Traditionalist argue that stored procedures provide better security than if you use a Object Relational Mapping (ORM) framework such as NHibernate.
To counter that argument what are some approaches that can be used with NHibernate to ensure that proper security is in place (for example, preventing sql injection, etc.)?
(Please provide only one approach per answer)
Protect your connection strings.
As of .NET 2.0 and NHibernate 1.2, it is easy to use encrypted connection strings (and other application settings) in your config files. Store your connection string in the <connectionStrings> block, then use the NHibernate connection.connection_string_name property instead of connection.connection_string. If you're running a web site and not a Windows app, you can use the aspnet_regiis command line tool to encrypt the <connectionStrings> block, while leaving the rest of your NHibernate settings in plaintext for easy editing.
Another strategy is to use Integrated Authentication for your database connection, if your database platform supports it. That way, you're (hopefully) not storing credentials in plaintext in your config file.
Actually, NHibernate can be vulnerable to SQL injection if you use SQL or HQL to construct your queries. Make sure that you use parameterized queries if you need to do this, otherwise you're setting yourself up for a world of pain.
Use a dedicated, locked-down SQL account
One of the arguments I've heard in favor of sprocs over ORM is that they don't want people to do whatever they want in the database. They disallow select/insert/update/delete on the tables themselves. Every action is controlled through a procedure which is reviewed by a DBA. I can understand where this thinking comes from... especially when you have a bunch of amateurs all with their hands in your database.
But times have changed and NHibernate is different. It's incredibly mature. In most cases it will write better SQL than your DBA :).
You still have to protect yourself from doing something stupid. As spiderman says "with great power comes great responsibility"
I think it's much more appropriate to give NHibernate the proper access to the database and control actions through other means, such as audit logging and regular backups. If someone were to do something stupid, you can always recover.
http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2003/11/18/38178.aspx
Most ORM's handle SQL injection by creating parameterized queries. In NHibernate, if you are using LINQ to NHibernate or the Criteria/Query over methods of writing queries, the queries are automatically parameterized, if you are dynamically creating HQL/SQL queries yourself you are more vunerable and would have to keep in mind that your queries would have to be parameterized.
OWASP mentions one form of SQL injection vulnerability in the context of ORM tools (and gives HQL injection as an example): http://www.owasp.org/index.php/Interpreter_Injection#ORM_Injection
Related
I am working on a project where we are using DbContext but not EF for CRUD functionalities. We are using service layer for our business logic where stored procedures are written to fetch/send data to the database. I got to know about Dapper ORM which allows you to ease the interactions with the database. I was wondering if someone could give a brief up on the pros of using Dapper with MVC5 application instead of traditional Stored Procedures?
Are you comparing Stored Procedures with Dapper? If so, I do not see this as valid comparison. Both have their own benefits and drawbacks. Both are helpful in their own field of implementation.
Instead, if you are looking for calling Stored Procedure through Dapper, I suggest refer following posts; you can search for even more.
Link 1
Link 2
My personal opinion:
I avoid to use Stored Procedures. I prefer to implement my Database code using ADO.NET or ORM depending on needs. This helps me centralize all my Database logic at one place. This also improves debugging and logging capabilities.
Note: That does not mean, I never use Stored Procedures or those should never be used. Those may be useful based on needs.
For implementing Data Access Layer using Dapper, please refer my answer.
I'm currently involved in a app project, and I'm incharge of setting up the backend.
What i'm use to using is a MYSQL database + php for cleaning and managing the data sent to and fro the front end, which I have much more experience in. However, because of certain preferences of my bosses, on this project I've found myself looking at IBMs Bluemix and Cloudant software. Cloudant is a NoSQL database(like CouchDB) and my experience regarding noSQL is severely lacking. All I've mananged to do so far is to create a few JSON documents, and some basic views
What I need to figure out is how to perform the CRUD(create,read,update,delete) actions on a NoSQL database, or at least what it would look like.
In addition to this, I need to know if there are ways to implement security measures(implement security and anti-hacking functions) on a NoSQL database without an external source, or will I need to learn how to reroute the data through some sort of php function first, if i want it cleaned, before sending it to the Cloudant server where my database sits.
Let me know if my attempt to explain my problem is lacking in clarity. I'll try my best to state a different way, if need be.
Generally speaking, there is nothing equivalent to an ANSI to NoSQL databases. In other words, NoSQL databases are not as standardized as SQL databases. All standards are starting to appear. You can think of it as a technology still in the making.
What you have in general is an API with methods such as put_record or delete_record, or a REST interface that is logically equivalent. Also, in general you CRUD the whole record, not parts of the record.
Take a look at the reference: Cloudant - Reading and Writing
Having that said, in your case I would recommend abstracting away from the specific implementation of the NoSQL you want to use if you care about avoiding vendor lock-in. So I would suggest you to wrap CRUD functions using PHP functions that later can be replaced if you want to change the NoSQL database flavor.
This approach has the additional advantage to provide an abstraction for you to implement your own security. Some important NoSQL databases have no concept of multi-tenancy or just implemented that. Again, it is a technology in the making.
When your mindset is the relational one, you tend to think of the database as something that will help you guarantee data consistency as much as possible. But NoSQL databases are not like that. Think of them as a simple repository of documents (in a JSON or XML structure, for instance), without cross references.
Then the obvious question is perhaps: why would anyone want such a thing? One of the possible answers is because NoSQL databases may hold an aggregate of consolidated data. You can then retrieve aggregates to save time reprocessing or re-retrieving data unnecessarily.
As for security, most (if no all) NoSQL databases have some pretty good authentication mechanisms.
I'm developing an ASP.NET MVC 3 app and need a way around SQL injections, something simple would be useful. I have followed Microsoft's article on the matter but it doesn't seem to match up with my code and structure.
Any help is greatly appreciated
To prevent sql injection:
Do not form any dynamic sql.
Use stored procedures (and do not include any dynamic sql in a stored proc - if you do make sure you use sp_executesql and not exec, as sp_executesql can take a parameterized query
use parameterized queries
use an ORM (ex. entity framework) which uses parameterized queries behind the scenes anyways.
try not to use any dynamic sql - if you must for some reason then make sure you use parameterized queries.
Don't just simply use dynamic sql and remove quotes from them - its a bit dangerous to assume that would be the only attack vector as some do.
At the company that I work with, we often have to integrate with client’s infrastructure.
Recently, after hearing that we use Hibernate, one client manifested following concern: Since user under which Hibernate connects to database has a direct access to tables and Hibernate generates SQL dynamically, then such user can do pretty mach anything in the database.
Had the user only permission to execute stored procedures, then SPs can limit the data but more importantly type of queries he can issue to database: basically no dynamic and injected SQL. So, if there is a stored procedure that eliminates a row, malicious person who got hold of user credentials will be able to eliminate single row in one go, but will not be able to issue the DELETE *. I know Hibernate can also map views, but again this limits the data and not the operations user can perform. Hibernate can also execute SPs, but that in a great extent beats the purpose of using Hibernate and would imply a complete rewrite of application.
While I don’t see this as a major concern, since application servers also provide security, I had a problem of convincing the client. What’s your take on this? Is Hibernate really less secure than application using stored procedures? What are additional security measures that can be put in place when working with Hibernate?
NHibernate can map to sprocs instead of tables
You can map read operations onto tables / views and insert / update / delete operations onto sprocs if you like
NHibernate does generates parameterised SQL, i.e. there is no chance of SQL injection
User permissions can always be restricted to certain operations on certain tables, if you decide to map onto tables and / or views
Most projects using sprocs start off by generating CRUD procedures for every table and assigning execute permissions on them all - this is not really much more secure than allowing table access
I would assume Hibernate uses paramaterized queries. That should alleviate much of the concern for SQL Injection. You can also prevent the user account from being able to do everything in the database. It doesn't need to be the SA account after all.
If I am not mistaken NHibernate use parametrized sql queries. This will stop injection.
Hibernate of course is just a ORM layer over sql.
Add the show_sql=true property on, show them what sql is being generated, and they'll see exactly what it does (parametrized queries as was mentioned).
Hibernate can be less secure than using stored procedures, since in theory, DBAs can limit user access to only calling stored procedures, rather than direct access to the underlying data structures.
In practice and in my experience, it's extremely rare for this style of security to be implemented in a meaningful way. If a stored procedure is written for each CRUD operation, and a user is granted access to all of the stored procedures, there is no real difference between that and just granting rights to the underlying structures themselves.
If the company is audited for SOX or security compliance, they might get dinged for not using stored procedures.
It is possible to use Hibernate over stored procedures, but it seems like a pain in the ass.
We have been using nhibernate for almost a year now.
I wuld like to know that are there any vulnerabilities that could be injected(like SQL injection etc.) using web application.
I just want to secure any nhibernate injection through web application if there are.
I think that one of the requirements of a proper OR/M manager, is to make sure that all queries that can be executed using the OR/M manager, are properly secured against SQL injection.
NHibernate generates parametrized queries for SQL Server, so that is secure.
Offcourse, I don't know how other providers (for other DBMS'es) generate ...
As Frederik said, the queries are parametrized so you have roughly the same risk of a sql injection attack as you do with a stored procedure in SQL Server. This means you are safe from direct SQL injection, but neither protect you from latent sql injection. For more info on latent SQL injection, check out the comments of Jeff Atwood's blog post here: Give me parameterized SQL, or give me death
The biggest security concern with NHibernate is that you have to expose a SQL account to your application that can select/insert/update/and delete (if not doing soft deletes) on your database tables. With stored procedures you can expose an account that only has rights to execute stored procedures. This is not a problem for many places, but some places may have strict policies against direct table access.