Requesting a clarification on the number of times application instance certificates (both client/server) are validated from opening a SecureChannel to activating a Session in OPC UA security architecture ?
From the book, 'OPC Unified Architecture' by Mahnke, Leitner, Damm, the following image is seen where the application instance certificates are seen validated. (Figure 7.4 in page no. 214)
According to the specification Part 4 Services, section 6.1.5 - figure 22 shows that the application instance certificates are validated again during the session creation.
Why is this difference between the standard and the concept described in the book ?
Is it really necessary to validate the application instance certificate again during session creation ? I notice that the Milo examples validate only once while opening a SecureChannel if I am not wrong.
I think that diagram is incorrect or out of date.
Validation and verification of trust has to happen the first time client/server see the certificate, which is when the channels are established.
In Create/Activate Session service possession of the certificates is proved using the signatures exchanged in the requests/responses.
edit: to summarize the comments, validation needs to occur during session creation only if the transport layer being used doesn't validate it there, but in Milo's case it's always the binary TCP transport so validation during session creation is redundant.
The specification (OPC UA Spec. Part 4. 6.1 Security (v.1.03)) indeed specifies two phases which take part in the certificate validation:
Creating a SecureChannel and
Creating a Session.
In SecureChannel creation the certificates are validated for CA signature, the issue and expiry date and against revocation lists. At Session creation, a complete verification can be made.
The main difference is that the ApplicationDescriptions are available in the CreateSession phase and therefore the ApplicationUri field of the certificate can only be validated in this phase.
Related
We are trying to implement a smooth rollover for our saml 2 service provider signing certificates.
We have created new certificates with a notBefore at the date of the rollover in the future. Those certificates are exposed on our metadata endpoint, along the certificates currently used to sign saml messages. They are not yet valid since the notBefore property is in the future. Our service provider will start using them when they become valid.
However some partners are having issues with their identity providers complaining that the new certificate is not yet valid.
So my question is the following: are we allowed to expose future certificates that are not yet valid? If not, how are we supposed to manage the signing certificate rollover in saml 2?
Unfortunately the SAML specification doesn't address how certificate roll over should be handled. Therefore, there's no consistent approach.
What you're doing seems reasonable but then I can also understand why some partners would complain about a certificate that isn't (yet) valid.
Some providers simply update their published SAML metadata at the time of certificate roll over. In other words, the metadata contains the current certificate only rather than any past or future certificates. This then places the onus on the partners to ensure they monitor the metadata and switch the certificate immediately.
Of course, this isn't always practicable. In my experience, it's usually best to communicate with the partners that the certificate will roll over on a certain date and provide them with the new certificate and/or metadata prior to that date. Partners should handle signatures generated by either the new or old certificate for an interval of time around the roll over date to ensure a smooth transition. On the roll over date, you'd also publish the new metadata.
You'd probably want an overlap between the old certificate's NotAfter and the new certificate's NotBefore.
I am developing an SAP Enterprise Service that allows the user to logon via an X.509 certificate. Internally, there is a mapping in the customizing between the external user ID and the internal ERP user name.
In my logic I need to determine whether the user has logged on via basic authentication (user/password, technically still possible) or via the certificate. I think I can manage it by calling a kernel routine (LOGIN_INFO).
However, how do I obtain details about the certificate the user used to logon? I want to check if the certificate was issued by a certain certification authority.
Any experience here?
Take a look at CL_HTTP_SECURITY_SESSION* classes. In fact, the class CL_HTTP_SECURITY_SESSION_ADMIN has a method that gives us from table SECURITY_CONTEXT the logon method of the session.
DATA: lt_sessions TYPE security_context_tab,
ls_session LIKE LINE OF lt_sessions.
lt_sessions = cl_http_security_session_admin=>list_security_session_contexts( ).
There is a field AUTHNMETHODS, which stores the auth method in a numerical format: ie 8000 is basic authentication.
There is a method in the same class: DECOMPOSE_AUTHNMETHODS_FIELD, which should help you to get the auth method.
Hope this helps, i've never implemented this on a Enterprise Service,so i'm not sure this class could be helpful, but on some http straightforward connections to the SICF it works well.
Regards
I have set up a single sign on(SSO) for my services. All the services confirm the identity of the user using the IDPorvider(IDP). In my case I am also the IDP.
In my saml request, I have included the following:
1. the level for which auth. is required.
2. the consumer url
3. the destination service url.
4. Issuer
Then, encrypting this message with the SP's(service provider) private key and then with the IDP's Public key. Then I am sending this request.
The IDP on receiving the request, first decrypts with his own private key and then with SP's public key. In the saml response:
1. destination url
2. Issuer
3. Status of the response
Is this good enough? Please give your suggestions?
In general it goes something like this. There is encryption and then there is singing in SAML. You never want to be in production without digital signature sbeing used for SAML. You can disable signature processing for testing purposes I suppose. We alow this in SiteMinder Federation Servcies (SMFSS) for testing purposes only. So, with that being said you're not saying anything about digital signatures and are only talking about encryption.
But here is a rundown of the two in my own very dumbed down description which although I sound silly with the way I explain it I am hoping it will help you. And if you already know this I apologize in advance. One more thing is that this is very basic but you can get more details on google searching for encrytpion, decryption, certificates, etc.
Actually, here is a rundown of what I use to train new support folks for Federation with SMFSS (SiteMinder Federation Services) and at the end is the section I wrote on certs. This was just something I wrote up very quickly and is not very slick looking but it defintiely gets the job done, and quickly. It was written as sort of a copy of what I do with POC SAML 2.0 POST customers who already have SiteMinder setup. I just figured I would give you this since it has a lot of tools you may find useful once you get going in case you were not aware of them already. ;-)
You will need two environments with Agent, Agent OP, Policy Server, Policy Server OP. Need two agents so one can be IDP and one SP.
To set up Agent Option Pack see:
Chapter 8: Federation Web Services Application Setup & Deploy Federation Web Services as a Web Application & Configure ServletExec to Work with Federation Web Services
Now set up the SAML 2.0 POST authentication: You should use the following as it is step by step. But first see the chapter on settings that must match as they need to match for the IDP and SP sides. The chapters below for IDP and SP set up are pretty much step by step, really, Follow 14 and 16 step by step and you’re good to go.
Chapter 22: Configuration Settings that Must Use the Same Values
Then use this to set up the IDP and SP:
Chapter 14: Configure SiteMinder as a SAML 2.0 Identity Provider
Chapter 16: Configure SiteMinder as a SAML 2.0 Service Provider
Run your SAML 2.0 transaction and get a Fiddler Trace of it. Pull out the certs and create a .cer file. Pull out the assertion and check the XML online using the tools below.
Set up Fiddler Tool and make sure you have HTTPS Decryption enabled. I had the link here but just go to gllgle and type in "Fiddler Tool HTTPS decryption" and you'll get it.
Used to review the URL posted or redirected with SAML transactions taken out of Fiddler Usually:
https://rnd.feide.no/simplesaml/module.php/saml2debug/debug.php
I have used this one multiple times to validate XML (the assertion) when I get parsing errors or other errors with partners saying our assertion is not good or if we have a partners assertion that is not good. I like to check the syntax first and if that is fine then check SAML specs to see if they have correct values in the SAML assertion itself. In other words make sure it is SAML compliant.
http://www.w3schools.com/dom/dom_validate.asp
HINT: You can take the base 64 encoded cert info out of our logs or the Fiddler Traces and paste to a notepad and save it as name.cer. Then when you open this file you can look at the cert the customer is using. This is helpful because then you can see if they have the right cert and see who their Root CA is or their intermediate Root CA. Make sure you get all the data including the = or == that may be at the end of the lines for the cert info.
When performing SLO or Artifact the partner will need to connect on the back channel to a web server on the other partners site. When this happens the Web Server being connected to is being served over SSL/HTTPS. This means that the one connecting to that server must have the ROOT CA cert which signed the web sever’s cert in it’s keystore. The theory of this is the same as when you open a browser and connect to an HTTPS web server. All browsers come with the major Root CA certs already imported into them. The whole point of this is that when you put a cert on a web server it is not really for protection it is to let anyone who connects know that you really are that website and really are who you say you are. The fact that you have a cert makes your site be HTTPS and the reason you believe they are who they say they are is that they give you their cert when you connect and if you have the ROOT CA for that cert on the website then this means you trust their ROOT CA. if you trust their ROOT CA then you can connect. If you do not have the ROOT CA cert imported into your browser then you can not connect over SSL/HTTPS to that webserver.
**Encryption and Decryption (if a packet is reads off the wire then the data is encrypted for safety of packet data):
Encryption is done on the IDP side and you can encrypt the entire assertion, NameID value, Attributes and perhaps more?
Encryption is done on the IDP side using the PUBLIC Key Certificate (SP’s cert) which is given to the IDP offline by the SP.
When the SP gets the assertion (or whatever the IDP encrypted) then it must have it’s private key in it’s keystore so that it can decrypt the data and read it. This is the decryption.
The reason this is secure and protects the data is that ONLY the SP should have their own PRIVATE key. Thus if this packet was stolen no one can decrypt it but them.
***Signing and verification – This is not SECURE as it does not encrypt the data. It is not meant to be secure for the packets it is meant to tell someone you really are who you say you are. So if you sign and assertion your partner will know it came from the IDP they expected it to come from.
The IDP must use their public/private key PAIR to sign the data.
The SP must use the IDP’s PUBLIC key (given to the SP offline) to verify the signature. The reason you know the data is from that IDP is that ONLY data signed with the IDP’s private key and be decrypted with their public key. In other words, you can’t pretend you are that IDP and send signed data to the SP and get them to think it is the IDP because the public key for the IDP can only be used to verify things signed with the matching private key. This proves you are who you say you are.
end silly technote I wrote**
I hope you find the certs info and tools useful in your future SAML endeavours! Happy Federating!
update - I was not able to post all the links but some were just base 64 decryption as it will allow me to post only two I am posting the most needed two.
Thanks!
Crissy Stone
CA Technologies SiteMinder Support
Let’s say I have a contract between two parties published on the Web. I want both parties to be able to sign the contract to show they consent to the terms, the way they would with handwriting in real life. I have seen many TOS agreements online where this is done with just a check box, but I want to go a step further and enable each party to assert that the signature is theirs and not a forgery (somebody else checking the box for them).
Assuming the page is already served via HTTPS and username/password combos are not an option, which cryptographic technology is best suited for identity validation: PGP, SSL, or something else?
How might I do this using only HTML and a LAMP server on the other end, in such a way that the process is as automated as possible while still being secure? Code samples are obviously welcome but not necessary; I’m just trying to conceptualize it: do the contents of the contract have to be included in the signature? Do I have the users upload public keys or something? I’m no crypto expert so that’s where I get lost.
SSL is a transport security mechanism, it's not applicable.
You can use OpenPGP or you can use PKI (X.509 certificates and CMS format). These technologies let you sign the data twice or more times without invalidating previous signatures - this is done by using detached signatures.
The choice of what (PGP or PKI) to use is yours - these technologies can be used in similar scenarios, but have different ways to authenticate keys: in PGP user keys are signed by other users, while in PKI certificates are signed by certificate authorities, which is supposed to have more credibility.
When you "sign the document" using cryptographic signature, from technical point of view it's a hash of the document that is signed. The hash can be calculated on the server and sent to the client for signing, then the detached signature is transferred back to the server. So you can keep the document on the server, and private keys used for signing will not leave the client.
However, to do actual signing on the client, you need some module which will communicate with the server and do the job. You can't go with just a web browser - some browser plug-in is required. The reason is that Javascript "cryptography", even if it technically allowed access to client-side keys stored in files or on cryptographic devices, has certain conceptual flaws which make it almost useless. So you end up with using something more trusted and secure, i.e. signed applet or ActiveX control or Flash script.
Our company provides various security components, among which there are components and modules for distributed signing (including above mentioned plugins). These modules are for PKI operations (though in general we also have components for OpenPGP operations, these components don't support distributed signing at the moment).
And I should note, that "automation" here is possible to extent when the user chooses the certificate to use and clicks "sign" button (for example). You can't sign anything without user's explicit action. In some cases the user would also need to provide a PIN / password which protects a private key from being misused.
I'm building a solution consisting of an app and a server. Server provides some methods (json) and the app uses them. My aim is to make those API methods inaccessible to other clients. What is the best way to do so?
Should I take a look at certificates (to sign every outgoing request)? If yes, where do I start and what is the performance impact of doing so?
What are alternatives?
Put another way, you need a way to distinguish a valid client's request from an invalid client's request. That means the client needs to present credentials that demonstrate the request comes from a valid source.
SSL certificates are an excellent way to assert identity that can be validated. The validity of an SSL certificate can be confirmed if the certificate contains a valid signature created by another certificate known to be secure, a root cert. As noted in other answers an embedded certificate won't do the job because that certificate can be compromised by dissecting the app. Once it is compromised, you can't accept any requests presenting it, locking out all your users.
Instead of one embedded app cert, you need to issue a separate certificate to each valid user. To do that, you need to set up (or outsource to) a Certificate Authority and issue individual, signed certificates to valid clients. Some of these certificate will be compromised by the user -- either because they were hacked, careless or intentionally trying to defraud your service. You'll need to watch for these stolen certificates, place them on a certificate revocation list (CRL) and refuse service to these compromised certificates. Any web server is able to refuse a connection based on a CRL.
This doesn't solve the security issues, it just moves them out of the app. It is still possible for someone to create what appears to be a valid certificate through social engineering or by stealing your root certificate and manufacturing new signed certificates. (These are problems all PKI providers face.)
There will be a performance hit. How much of a hit depends on the number of requests from the app. The iPhone NSURLConnection class provides support for SSL client certificates and client certificates can be installed in the phone from an e-mail or authenticated web request. Managing the infrastructure to support the client certs will require more effort than coding it into the app.
Incidentally, voting down any answer you don't like creates a chilling effect in the community. You're not nearly as likely to get advice -- good or bad -- if you're going to take a whack at everyone's reputation score.
I will now freely admit that it's an interesting question, but I have no idea how it could be done.
Original answer:
Interesting question. Assuming people can't reverse-engineer the iPhone app, the only solution that comes to mind would be to sign requests with a public key, or some other secret known only to the application. By that, I mean adding an extra argument to every API call that is a hash of the destination URL and other arguments combined with a secret known only to your server and application.
To expand upon this: suppose your API call has arguments foo, bar and qux. I would add a signature argument, the value of which could be something as simple as sorting the other arguments by name, concatenating them with their values, adding a secret, and hashing the lot. Then on the server side, I would do the same thing (excepting the signature argument) and check that the hash matches the one we were given in the request.
Consider authenticated HTTP.
For a cheaper alternative, there's shared secret/hash scheme. The client and the server have a shared secret string of text. Upon request, the client hashes together (using MD5, or SHA1, or SHA something else - you choose) the request fields and the secret. The hash value is attached to the request - say, as another POST field.
The server does the same operation with the request and with its copy of the secret, then compares the hash values. If they don't match - service denied.
For added security, you may encrypt the hash with a RSA public key. The client has the public key, the server keeps the private key. The server decrypts the hash with the private key, then the same. I did that with a C++ WinMobile client and a PHP-based service - works like a charm. No experience with crypto on iPhone, though.
UPDATE: now that I think of it, if we assume that the attacker has complete control over the client (ahem jailbroken iPhone and a debugger), the problem, as formulated above, is not solvable in theory. After all, the attacker might use your bits to access the service. Reverse-engineer the executable, find the relevant functions and call them with desired data. Build some global state, if necessary. Alternatively, they can automate your UI, screen scraper style. Such is the sad state of affairs.