I need to authenticate users using an api key, but before handling it over to them I need to check their credentials, obviously. I think the process needs to go like this:
client->server: GET /user?username=fred
server->client: nonce=XYXY
client->server: POST /login?hashval={hash(username + password + nonce)}&nonce=XYXY&username=fred
server compares the result of hash(username + passwordFromDB + nonce) with hashval and responds with the API-key if equal
But if there was somebody eavesdropping the connection, although it wouldn't be able to directly discover my user's password, since it already knows the username and the nonce, if the password was easy enough the man-in-the-middle would be able to match my hash by trying all the generic possible values for the password.(brute-force attack)
I know connection over HTTPS and a strong password would make this process secure, but are there any other recommendations or ways of making this process more secure?
Thank you
This is basically a form of digest access authentication and as such has its same limitations.
Since all the details to compute the hash are sent along with the hash, the only thing that an attacker needs to "reverse" is the password. If that is weak, then rainbow table or brute force attacks could crack it. The only way to delay an attacker is to have a very long and strong password.
But since you are using an API key for service authentication, as a man-in-the-middle attacker I would let you authenticate with a password and then just get the API key from the response. I assume you use the API key for authentication of the rest of the requests (just like a session cookie is doing for web applications)?
There are of course other variations of securing a service, depending on what you are doing, but actually making it secure means using HTTPS as you mentioned yourself.
Related
If I get a JWT and I can decode the payload, how is that secure? Couldn't I just grab the token out of the header, decode and change the user information in the payload, and send it back with the same correct encoded secret?
I know they must be secure, but I just would really like to understand the technologies. What am I missing?
JWTs can be either signed, encrypted or both. If a token is signed, but not encrypted, everyone can read its contents, but when you don't know the private key, you can't change it. Otherwise, the receiver will notice that the signature won't match anymore.
Answer to your comment: I'm not sure if I understand your comment the right way. Just to be sure: do you know and understand digital signatures? I'll just briefly explain one variant (HMAC, which is symmetrical, but there are many others).
Let's assume Alice wants to send a JWT to Bob. They both know some shared secret. Mallory doesn't know that secret, but wants to interfere and change the JWT. To prevent that, Alice calculates Hash(payload + secret) and appends this as signature.
When receiving the message, Bob can also calculate Hash(payload + secret) to check whether the signature matches.
If however, Mallory changes something in the content, she isn't able to calculate the matching signature (which would be Hash(newContent + secret)). She doesn't know the secret and has no way of finding it out.
This means if she changes something, the signature won't match anymore, and Bob will simply not accept the JWT anymore.
Let's suppose, I send another person the message {"id":1} and sign it with Hash(content + secret). (+ is just concatenation here). I use the SHA256 Hash function, and the signature I get is: 330e7b0775561c6e95797d4dd306a150046e239986f0a1373230fda0235bda8c. Now it's your turn: play the role of Mallory and try to sign the message {"id":2}. You can't because you don't know which secret I used. If I suppose that the recipient knows the secret, he CAN calculate the signature of any message and check if it's correct.
You can go to jwt.io, paste your token and read the contents. This is jarring for a lot of people initially.
The short answer is that JWT doesn't concern itself with encryption. It cares about validation. That is to say, it can always get the answer for "Have the contents of this token been manipulated"? This means user manipulation of the JWT token is futile because the server will know and disregard the token. The server adds a signature based on the payload when issuing a token to the client. Later on it verifies the payload and matching signature.
The logical question is what is the motivation for not concerning itself with encrypted contents?
The simplest reason is because it assumes this is a solved problem for the most part. If dealing with a client like the web browser for example, you can store the JWT tokens in a cookie that is secure (is not transmitted via HTTP, only via HTTPS) and httpOnly (can't be read by Javascript) and talks to the server over an encrypted channel (HTTPS). Once you know you have a secure channel between the server and client you can securely exchange JWT or whatever else you want.
This keeps thing simple. A simple implementation makes adoption easier but it also lets each layer do what it does best (let HTTPS handle encryption).
JWT isn't meant to store sensitive data. Once the server receives the JWT token and validates it, it is free to lookup the user ID in its own database for additional information for that user (like permissions, postal address, etc). This keeps JWT small in size and avoids inadvertent information leakage because everyone knows not to keep sensitive data in JWT.
It's not too different from how cookies themselves work. Cookies often contain unencrypted payloads. If you are using HTTPS then everything is good. If you aren't then it's advisable to encrypt sensitive cookies themselves. Not doing so will mean that a man-in-the-middle attack is possible--a proxy server or ISP reads the cookies and then replays them later on pretending to be you. For similar reasons, JWT should always be exchanged over a secure layer like HTTPS.
Let's discuss from the very beginning:
JWT is a very modern, simple and secure approach which extends for Json Web Tokens. Json Web Tokens are a stateless solution for authentication. So there is no need to store any session state on the server, which of course is perfect for restful APIs.
Restful APIs should always be stateless, and the most widely used alternative to authentication with JWTs is to just store the user's log-in state on the server using sessions. But then of course does not follow the principle that says that restful APIs should be stateless and that's why solutions like JWT became popular and effective.
So now let's know how authentication actually works with Json Web Tokens. Assuming we already have a registered user in our database. So the user's client starts by making a post request with the username and the password, the application then checks if the user exists and if the password is correct, then the application will generate a unique Json Web Token for only that user.
The token is created using a secret string that is stored on a server. Next, the server then sends that JWT back to the client which will store it either in a cookie or in local storage.
Just like this, the user is authenticated and basically logged into our application without leaving any state on the server.
So the server does in fact not know which user is actually logged in, but of course, the user knows that he's logged in because he has a valid Json Web Token which is a bit like a passport to access protected parts of the application.
So again, just to make sure you got the idea. A user is logged in as soon as he gets back his unique valid Json Web Token which is not saved anywhere on the server. And so this process is therefore completely stateless.
Then, each time a user wants to access a protected route like his user profile data, for example. He sends his Json Web Token along with a request, so it's a bit like showing his passport to get access to that route.
Once the request hits the server, our app will then verify if the Json Web Token is actually valid and if the user is really who he says he is, well then the requested data will be sent to the client and if not, then there will be an error telling the user that he's not allowed to access that resource.
All this communication must happen over https, so secure encrypted Http in order to prevent that anyone can get access to passwords or Json Web Tokens. Only then we have a really secure system.
So a Json Web Token looks like left part of this screenshot which was taken from the JWT debugger at jwt.io. So essentially, it's an encoding string made up of three parts. The header, the payload and the signature Now the header is just some metadata about the token itself and the payload is the data that we can encode into the token, any data really that we want. So the more data we want to encode here the bigger the JWT. Anyway, these two parts are just plain text that will get encoded, but not encrypted.
So anyone will be able to decode them and to read them, we cannot store any sensitive data in here. But that's not a problem at all because in the third part, so in the signature, is where things really get interesting. The signature is created using the header, the payload, and the secret that is saved on the server.
And this whole process is then called signing the Json Web Token. The signing algorithm takes the header, the payload, and the secret to create a unique signature. So only this data plus the secret can create this signature, all right?
Then together with the header and the payload, these signature forms the JWT,
which then gets sent to the client.
Once the server receives a JWT to grant access to a protected route, it needs to verify it in order to determine if the user really is who he claims to be. In other words, it will verify if no one changed the header and the payload data of the token. So again, this verification step will check if no third party actually altered either the header or the payload of the Json Web Token.
So, how does this verification actually work? Well, it is actually quite straightforward. Once the JWT is received, the verification will take its header and payload, and together with the secret that is still saved on the server, basically create a test signature.
But the original signature that was generated when the JWT was first created is still in the token, right? And that's the key to this verification. Because now all we have to do is to compare the test signature with the original signature.
And if the test signature is the same as the original signature, then it means that the payload and the header have not been modified.
Because if they had been modified, then the test signature would have to be different. Therefore in this case where there has been no alteration of the data, we can then authenticate the user. And of course, if the two signatures
are actually different, well, then it means that someone tampered with the data.
Usually by trying to change the payload. But that third party manipulating the payload does of course not have access to the secret, so they cannot sign the JWT.
So the original signature will never correspond to the manipulated data.
And therefore, the verification will always fail in this case. And that's the key to making this whole system work. It's the magic that makes JWT so simple,
but also extremely powerful.
The contents in a json web token (JWT) are not inherently secure, but there is a built-in feature for verifying token authenticity. A JWT is three hashes separated by periods. The third is the signature. In a public/private key system, the issuer signs the token signature with a private key which can only be verified by its corresponding public key.
It is important to understand the distinction between issuer and verifier. The recipient of the token is responsible for verifying it.
There are two critical steps in using JWT securely in a web application: 1) send them over an encrypted channel, and 2) verify the signature immediately upon receiving it. The asymmetric nature of public key cryptography makes JWT signature verification possible. A public key verifies a JWT was signed by its matching private key. No other combination of keys can do this verification, thus preventing impersonation attempts. Follow these two steps and we can guarantee with mathematical certainty the authenticity of a JWT.
More reading: How does a public key verify a signature?
I would explain this with an example.
Say I borrowed $10 from you, then I gave you an IOU with my signature on it. I will pay you back whenever you or someone else bring this IOU back to me, I will check the signature to make sure that is mine.
I can't make sure you don't show the content of this IOU to anyone or even give it to a third person, all I care is that this IOU is signed by me, when someone shows this IOU to me and ask me to pay it.
The way how JWT works is quite the same, the server can only make sure that the token received was issued by itself.
You need other measures to make it secure, like encryption in transfer with HTTPS, making sure that the local storage storing the token is secured, setting up origins.
Ref - JWT Structure and Security
It is important to note that JWT are used for authorization and not authentication.
So a JWT will be created for you only after you have been authenticated by the server by may be specifying the credentials. Once JWT has been created for all future interactions with server JWT can be used. So JWT tells that server that this user has been authenticated, let him access the particular resource if he has the role.
Information in the payload of the JWT is visible to everyone. There can be a "Man in the Middle" attack and the contents of the JWT can be changed. So we should not pass any sensitive information like passwords in the payload. We can encrypt the payload data if we want to make it more secure. If Payload is tampered with server will recognize it.
So suppose a user has been authenticated and provided with a JWT. Generated JWT has a claim specifying role of Admin. Also the Signature is generated with
This JWT is now tampered with and suppose the
role is changed to Super Admin
Then when the server receives this token it will again generate the signature using the secret key(which only the server has) and the payload. It will not match the signature
in the JWT. So the server will know that the JWT has been tampered with.
Only JWT's privateKey, which is on your server will decrypt the encrypted JWT. Those who know the privateKey will be able to decrypt the encrypted JWT.
Hide the privateKey in a secure location in your server and never tell anyone the privateKey.
I am not a cryptography specialist and hence (I hope) my answer can help somebody who is neither.
There are two possible ways of using cryptography in programming:
Signing / verifying
Encryption / decryption
We use Signing when we want to ensure that data comes from a trusted source.
We use Encryption when we want to protect the data.
Signing / verifying uses asymmetrical algorithms i.e. we sign with one key (private) and the data receiver uses the other (public) key to verify.
A symmetric algorithm uses the same key to encrypt and decrypt data.
The encryption can be done using both symmetric and asymmetric algorithms.
relatively simple article on subject
The above is common knowledge below is my opinion.
When JWT is used for simple client-to-server identification there is no need for signing or asymmetric encryption. JWT can be encrypted with AES which is fast and supersecure. If the server can decrypt it, it means the server is the one who encrypted it.
Summary: non-encrypted JWT is not secure. Symmetric encryption can be used instead of signing in case no third party is involved.
I don't understand the point of having access token in authentication. Below is a paragraph of explanation I took but I still confused. Since every api call still go to the db look for the token, what's the different check for the username and password for every http request?
Instead of forcing clients to send username and password with every
request you can have a "get_access_token" function in your RESTful
service that takes the username and password and responds with a
token, which is some sort of cryptographic hash that is unique and has
some expiration date associated with it. These tokens are stored in
the database with each user. Then the client sends the access token in
subsequent requests. The access token will then be validated against
the database instead of the username and password.
Using the access token limits the amount of time the username and password are being used and sent across the wire.
How many times do you want your username and password, SSN, or other sensitive data do you want being stored and transmitted? Do you want that on every request?
First of all, access tokens are typically validated by checking the digital signature, which does not require the receiving service to talk to the issuing server. The client gets an access token once and uses it until it expires.
But even if the token had to be checked against the database on every call (when using reference tokens for example), tokens are still preferred over sending username and password on each call. They remove the need for the client to keep the password in memory (or elsewhere), where it can easily be stolen.
(1) Access token is less sensitive than your password. Access tokens typically expire after a short time (this is a requirement in the Oauth threat model), whereas passwords tends to be long term. If somebody grabs your access token, there is limited damage they can do. If they grab your password, then there is a lot of damage that they can do. Especially if you use the same or related passwords on multiple sites.
(2) If the server implemented password verification securely, then they should be using a slow function like PBKDF2, bcrypt, or scrypt to validate your passwords. These functions are designed to be slow so that if somebody gets access to the database, they will not be able to reverse many passwords: see Our password hashing has no clothes. Given that password checking is supposed to be slow, we don't want to be doing it often! Validation of access tokens is much quicker however.
(3) The system that grants you access to a resource ("resource provider") might not be the same as the system that checks your identity ("identity provider"). For example, many websites including StackOverflow allow you go login with your gmail account. In this case, Google is the identity provider and StackOverflow is the resource provider. Would you really want to provide your gmail password to StackOverflow? I hope not.
I am developing an app which uses several API services, the API requires that I provide username and password for API transactions, unfortunately no API token :-( in-order to automate I need to store username passwords somewhere, preferably database, I cannot use hashing because I need to send the username/password to authenticate and process API request, hence I am wondering how to go about it.
If I use Zend\Crypt to encrypt and store the password in database and decrypt whenever required, would this be enough for security? is there something else I must consider?
Looking for pointers.
PS: I am using ZendFramework2 with Doctrine/MySQL for the app.
Usually you would use a token mechanism (like OAuth). If that's not possible, one would use TLS/SSL client authentication.
However, if you rely on plain passwords (on the application-level, I still guess the username/password tupel is transmitted over a secure connection!) and you want to store them encrypted, you have to think of a meaningful mechanism to get an encryption key for your scenario. Just generating an encryption key and storing it on the same machine in plain does not provide more security.
Without more information on your scenario it is hard to make a suitable suggestion.
Consider the following interaction:
A user stores their username and password on a web server. For the sake of security, the server records a hash of the password plus some unique salt.
While the user is using a client application, it makes a request to the server submitting their username and a hash of the password plus some other unique salt.
So you have the following information on the server and need to know whether or not the request is authentic:
The server's salt
The server's hashed password
The client's salt
The client's hashed password
Again ... client sends: clientSalt + MD5(clientSalt + password). Server has serverSalt + MD5(serverSalt + password). I don't want to know the password, I just want to know if the hashes were calculated from the same password.
Without knowing the password that was hashed, is there any way to verify that both hashes are of the same password?
My goal is to allow some form of secure authentication in a client-server environment without ever exchanging the actual password over the wire. This is just one idea I've had, but I don't even know if it's possible.
That would require unhashing the password, which is not possible. If the server receives: salt, md5sum, it can't see what went into the md5sum.
A challenge-response protocol would work instead. The server should generate a random value nonce and send it to the client. The client calculates md5(md5(password) | nonce)) and returns it to the server. The server verifies by checking md5(storedpassword | nonce).
No, you can't do this.
Once you add a salt into the mix it becomes practically impossible to compare hashes. (To do so would require "un-hashing" those hashes somehow before comparing the "un-hashed" data.)
Challenge-response authentication is probably the way to go, possibly using Kerberos, depending on your tradeoffs. One of the tradeoffs being the possibility for attackers controlling the clients to use compromised hashes to authenticate themselves.
Don't invent your own cryptographic protocols. Use one that is well-known and well tested. If possible, use an existing (vetted) implementation.
My goal is to allow some form of secure authentication in a client-server environment without ever exchanging the actual password over the wire. This is just one idea I've had, but I don't even know if it's possible.
For this, I advise looking into Kerberos: Official Site and Wikipedia
It's impossible. If you don't store password on the server, user must provide it.
OR
If you store password on the server, user can provide hash calculated using requested salt.
You will not be able to verify the hash with this setup.
If you don't want someone to see the password go over the wire, SSL is the easier way.
If you don't want to use SSL, you could check out SRP.
Additionnally: don't use MD5+Salt to store your password, use key strengthening functions like bcrypt or scrypt.
Background:
I'm designing the authentication scheme for a REST web service. This doesn't "really" need to be secure (it's more of a personal project) but I want to make it as secure as possible as an exercise/learning experience. I don't want to use SSL since I don't want the hassle and, mostly, the expense of setting it up.
These SO questions were especially useful to get me started:
RESTful Authentication
Best Practices for securing a REST API / web service
Examples of the best SOAP/REST/RPC web APIs? And why do you like them? And what’s wrong with them?
I'm thinking of using a simplified version of Amazon S3's authentication (I like OAuth but it seems too complicated for my needs). I'm adding a randomly generated nonce, supplied by the server, to the request, to prevent replay attacks.
To get to the question:
Both S3 and OAuth rely on signing the request URL along with a few selected headers. Neither of them sign the request body for POST or PUT requests. Isn't this vulnerable to a man-in-the-middle attack, which keeps the url and headers and replaces the request body with any data the attacker wants?
It seems like I can guard against this by including a hash of the request body in the string that gets signed. Is this secure?
A previous answer only mentioned SSL in the context of data transfer and didn't actually cover authentication.
You're really asking about securely authenticating REST API clients. Unless you're using TLS client authentication, SSL alone is NOT a viable authentication mechanism for a REST API. SSL without client authc only authenticates the server, which is irrelevant for most REST APIs because you really want to authenticate the client.
If you don't use TLS client authentication, you'll need to use something like a digest-based authentication scheme (like Amazon Web Service's custom scheme) or OAuth 1.0a or even HTTP Basic authentication (but over SSL only).
These schemes authenticate that the request was sent by someone expected. TLS (SSL) (without client authentication) ensures that the data sent over the wire remains untampered. They are separate - but complementary - concerns.
For those interested, I've expanded on an SO question about HTTP Authentication Schemes and how they work.
REST means working with the standards of the web, and the standard for "secure" transfer on the web is SSL. Anything else is going to be kind of funky and require extra deployment effort for clients, which will have to have encryption libraries available.
Once you commit to SSL, there's really nothing fancy required for authentication in principle. You can again go with web standards and use HTTP Basic auth (username and secret token sent along with each request) as it's much simpler than an elaborate signing protocol, and still effective in the context of a secure connection. You just need to be sure the password never goes over plain text; so if the password is ever received over a plain text connection, you might even disable the password and mail the developer. You should also ensure the credentials aren't logged anywhere upon receipt, just as you wouldn't log a regular password.
HTTP Digest is a safer approach as it prevents the secret token being passed along; instead, it's a hash the server can verify on the other end. Though it may be overkill for less sensitive applications if you've taken the precautions mentioned above. After all, the user's password is already transmitted in plain-text when they log in (unless you're doing some fancy JavaScript encryption in the browser), and likewise their cookies on each request.
Note that with APIs, it's better for the client to be passing tokens - randomly generated strings - instead of the password the developer logs into the website with. So the developer should be able to log into your site and generate new tokens that can be used for API verification.
The main reason to use a token is that it can be replaced if it's compromised, whereas if the password is compromised, the owner could log into the developer's account and do anything they want with it. A further advantage of tokens is you can issue multiple tokens to the same developers. Perhaps because they have multiple apps or because they want tokens with different access levels.
(Updated to cover implications of making the connection SSL-only.)
Or you could use the known solution to this problem and use SSL. Self-signed certs are free and its a personal project right?
If you require the hash of the body as one of the parameters in the URL and that URL is signed via a private key, then a man-in-the-middle attack would only be able to replace the body with content that would generate the same hash. Easy to do with MD5 hash values now at least and when SHA-1 is broken, well, you get the picture.
To secure the body from tampering, you would need to require a signature of the body, which a man-in-the-middle attack would be less likely to be able to break since they wouldn't know the private key that generates the signature.
In fact, the original S3 auth does allow for the content to be signed, albeit with a weak MD5 signature. You can simply enforce their optional practice of including a Content-MD5 header in the HMAC (string to be signed).
http://s3.amazonaws.com/doc/s3-developer-guide/RESTAuthentication.html
Their new v4 authentication scheme is more secure.
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/signature-version-4.html
Remember that your suggestions makes it difficult for clients to communicate with the server. They need to understand your innovative solution and encrypt the data accordingly, this model is not so good for public API (unless you are amazon\yahoo\google..).
Anyways, if you must encrypt the body content I would suggest you to check out existing standards and solutions like:
XML encryption (W3C standard)
XML Security