I am using GWT to create my web-app.
When making RPC call from client side (browser), in inspect element my Request Payload is as below :
7|0|8|https://xxxx.xxxx.in/TestProject/in.TestProject.Main/|87545F2996A876761A0C13CD750EA654|in.TestProject.client.CustomerClassService|check_User_Login|java.lang.String/2004016611|in.TestProject.Beans.CustomerBean/3980370781|UserId|Password|1|2|3|4|3|5|5|6|7|8|6|0|0|0|0|0|CustId|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|
In this request all the details like username, password & custid are displayed in the request payload.
My question is, is it possible to encode OR hide those details from request payload?
You are looking at the wrong level of abstraction. What's the point of encoding/"hidding" these values in the payload? Everything you exchange between the server and client can be intercepted anyway... unless you use HTTPS. It ensures safe/encrypted communication between the server and client. Don't try to be "clever" and only encrypt part of the communication/payload, just use HTTPS.
But my concern is client itself should not be able to seen which method call we are making, parameter type in the request, parameter values etc. It should be hidden from client.
But those parameter values were input by the user himself or are hardcoded somewhere in the application (which the user will always be able to see/decipher, because his browser has to). So what you are trying to achieve is security through obscurity and is never a good idea. I'd focus my attention and efforts into securing the endpoints (GWT-RPC services), validating the input sent there, etc.
You have to remember one thing - that the user has access to the source code (compiled and minified, but still) of the client-side part of your application. So:
He'll always be able to figure out how to communicate with your server, because your application has to.
He can modify the application to send malicious requests - even if you created some hypothetical way of encoding parameters/addresses. Just find a place just before the encoding is done and voila. Firebug and other Developer Tools will help you immensely in this.
So "securing" client-side in this way is meaningless (of course, CSRF, XSS, etc. should be your concern), a malicious user will always bypass it because you have to give him all the tools to do it - otherwise, a "normal" user (or rather his browser) wouldn't be able to use your application.
Related
Say you're developing an application which consists of a backend HTTP API, which serves a frontend UI. The UI, upon being rendered on the client's browser, will need to make certain calls to the backend (e.g., fetch data for views). However, all these calls are can be checked on Chrome's developer console, for example. This exposes my application's overall logic and internal API endpoints.
Is this a concern for a web application? I looked around some other websites (e.g., Reddit) and I was indeed able to check an API call was being made and I even managed to reproduce it via cURL, getting the same response back.
My first idea to solve this would be to encrypt all data and have it decrypted internally in the frontend app. However, I don't think this would provide much security since the private key would have to be hardcoded in the app's source code, which can also be checked by modern browsers. Besides, this could greatly impact the application's performance.
The best I could think of was to somehow assign a token (JSON Web Tokens, maybe?) to the session (which in turn is assigned to a user). This token would be needed to make the API calls, and maybe it could have a short expiration time. However, the token can still be seen in the HTTP request.
Any ideas?
I am using bcrypts => https://www.npmjs.com/package/bcryptjs + jsonwebtokens in my MEAN app for the same. Bcryptjs creates a salt at the server side and send an encrypted token to the client. The same token is used for API calls. This makes decoding a bit harder for any phishing attempt.
Use HTTPS instead. => Are querystring parameters secure in HTTPS (HTTP + SSL)?
I'm designing api with method that should be an idempotent, and should not modify any data on the server. It should be method that process request and return response for given parameters.
One of the parameters is sensitive data. It's not an option to use additional encryption. Data is already encrypted, but security requirements are very demanding and even encrypted data should be treated very carefully.
According to REST spec, idempotent query method should be implemented as a GET HTTP method. Problem in this case is sensitive data that shouldn't be pass as a GET parameter in URL. Only option in HTTP standard is to pass sensitive data in a body part of HTTP request.
My question is what is better? Broke rest api design, and send query request as a POST, or pass encrypted data in URL? Maybe is there better solution I don't see?
According to REST spec, idempotent query method should be implemented
as a GET HTTP method.
2016
As far as I can tell with my limited English SHOULD != MUST. You won't break REST API design by sending a POST in this case. You can send your sensitive data in a HTTP header if that is possible. And ofc. you should use HTTPS if you want to send sensitive data to anywhere.
2019
I checked the HTTP 1.1 standard meanwhile. They don't explicitly use the MUST or SHOULD words in the specs for idempotency, but I got the impression they mean SHOULD. Another HTTP related thing here, that we use GET mostly because we can cache response with it. You don't necessarily want to cache sensitive data, so it might not make sense to insist on using GET on retrieval when security is more important by the parameters. You can find some tips about how to set cache-control headers here, but you can read the HTTP standard for that too.
From security perspective my non-expert opinion is the following:
Normally query parameters are not that sensitive, usually they are just random ids or keywords. So maybe the problem is with your design and you should hide these sensitive parameters (e.g. social security number) behind random ids instead of querying them explicitly. Another thought here, that user credentials must be in the Authorization header for example, not in the query string, so if the sensitive data is that kind, then you are doing it wrong.
As far as I understand the issue about sending sensitive data in URLs is that it can show up in browser history, cache, address bar and in server logs unencrypted. Even though many people call REST webservices directly from browser via AJAX (or the fetch API), that is not the intended way they should be used. Webservices are mostly for server side usage to scale out your application to multiple threads, cores or servers. So if you use a server side HTTP client which does not have history or cache to call the REST webservice programmatically, then all you need to do is encrypting your logs. If the client has cache, then you can encrypt that too if you feel it necessary. I think it is possible to filter these params from logs and store the cached content based on the salted hash of the URL, but I don't have much experience with that.
If you have a 3rd party client or a browser where you don't have that kind of control, then you can still assume that it follows the HTTP standard. So you can use the cache-control headers to disable cache for sensitive content. The address bar and history is not a problem by single page applications unless they move the sensitive data to there with the history API, but that can happen no matter what you do. It is possible to disable the Referrer header too. Only if you serve HTML with your webservice will you have a problem with browsers, because that assumes that javascript is disabled (so you cannot use location.replace to override browser history along with the sensitive querystring) and that the browser is your REST client. I think that is a very unlikely scenario, though it is possible to do it relative well with XML+XSL reusing most of the code or nowadays maybe with nodejs or some sort of transpiler on different languages.
So I think this can be solved even without POST if you do everything right. But this is just an opinion, I wait for security expert to correct me...
Currently as it stands, if a user reads the source of my web application, they'd be able to determine the direct URIs of all the RESTful services my web application utilizes.
The problem I see is this: My web application knows how to correctly use the API, and I might not have thought of every single validation known to man to prevent bad data from being sent through the API.
And so with that is there a method to prevent "direct" access to the API and limit it only to my web application?
P.S. As an FYI: API calls concerning a user are protected by the presence of a user-specific cookie which is only issued upon login. This means I'm not too afraid of User X being able to directly modify User Y's data through the API.
No.
If the browser is making the request, the user can spoof the request. Period.
My web application knows how to correctly use the API
That's good, but that's leading you down the path of assuming client-side functionality executed as intended. Never make that assumption.
I might not have thought of every single validation known to man to prevent bad data from being sent through the API
This statement leads me to believe that the API itself is more complex than it needs to be. The best thing you can do is simplify. It's difficult to be more specific without seeing specific code, but API requests should be fairly simple and straightforward and the same techniques to prevent malicious code from getting through should be applied universally. The same general rules apply here as in any web application interaction...
Never trust anything that came from the client
Never assume client-side code executed as intended
Never execute input as code, always treat it as a raw value
and so on...
As you mention toward the end, you've already taken care of authentication and authorization for the requests. Given that, if User X is permitted to make a given API call, then what you're essentially asking is, "How do I allow User X to make an API call without allowing User X to make an API call?" The server can't tell the difference. A request is a request.
Sure, there are things you can try, such as always including some custom header in requests made from code. But anybody can inspect that request and spoof that header. The user's browser isn't part of your application and isn't under your control.
I'm in the process of developing a REST service that allows a user to claim their listing based on a couple of pieces of information that appear on their invoice (invoice number and billing zip).
I've read countless articles and Stack Overflow questions about when to use GET and when to use POST. Overall, the common consensus is that GET should be used for idempotent operations and POST should be used for operations that create something on the server side. However, this article:
http://blog.teamtreehouse.com/the-definitive-guide-to-get-vs-post
has caused me to question using GET for this particular scenario, simply because of the fact that I'm using these 2 pieces of information as a mechanism to validate the identity of the user. I'm not updating anything on the server using this particular method call, but I also don't necessarily want to expose the information in the URL.
This is an internal web service and only the front-end that calls the service is publicly exposed, so I don't have to worry about the URL showing up in a user's browser history. My only concern would be the unlikely event that someone gain server log access, in which case, I'd have bigger problems.
I'm leaning toward POST for security reasons; however, GET feels like the correct method due to the fact that the request is idempotent. What is the recommended method in this case?
Independently of POST vs GET, I would recommend NOT basing your security as something as simple as a zip code and an invoice number. I would bet on the fact that invoice numbers are sequential (or close), and there aren't that many zip codes around - voila, I got full access to your listings.
If you're using another authentication method (typically in HTTP header), then you're good - it doesn't matter if you have an invoice number if the URL, so might as well use GET.
If you're not, then I guess POST isn't as bad as GET in term of exposing confidential content.
There isn't really any added security in a POST vs a GET. Sure, the request isn't in the URL, but it's REST we are talking about here, and the URL wouldn't be seen by a human anyway.
You question starts with some bad presumptions. Firstly, GET is not just for any old idempotent operation, it is for GETting resources from the server; it just happens that doing so should be side effect free. Secondly, the URL is not the only way for a GET request to send data to the server, you can use a payload with a GET request (at least as far as HTTP is concerned, some implementations are bad and don't support this or make it hard). Third, as pointed out, you have chosen some terrible data fields to secure your access. Finally, you are using a plain text protocol any way, so what neither method really offers and better security.
You should use the the verb that best describes what you are doing, you are getting some information from the server, so use GET. Use some proper security, such as basic HTTPS encryption. If you want to avoid these fields 'clogging' up the URL, you can send data in the payload of the request, something like:
GET /listings HTTP/1.1
Content-Type = application/json
{ "zip" : "IN0N0USZ1PC0D35",
"invoice" : "54859081145" }
What options are available for authentication of an MVC3 Web API application that is to be consumed by a JQuery app from another domain?
Here are the constraints/things I've tried so far:-
I don't want to use OAuth; for private apps with limited user bases I cannot expect end users to have their accounts on an existing provider and there is no scope to implement my own
I've had a fully functioning HMAC-SHA256 implemention working just fine using data passed in headers; but this doesn't work in IE because CORS in IE8/9 is broken and doesn't allow you to send headers
I require cross-domain as the consuming app is on a different domain to the API, but can't use jsonp becuase it doesn't allow you to use headers
I'd like to avoid a token (only) based approach, as this is open to replay and violates REST by being stateful
At this point I'm resigned to a HMAC-SHA256 approach that uses either the URL or querystring/post to supply the hash and other variables.
Putting these variables in the URL just seems dirty, and putting them in the querystring/post is a pain.
I was succesfully using the JQuery $.ajaxSetup beforeSend option to generate the hash and attach it to the headers, but as I mentioned you can't use headers with IE8/9.
Now I've had to resort to $.ajaxPrefilter because I can't change the ajax data in beforeSend, and can't just extend data in $.ajaxSetup because I need to dynamically calculate values for the hash based on the type of ajax query.
$.ajaxPrefilter is also an issue because there is no clean/simple way to add the required variables in such a way that is method agnostic... i.e. it has to be querystring for GET and formdata for POST
I must be missing something because I just cannot find a solution that:-
a) supports cross-domain
a) not a massive hack on both the MVC and JQuery sides
c) actually secure
d) works with IE8/9
There has to be someone out there doing this properly...
EDIT
To clarify, the authentication mechanism on the API side is fine... no matter which way I validate the request I generate a GenericPrincipal and use that in the API (the merits of this are for another post, but it does allow me to use the standard authorization mechanisms in MVC, which I prefer to rolling my own... less for other developers on my API to learn and maintain)
The problem lies primarly in the transfer of authentication information from the client to the API:-
- It can't rely on server/API state. So I can't pass username/password in one call, get a token back and then keep using that token (open to replay attack)
- Anything that requires use of request headers is out, because IE uses XDR instead of XHR like the rest of the browsers, and it doesn't support custom headers (I know IE10 supports XHR, but realistically I need IE8+ support)
- I think I'm stuck generating a HMAC and passing it in the URL somewhere (path or querystring) but this seems like a hack because I'm using parts of the request not designed for this
- If I use the path there is a lot of messy parsing because at a minimum I have to pass a username, timestamp and hash with each request; these need to be delimited somehow and I have little control over delimiters being used in the rest of the url
- If I use data (querystring/formdata) I need to change the place I'm sending my authentication details depending on the method I'm using (formdata for POST/PUT/etc and querystring for GET), and I'm also polution the application layer data space with these vars
As bad as it is, the querystring/formdata seems the best option; however now I have to work out how to capture these on each request. I can use a MessageHandler or Filter, but neither provide a convienient way to access the formdata.
I know I could just write all the parsing and handling stuff myself (and it looks like I will) but the point is I can't believe that there isn't a solution to this already. It's like I have (1) support for IE, (2) secure and (3) clean code, and I can only pick two.
Your requirements seem a little bit unjustified to me. You can't ever have everything at the same time, you have to be willing to give something up. A couple of remarks:
OAuth seems to be what you want here, at least with some modifications. You can use Azure's Access Control Service so that you don't have to implement your own token provider. That way, you have "outsourced" the implementation of a secure token provider. Last I checked Azure ACS was still free. There is a lot of clutter when you look for ACS documentation because people mostly use it to plug into another provider like Facebook or Google, but you can tweak it to just be a token provider for your own services.
You seem to worry a lot about replay attacks. Replay attacks almost always are a possibility. I have to just listen to the data passing the wire and send it to your server, even over SSL. Replay attacks are something you need to deal with regardless. Typically what I do is to track a cache of coming requests and add the hash signature to my cache. If I see another request with the same hash within 5 minutes, I ignore it. For this to work, I add the timestamp (millisecond granularity) of the request and some derivative of the URL as my hash parameters. This allows one operation per millisecond to the same address from the same client without the request being marked as replay attack.
You mentioned jQuery which puzzles me a bit if you are using the hashing method. That would mean you actually have your hash algorithm and your signature logic on the client. That's a serious flaw because by just inspecting javascript, I can now know exactly how to sign a request and send it to your server.
Simply said; there is not much special in ASP.NET WebAPI when it comes to authentication.
What I can say is that if you are hosting it inside ASP.NET you'll get support by ASP.NET for the authentication and authorization. In case you have chosen for self-hosting, you will have the option to enable WCF Binding Security options.
When you host your WebAPI in ASP.NET, you will have several authentication options:
Basic Authentication
Forms Authentication - e.g. from any ASP.Net project you can enable Authentication_JSON_AppService.axd in order to the forms authentication
Windows Authentication - HttpClient/WebHttpRequest/WebClient
Or explicitly allow anonymous access to a method of your WebAPI