algo for integrity will be used.
Also, note that encryption without integrity protection is not very useful as an attacker can tamper with the data and the receiver won't be able to discover it. You may have to use application level checks to discover tampering and this is not foolproof.
IPSec also gives you protection against replay attacks: an attacker will not be able to capture the packets and replay them back later in an attempt to impersonate the sender.
So, use integrity protection alone (if the data is not sensitive) or integrity plus encryption.
I'm using RSA to encrypt communication between a server and a client.
Lets say we have 2 Asymetric keys, key 1 and key2.
The server has key1 (Private) from the start and the client has the key1(public)
So here is the scenario:
the client generates key2
client connects to the server
sending key2(public) encrypted with key1(public)
from now on the server will send all data encrypted with the key2(public)
the client sends some random data to the server
the server sends back the same data hashed
the client verifies that the data is right
As far as I can see this should prevent a man-in-the-middle attack, or am I missing something?
At point 7 the client should know if someone is trying to give the server the wrong key to encrypt with, as no one else but the server can decrypt key2(public).
If there is anything that can be done to improve the security please tell me.
The best thing you can do to improve the security is to use an existing design and not try to reinvent the wheel. I'm not saying that what you've done is necessarily wrong, but just that many people much smarter than you and me have spent a lot of time thinking about this problem. Use TLS instead.
As long as key1 (private) has not been intercepted somehow by a third-party, your scenario looks secure.
I think I saw this somewhere in a paper actually. In it, Alice gave Bob an unlocked box (key 1 public), then Bob put a bunch of his own boxes (key 2 public) in it, locks it and sends it back to Alice. Alice then opens the box(key 1 private), and now she can securely seal the boxes that Bob just gave her.
Despite the box analogy, that's essentially what you're doing, so I'd say its secure.
I agree, just use TLS.
Also, what value do steps 5 through 7 provide? A MITM wanting to do an attack that would work after steps 1-4 (e.g. DoS of some sort by passing n transactions through and then stopping, forcing a retry from the start) could do so just as well after 5-7. What do they add?
-- MarkusQ
No, this protocol is not safe.
A man-in-the-middle can intercept the data sent by the client and send whatever it wants to the server, since you haven't specified any mechanism for the server to authenticate the client or verify the integrity of messages it receives.
Sure, you could doctor up your protocol to fix these glaring problems, but there would be others. If you ever fix them all, you'd have something that maps to TLS or SSH, so why not just start there?
#Petoj—the problem I was focusing on was that of the server trusting the messages it receives; your proposal doesn't provide any security there. However, if you are worried about confidentiality, you still have a problem, because the MITM could pass messages back and forth unaltered until he sees what wants to find because you don't have any privacy on the client messages.
Your proposal seems to be aimed at ensuring the integrity of messages from the client. You've developed the protocol to the point where the client can't distinguish between an attack and a network failure. Rather than trying to help the client determine whether the server acted on a tampered message, allow the server to verify the integrity of the message before acting on it.
I will agree with Greg that you are reinventing the wheel. What you are essentially describing is some basic form of key exchange. Incidentally, in order to ensure that it is secure against man-in-the-middle attacks you must also be certain of the server's identity, i.e. ensure that the client can know with certainty that what it believes to be public(key1) really is the server's and not the man-in-the-middle's (e.g. using a CA or having the server's public(key1) in secure storage on the client side.)
Moreover, there are additional considerations you must be aware from a systems standpoint, such as:
asymmetric key encryption is slower than symmetric key encryption, which is one of the reasons why existing solutions such as TLS will use asymmetric key encryption only to negotiate a temporary symmetric key, which is then used for channel encryption.
if traffic analysis by a third-party succeeds in cracking a temporary symmetric key, you have not compromised you asymmetric key pair. You are encouraged to re-negotiate the temporary key relatively often for this reason. Arguably, generating a new key2 in your scenario would mitigate this aspect.