I'm currently trying to redirect a current user type to it's specific site using sessions, whilst also creating a session to check if they are logged in.
I’m expecting to learn all the basic principles of this subject well enough to align the subject, whether you teach them to us, and align the subject for us, or not
Related
I have read a few questions on here about e-mail clients prefetching URLs in e-mails. An answer to this seems to be to add a new confirmation page, where the user has to click a button to confirm the desired action.
But, this answer states the following:
As of Feb 2017 Outlook (https://outlook.live.com/) scans emails
arriving in your inbox and it sends all found URLs to Bing, to be
indexed by Bing crawler.
This effectively makes all one-time use links like
login/pass-reset/etc useless.
(Users of my service were complaining that one-time login links don't
work for some of them and it appeared that BingPreview/1.0b is hitting
the URL before the user even opens the inbox)
Drupal seems to be experiencing the same problem:
https://www.drupal.org/node/2828034
My major concern is with this statement:
As of Feb 2017 Outlook (https://outlook.live.com/) scans emails
arriving in your inbox and it sends all found URLs to Bing, to be
indexed by Bing crawler.
If this is the case, any URL in an e-mail meant to confirm an action, e.g. confirming a login, subscription, or unsubscription, can end up searchable in a search engine, if that's whats meant by indexed in the quote above. In this case, it's Bing. Not even a dedicated confirmation page where the user confirms the desired action truly mitigates this.
Scenario #1
If I email the user a login link with a one-time token in the URL, that URL will end up in Bing. This token will have a short lifetime, lets say 5 minutes, so I doubt anyone will manage to search on Bing and find the URL before the user clicks it or it expires.
Scenario #2
The user gets an e-mail with a link to confirm a subscription. This link is perhaps valid for 24 hours. This might(?) be long enough for someone else to stumble over the link on a search engine and accidentally (or on purpose) confirm the subscription on behalf of the user.
Scenario #2 is not uncommon, it's even best practice to use double opt-in as far as I am aware.
Scenario #3
Unsubscribe URLs in the bottom of newsletters. Maybe valid for forever? You don't want this publicly searchable in an search engine.
Assume all the one-time confirmation links land on a confirmation page where the user confirms the desired action.
Is it truly the issue that URLs in e-mails are indexed by search engines, at least Bing? And will they actually end up publicly searchable? If not, what is meant by indexed in the quote above?
I'll add for the sake of completion that I don't think I've had much of a problem with this in my own use of the web, so my gut feeling is that this is unlikely the case.
Is it truly the issue that URLs in e-mails are indexed by search engines, at least Bing?
I can't definitely say if they are being indexed or not, only Bing could answer this question, but they are surely being visited, at least with a simple GET request. I just tested this sending myself a link to a page on my website that logs the requests that are made against it, and indeed I'm seeing a GET coming from 207.46.13.181 (reverse DNS says msnbot-207-46-13-181.search.msn.com), which suggests that an automated program from search.msn.com is crawling the link. This leads me to believe that yes, they are trying to index the link's content somehow, but it's only my opinion really.
And will they actually end up publicly searchable? If not, what is meant by "indexed" in the quote above?
Well, again, impossible to say unless you work for Bing. In any case, "indexing" means exactly what you think it does: parsing the content of a page to potentially include it in search results.
The real question here is: does this somehow represent a security problem or will it compromise my website's functionality?
It surely has the potential to: if your confirmation/reset/subscription/whatever process only relies on a single GET request with the appropriate GET parameter, then you should definitely revisit the strategy, as it obviously allows anyone to perform the action (even maliciously for example enumerating possible IDs for your GET parameters).
If the link you are trying to send contains sensible information or can be used to alter important data for an user of your website, then you should at least put it behind a login page only giving access to the interested user. This way, anyone who wants to access it (including search engines) will be redirected to a login page if not already logged in.
If the link you are trying to send is just some kind of harmless confirmation link (e.g. subscribe/unsubscribe from a newsletter), then at least use a form inside the web page to do the actual confirmation through a POST request (possibly also using a CSRF token), otherwise you will unequivocally end up with false positives.
How websites like Facebook and Twitter are protected against bot during registration? I mean, there's no captcha at all on the signup form?
I want to create a signup form for a project, and I don't want bot during registration and Captchas are often ugly..
edit:
My question is really during the registration because I know Facebook uses Captchas once registred for the first time.
Facebook uses some sort of hidden spam protection, if you view source of sign-up form you will see things like:
class="hidden_elem"><div class="fsl fwb">Security Check</div>This is a standard security test that we use to prevent spammers from creating fake accounts and spamming users.
so capture becomes visible when javascript will think that you are a bot.
Where is few methods of making it harder for bots to complete registration without capture, things
like timing to fill out form, originators of mouse clicks events ect.
also random session based values in form (to privent direct submissions without downloading of the form first)
also some people use hidden form elements with common names like 'email' that is styled invisible in css but common simple bots will try to fill out all form fields and so you can block them if this hidden element have any value
twitter and fb spend lot of time on developing tecniques to block spammers i don't think they will made it public as it will be counter productive for them to fight the spammers.
But all the client side javascripts you can download from fb or twitter and study them if you want, because most of the protection will happen inside client not on server.
server could only issue some random session variable, check for valid headers in request, overall time etc. its really limited.
some sites are also use ajax exchanges between server and client during the time when user is filling out the form , mostly just to make it harder for bot developer to do simular fake exchanges of data.
Anyway, unfortunatelly where is no easy solution to do decent protection , espesially without captcha or some kind of question
also,
for submit button you can use image map instead of button,
you can dynamically create big image with a submit botton image drawn on it at random position using things like GDI in PHP and using css to display only portion of that image with the actuall button, and on server side check X and Y position of where mouse was clicked, this will be hard for bots to break.
Unless they use real browsers and just emulate keyboard and mouse. Anyway , as i said unfortunatelly where is no easy solution.
One way would be to send a verification to the user's email address or cell phone and obtain verification (so in that case, you would have to allow only one email address or cell phone per account)
Another option is to use "Negative CAPTCHA" or "Honeypot Captcha"
I don't know how Facebook and Twitter do it, but if you want to create something simple and that doesn't interfere with your site aesthetics, I know that some websites just ask the user to enter an answer to a simple math problem like "what is 2 + 3?". This is not the most secure way to do it, but it's just a thought.
Well you can always deploy hardware solutions as well to create Layer 4-7 firewall rules. You can create specific rules to look for the well known agents of bots crawling the web. However to stop newly created bots you need to know what agent they are using for the bot.
Since you don't want CAPTCHA, you can use Keypic - keypic.com - which is an invisible protection, no CAPTCHA needed. It's an efficient antispam method for any web form. Site users don't pass any tests which is good for the site as it improves the quality of the user experience and thus raises user engagement. The solution is a kind of an expert system which analyses the behaviour of the users and checks the databases, then makes a conclusion if the request comes from a legitimate user or a robot.
BTW, Twitter and Facebook still use CAPTCHA for password verification which is a very disputable method in terms of efficiency of such protection.
I had a problem with tons of bots signing up for my Nintendo site so I put a single image of Mario on the sign-up page (making sure nothing in the image data said "Mario") with the text "Who is this? Answer in one word." Haven't had a single bot sign-up since. Not sure if this is actually a good solution though, not sure how smart bots are. I'm kind of surprised that it worked.
In theory it might be keeping out a few legitimate users, but it is hard to imagine many legitimate users of a Nintendo site not knowing who Mario is...
I have performed a number of searches on this topic and found some related questions however none of which provided a clear picture of the best practice for developing a sign-in system on a site that relys on 3rd party server-side OAuth.
We have opted not to offer a traditional member sign-in method, allowing users to log in to the site via Facebook or Twitter (we may choose to offer further support for other networks at a later date).
We are keen to provide a seemless user experience for both new and returning users and would appreciate some advice & best practice from anyone who has successfully done this in the past.
The initial plan was as follows
- When a user signs in via Facebook we require them to provide a username which will be used throughout the site
- When a user signed in via Twitter we use their Twitter name as our username
This approach has an obvious flaw. What if a Twitter user signs in only to find that their username is being used by another member who chose it via signing in with Facebook?
This is unacceptable user experience therefore we need to re-think.
New approach
Currently our new approach is upon initial sign-in to present the user with a form to provide the remaining required information
For Twitter sign-ins:
- Display name. Pre-populated with Twitter username if available or suffixed with 0,1,2,3 etc..
- Email address. This will be confirmed via a verification email to complete the sign-up process.
For Facebook sign-ins:
- Display name. Pre-populated with Facebook Display name if supplied & available or suffixed with 0,1,2,3 etc..
- Email address. Pre-populated from Facebook account, no need to verify unless they decide to use a different email address, in which can the process will be the same as above.
It would be great to hear your thoughts on this matter.
I think second style is the simple one and user can feel less burden .
my vote for second only .He can pushed to login in the that same page and felt free.
hey ! just post weather which style you decided at the end ..because I need to know the result of this $100 question :))
So there are definitely many tutorials out there regarding how to integrate various individual social network authentication/registration into existing user accounts. But the scenario I can't seem to find out much information about is if a user signs into your account with different social network credentials. For example:
Scenario #1
User registers on site using site's authentication.
User then signs in/registers on site using Facebook Connect.
User then signs in/registers on site using Twitter.
How do I integrate all of these into one account?
Obviously once a user is registered, they can add other social network associations in the account settings pages. But I am more concerned if they register via the other social network not remembering they are already setup.
My general thoughts are trying to figure out a way to use the "username" or email to try and guess and present the user a way to combine accounts right there.
Anyone have any thoughts?
following up -
if your users can't remember that they've signed up previously, well, best of luck to them in general ;)
much as you described, i'm planning on giving users the option to link additional accounts once they have signed in by one means or another.
but as far as cross-checking, there's only so much you can do. many social network APIs do indeed provide email addresses (once you've busted in through OAuth) but these may be accessible only if a user has elected to make his/her address public, which is not guaranteed.
also not guaranteed is that the user used the SAME email address for each social network account, so even if you manage to retrieve an address it may or not be of any use to you.
finally, if you find matching email addresses via such means, it might be advisable to prompt the user to link accounts rather than assume he/she wants this done automatically. some people like to maintain multiple personalities. i.e. "it looks like you are also signed up with twitter - do you want to link your accounts? it will make your life seem worth living."
you might consider offering incentives to link user accounts or to provide an email address (up to you of course to figure out what these might be, based on the functionality of your website).
solution i am working on, database-side, is to maintain multiple accounts and then if link information is discovered by various means, said link is indicated in a lookup table.
an alternative is once you find a link, attempt to combine all relevant entries for the multiple accounts into one account entity - all i can say about this latter approach is that i would do so with caution as there could be a formidable level of complexity depending on the user's activity level and the complexity of your database schema.
in my (mental/actual) namespace a user who registers the old-fashioned way has a 'standard' account and one who uses a social network has an 'alias' account. then the goal becomes to define where the alias is supposed to point, i.e. create the lookup such that a subsequent login via either means retrieves the relevant information for both accounts (with a preference for displaying personal data for the 'standard' account).
btw i figured out how to make twitter OAuth behave since my last post - you can look at my other answers for details if you're interested.
JB
hi matt,
i'm working on the same problem right
now.
assuming the user starts with regular
site account (which is not
necessarily safe to assume if he sees
all the pretty "connect with XXX
network" buttons!!!), you can use
either OAuth or the javascript APIs
(facebookConnect or #anywhere -
haven't fully figured out the latter
yet and i'm not sure I recommend it as
I don't think it provides as rich an
API as do the backend libraries) to
login to the other sites.
the APIs should return certain
information after a successful
login/redirect from the social network
- such as the user ID and an ACCESS TOKEN which you can then store in your
database in some capacity associating
your 'actual' application user with
the ID of the social network.
when the user returns to the site, you
can then
1 verify cookies set by the social
network services (various schemes
typically verifying a signature, based
on sha1 or md5 hash of your
application data - by which i mean the
data you get when you register your
app with twitter/facebook, typically a
consumer key, application ID, etc. -
with the received cookies) so you know
the user has logged in with the social
network
2 find your database entry association
as described above
3 login your user manually based on
the assumption that facebook/twitter
connection is secure.
caveat: this is only as secure as your
implementation (or as secure as
facebook/twitter's implementations, if
you prefer...)
although twitter's OAuth does not
currently seem to work quite right,
their general description of the
process is pretty informative:
http://dev.twitter.com/pages/auth
good luck.
J
I have been contemplating adding FB auth to our app, but we know that our returning users might click it and complete checkout for a new item, and then be surprised to not see any of their existing orders. To solve this, when a user clicks the 'Login with Facebook' item, we are using that click to fire a dropdown menu with two options:
[ Login with Facebook ]
[ Create new account ]
[ I have an account ]
If the user clicks 'I have an account' we send them to FB auth and return email from FB to our app. We compare that email to our existing users. If we match, we add the FB creds to the user. If no match, we throw an alert:
The email you have with FB does not match any of our accounts. To log in to your existing account, login with your email below, or update the email in your Facebook account
This allows the user to create a whole new account, if they want to keep them separate, without needing a new email service. While this is an edge case, it is a feature.
I hope this is allowed but I have a number of questions regarding Facebook Connect, I'm quite unsure on how I should approach implementing it.
I am working on a live music type service and currently have user registration, etc. If I were to implement Facebook Connect alongside this, would I still be able to email the Facebook Connect users as if they were on my database?
Also, would it instead be possible to let users who have Facebook "link" their accounts once registered so I am able to give them the benefits of sharing via Facebook and inviting friends while still having an actual registered user on my system.
I have tried to read up answers to the above questions but what I've found is quite ambiguous.
Thanks, look forward to your views.
Facebook's documentation process is very poor, so don't feel bad about having a hard time getting started. Their wiki-style approach to documentation without any real official documents tends to leave the "process flow" tough to grasp, and requires piecing together parts of a bunch of randomly scattered docs.
Facebook has an obligation to protect privacy, so they never make a user's actual email address available to application developers, through Connect or normal applications. They do have a proxied email system in place that you can use, however, you must get explicit permission from a user in order to email them. There's a decent document on proxied email here. You can get permission by prompting for it; there's several methods for doing so linked in that document.
In regards to linking Facebook and local accounts, this would definitely be the way to go. Once a Connect user logs in, you want to store that fact for that user so you can provide the Facebook-specific functionality. I would simply create a normal user account in the database for every new Connect user that came by, with it's own local id, so that you don't have to do special handling of two different types of user accounts all over the site. That being said, the account would obviously have to be marked as a Facebook user's account (I use an externalId column in my users table), and any part of the site that relied on information you might otherwise have locally would have to handle the Facebook aspect properly (such as using proxied email instead of normal email).
For existing users, you could arrange an "account link" by having a process whereby they log into FB Connect after they've logged into the site already, and you could detect that and simply add their FB id to your users table. After that, they could log in through Connect in the future, or through your normal process. I've never done this, but it should be possible.
If you write the account handling code generically enough, your site will be able to function well no matter what kind of user you throw at it.