What are some good suggestions or resources to look at to help me secure a single click URL based authentication?
Essentially, the situation is a third party system which accepts an HTTPS request, through the browser, where you supply authentication information (un, pw, authkey, etc...). The service then, upon authenticating the provided credentials, will allow or deny login access. The point being, that if someone clicks on the link, they're automatically granted access to this third party system.
Currently, there isn't a whole lot of security surrounding the whole process, (which isn't a big deal because the product isn't in production yet) and the third party is willing to make some modifications to secure this up a bit.
I've already determined I need to hash the information, and probably even submit it via a POST to prevent it from showing information in the browser history. But I'd like a little input on how you all would handle something like this.
[Edit: Requests are and will continue being sent via HTTPS. I also modified the HTTP previously used to be HTTPS]
Don't think about "secure this up a bit". It's either secure from the ground up, or it's got holes that will cost you dearly.
Look at HTTP Digest Authentication. It's simple, reliable and works well under most circumstances.
Look at the OWASP.org top-10 vulnerabilities. Be sure you understand and address each one.
You should probably use HTTPS to avoid the credentials being eavesdropped upon while in transit to the third party web server.
Protect yourself from using stale link to gain access to the application. Make the link be dependent on current time value
Related
I'm in the process of making a portal website and I wanted to include an iframe which would route people to an intranet. Is there any downsides to this as far as security is concerned?
I think that maybe there's a misunderstanding on your side regarding the function of IFrames: An <iframe> will not route anything. It just tells the user's browser which URL to fetch and show inside it. This means that
People need access to the intranet to actually load the contents of the <iframe>, which might not be what you expected.
It's not a security risk per se.
It is no more or less secure than giving those people direct web access to that intranet.
If you really want to know whether something is "secure" or not, you need to specify the types of threat that you need to protect against, what your tolerance is for breaks in that security, and what additional mechanisms that you have taken to secure your site (for example password authentication, NTLM, SSL, etc).
I have a simple site with a sign-up form. Currently the user can complement their registration with (non-critical, "low security") information not available at the time of the sign-up, through a personal (secret) URL.
I.e., once they click submit, they get a message like:
Thanks for signing up. You can complement your registration by adding information through this personal URL:
http://www.example.com/extra_info/cwm8iue2gi
Now, my client asks me to extend the application to allow users to change their registration completely, including more sensitive information such as billing address etc.
My question: Are there any security issues with having a secret URL instead of a full username / password system?
The only concern I can come up with is that URLs are stored in the browser history. This doesn't worry me much though. Am I missing something?
It's not the end of the world if someone changes some other users registration info. (It would just involve some extra manual labor.) I will not go through the extent of setting up https for this application.
This approach is not appropriate for sensitive information because it's part of the HTTP request URL, which is not encrypted and shows up in many places such as proxy and other server logs. Even using HTTPS, you can't encrypt this part of the payload, so it's not an appropriate way to pass the token.
BTW, another problem with this scheme is if you send the URL to the user via email. That opens up several more avenues for attack.
A better scheme would require some small secret that is not in the email. But it can be challenging to decide what that secret should be. Usually the answer is: password.
Another potential problem lies with the users themselves. Most folks realize that a password is something they should try to protect. However, how many users are likely to recognize that they ought to be making some sort of effort to protect your secret URL?
The problem here is that although it is hard to guess the URL for any specific user, given enough users it becomes relatively easy to guess a correct url for SOME user.
This would be a classic example of a birthday attack.
ETA: Missed the part about the size of the secret, so this doesn't really apply in your case, but will leave the answer here since it might apply in the more general case.
can complement their registration with (non-critical, "low security") information
It's hard to imagine what user-supplied information really is "low-security"; even if you are asking for a password and a username from your customers you are potenitally violating a duty of care to your customers; a large propertion of users will use the same username/password on multiple sites. Any information about your users and potentially a lot of information about transactions can be used by a third party to compromise the identity of that user.
Any information about the user should be supplied in an enctypted format (e.g. via https). And you should take appropriate measures to protect the data you store (e.g. hashing passwords).
Your idea of using a secret URL, means that only you, the user, anyone on the same network as the user, in the vicinity of a user on wifi, connected to any network between you and the user, or whom has access to the users hardware will know the URL. Of course that's not considering the possibility of someone trying a brute force attack against the URLs.
C.
The secret URL means nothing if you're not using SSL. If you're still having the end-user transmit their identifying information across the Internet in the clear, then it doesn't matter how you're letting them in: They are still exposed.
The "secret URL" is often referred to as security by obscurity. The issue is that it is super simple to write a script that will attempt various combinations of letters, symbols, and numbers to brute force hack this scheme.
So if any sensitive information is stored you should definitely use at least a username and password to secure it.
Please let me know if the following approach to protecting against CSRF is effective.
Generate token and save on server
Send token to client via cookie
Javascript on client reads cookie and adds token to form before POSTing
Server compares token in form to saved token.
Can anyone see any vulnerabilities with sending the token via a cookie and reading it with JavaScript instead of putting it in the HTML?
The synchroniser token pattern relies on comparing random data known on the client with that posted in the form. Whilst you'd normally get the latter from a hidden form populated with the token at page render time, I can't see any obvious attack vectors by using JavaScript to populate it. The attacking site would need to be able to read the cookie to reconstruct the post request which it obviously can't do due to cross-domain cookie limitations.
You might find OWASP Top 10 for .NET developers part 5: Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) useful (lot's of general CSRF info), particularly the section on cross-origin resource sharing.
If a persons traffic is being monitored the hacker will likely get the token also. But it sounds like a great plan. I would try to add a honeypot. Try to disguise the token as something else so It's not obvious. If it's triggered, send the bad user into the honeypot so they don't know they've been had.
My philosophy with security is simple and best illustrated with a story.
Two men are walking through the woods. They see a bear, freak out and start running. As the bear catches up to them and gaining one of them tells the other, "we'll never outrun this bear". the other guy responses, "I don't have to outrun the bear, I only have to outrun you!"
Anything you can add to your site to make it more secure the better off you'll be. Use a framework, validate all inputs (including all those in any public method) and you should be ok.
If your storing sensitive data I would setup a second sql server with no internet access. Have your back-end server constantly access your front-end server, pull and replace the sensitive data with bogus data. If your front-end server needs that sensitive data, which is likely, use a special method that uses a different database user (that has access) to pull it from the back-end server. Someone would have to completely own your machine to figure this out... and it would still take enough time that you should be able to pull the plug. Most likely, they'll pull all your data before realizing it's bogus... ha ha.
I wish I had a good solution on how to protect your customers better to avoid CSRF. But what you have looks like a pretty good deterrent.
This question over on Security Stack Exchange has some useful discussion on the subject.
I especially like #AviD's answer:
Don't.
-
Most common frameworks have this protection already built in (ASP.NET, Struts, Ruby I think), or there are existing libraries that have already been vetted. (e.g. OWASP's CSRFGuard).
My API (a desktop application) communicates with my web app using basic HTTP authentication over SSL (Basically I'm just using https instead of http in the requests). My API has implemented logic that makes sure that users don't send incorrect information, but the problem I have is that someone could bypass the API and use curl to potentially post incorrect data (obtaining credentials is trivial since signing up on my web app is free).
I have thought about the following options:
Duplicate the API's logic in the web app so that even if users try to cheat the system using curl or some other tool they are presented with the same conditions.
Implement a further authentication check to make sure only my API can communicate with my web app. (Perhaps SSL client certificates?).
Encrypt the data (Base 64?)
I know I'm being a little paranoid about users spoofing my web app with curl-like tools but I'd rather be safe than sorry. Duplicating the logic is really painful and I would rather not do that. I don't know much about SSL client certificates, can I use them in conjunction with basic HTTP authentication? Will they make my requests take longer to process? What other options do I have?
Thanks in advance.
SSL protects you from the man-in-the-middle attacks, but not from attacks originated on the client side of the SSL. A client certificate built into your client API would allow you to identify that data was crafted by the client side API, but will not help you figuring out if client side manually modified the data just before it got encrypted. Technically ssavy user on the client end can always find a way to modify data by debugging through your client side API. The best you can do is to put roadblocks to your client side API, to make it harder to decipher it. Validation on the server side is indeed the way to go.
Consider refactoring your validation code so that it can be used on both sides.
You must validate the data on the server side. You can throw nasty errors back across the connection if the server-side validation fails — that's OK, they're not supposed to be tripped — but if you don't, you are totally vulnerable. (Think about it this way: it's the server's logic that you totally control, therefore it is the server's logic that has to make the definitive decisions about the validity of communications.)
Using client certificates won't really protect you much additionally from users who have permission to use the API in the first place; if nothing else, they can take apart the code to extract the client certificate (and it has to be readable to your client code to be usable at all). Nor will adding extra encryption; it makes things much more difficult for you (more things to go wrong) without adding much safety over that already provided by that SSL connection. (The scenario where adding encryption helps is when the messages sent over HTTPS have to go via untrusted proxies.)
Base-64 is not encryption. It's just a way of encoding bytes as easier-to-handle characters.
I would agree in general with sinelaw's comment that such validations are usually better on the server side to avoid exactly the kind of issue you're running into (supporting multiple client types). That said, you may just not be in a position to move the logic, in which case you need to do something.
To me, your options are:
Client-side certificates, as you suggest -- you're basically authenticating that the client is who (or what, in your case) you expect it to be. I have worked with these before and mutual authentication configuration can be confusing. I would not worry about the performance, as I think the first step is getting the behavior your want (correctness first). Anyway, in general, while this option is feasible, it can be exasperating to set up, depending on your web container.
Custom HTTP header in your desktop app, checking for its existence/value on the server side, or just leveraging of the existing User-Agent header. Since you're encrypting the traffic, one should not be able to easily see the HTTP header you're sending, so you can set its name and value to whatever you want. Checking for that on the server side is akin to assuring you that the client sending the request is almost certainly using your desktop app.
I would personally go the custom header route. It may not be 100% perfect, but if you're interested in doing the simplest possible thing to mitigate the most risk, it strikes me as the best route. It's not a great option if you don't use HTTPS (because then anyone can see the header if they flip on a sniffer), but given that you do use HTTPS, it should work fine.
BTW, I think you may be confusing a few things -- HTTPS is going to give you encryption, but it doesn't necessarily involve (client) authentication. Those are two different things, although they are often bundled together. I'm assuming you're using HTTPS with authentication of the actual user (basic auth or whatever).
Is it acceptable to submit from an http form through https? It seems like it should be secure, but it allows for a man in the middle attack (here is a good discussion). There are sites like mint.com that allow you to sign-in from an http page but does an https post. In my site, the request is to have an http landing page but be able to login securely. Is it not worth the possible security risk and should I just make all users go to a secure page to login (or make the landing page secure)?
Posting a form from an http page to an https page does encrypt the data in the form when it is transmitted in the most simple terms. If there is a man-in-the-middle attack, the browser will warn you.
However, if the original http form was subjected to man-in-the-middle and the https post-back address was modified by the attacker, then you will get no warning. The data will still actually be encrypted, but the man-in-the-middle attacker would be able to decrypt (since he sent you the key in the first place) and read the data.
Also, if the form is sending things back through other means (scripted connections) there may be a possibility of unencrypted data being sent over the wire before the form is posted (although any good website would never do this with any kind of sensitive data).
Is there any reason not to use HTTPS for the entire transaction? If you can't find a very good one, use it!
It's arguably simpler than switching protocols.
The MITM risk is real.
Following your link, the user "Helios" makes an excellent point that using 100% HTTPS is far less confusing to the user.
This kind of thing is popping up all over the net, especially in sites for which login is optional. However, it's inherently unsafe, for quite subtle reasons, and gives the user a false sense of security. I think there was an article about this recently on codinghorror.com.
The danger is that while you sent your page with a post target of "https://xxx", the page in which that reference occurs is not secure, so it can be modified in transit by an attacker to point to any URL the attacker wishes. So if I visit your site, I must view the source to verify my credentials are being posted to a secure address, and that verification has relevance only for that particular submit. If I return tomorrow, I must view source again, since that particular delivery of the page may have been attacked and the post target subverted - if I don't verify every single time, by the time I know the post target was subverted, it's too late - I've already sent my credentials to the attacker's URL.
You should only provide a link to the login page; and the login page and everything thereafter should be HTTPS for as long as you are logged in. And, really, there is no reason not to; the burden of SSL is on the initial negotiation; the subsequent connections will use SSL session caching and the symmetric crypto used for the link data is actually extremely low overhead.
IE Blog explains: Critical Mistake #1: Non-HTTPS Login pages (even if submitting to a HTTPS page)
How does the user know that the form is being submitted via HTTPS? Most browsers have no such UI cue.
How could the user know that it was going to the right HTTPS page? If the login form was delivered via HTTP, there's no guarantee it hasn't been changed between the server and the client.
Jay and Kiwi are right about the MITM attack. However, its important to note that the attacker doesn't have to break the form and give some error message; the attacker can instead insert JavaScript to send the form data twice, once to him and once to you.
But, honestly, you have to ask, what's the chance of an attacker intercepting your login page and modifying it in flight? How's it compare to the risk of (a) doing a MITM attack strait on the SSL session, and hoping the user presses "OK" to continue; (b) doing the MITM on your initial redirect to SSL (e.g., from http://example.com to https://example.com) and redirecting to https://doma1n.com instead, which is under the attacker's control; (c) You having a XSS, XSRF, or SQL injection flaw somewhere on your site.
Yes, I'd suggest running the login form under SSL, there isn't any reason not to. But I wouldn't worry much if it weren't, there are probably much lower hanging fruit.
Update
The above answer is from 2008. Since then, a lot of additional threats have become apparent. E.g., access sites from random untrusted networks such as WiFi hotspots (where anyone nearby may be able to pull off that attack). Now I'd say yes, you definitely should encrypt your login page, and further your entire site. Further, there are now solutions to the initial redirect problem (HTTP Strict Transport Security). The Open Web Application Security Project makes several best practices guides available.
This post is the key one. Yes, if the user's data is sent to you, it will have arrived somewhere securely. But there is no reason to believe that somewhere will be your site. The attacker isn't just going to get to listen to the data moving in each direction at this point. He'll be the other end of the user's session. The your site is just going to think the user never bothered to submit the form.
For me (as an end-user), the value of an HTTPS session is not only that the data is encrypted, but that I have verification that the page I'm typing my super-secrets into has come from the place I want it to.
Having the form in a non-HTTPS session defeats that assurance.
(I know - this is just another way of saying that the form is subject to an MITM attack).
No, it's not secure to go from HTTP to HTTPS. The originating and resulting points of the request must be HTTPS for the secure channel to be established and utilized.
Everyone suggesting that you provide only a link to the login page seems to be forgetting that the link could easily be changed using a MITM attack.
One of the biggest things missed out in all of the above is that there is a general trend to place a login on a home page (Huge trend in User Experience Trends).
The big problem here is that Google does not like to search secure pages with good reason, so all those Devs who are wondering why not make it all secure, well if you want your page invisible to Google, secure it all. Else, the second best option to post from http to https is the lesser of two evils at this point?
I think the main consideration of this question has to do with the URL that users know and the protocol scheme (http:)that browsers substitute by default.
In that case, the normal behavior of a site that wants to ensure an encrypted channel is to have the http://home-page redirect to https://home-page. There is still a spoofing / MitM opportunity, but if it is by DNS poisoning, the risk is no higher than if one starts out with the https: URL. If a different domain name comes back, you need to worry then.
This is probably safe enough. After all, if you are subject to a targetted MitM, you might as well start worrying about keyboard loggers, your local HOSTS file, and all sorts of other ways of finding out about your secure transactions involving your system already being owned.