I had one doubt about CSRF prevention. A lot of sites say that CSRF can be prevented by using 'tokens' which are randomly generated per session.
Now my doubt is,
suppose i have a function like :
$.post("abcd.php",{'fbuid':userid,'code':'<?php echo md5($_SESSION['randcode']); ?>'}
now this md5 hash would obviously be visible to any hacker through the source code.He could simply open this page, generate a token, and keep the page open, so that the session doesn't get destroyed, and useanother tab or anything else , to start hacking,
No ?
Or is my idea of tokens incorrect ?
Thanks for your help :D
I think you are misunderstanding what needs to be done. To protect against CSRF you need to create a token and save it for that session. Then you need to append all your submits and AJAX calls with that token.
For another person to send you to a page on your website they would need to have access to the request with in the same session. It is true that one could parse the HTML and look for the token. But when they try to request a http call on your website they will have a new session created. The new session will have a new token which will not match the token that was passed.
Next you will ask what if you can copy the cookies and the session id as a result. This is not something that is protected. I can simply sit anybody's computer and copy all their cookies and I will then be logged in as them.
As kapep points out, you are confusing the two seperate issues of input validation and cross-site form posting. You must validate your inputs anyway, so the case of your malicious attacker using his own session token is already handled if you have sound input validation. CSRF protection is not there to protect the data, it is simply to ensure that only forms from your own application can post data back to that application. the CSRF protection is simply stopping other people being able to post data directly into your app from forms they put up on their own site.
One specific point to be aware of is that the token is visible to any javascript running on your page, so as soon as you have a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability, your CSRF protection is defeated.
See Cross-site scripting and the prevention cheat sheet
You should use a per request token.
Generate a token and store it in the session.
Pass the token to the client.
Execute actions.
Destroy the token.
The token is safer and cannot be used more than one time.
I would define a stolen token as a token that is used by someone else, and not the one you have send the token to. If you send someone a token he can't really steal it from himself.
If you are concerned that a user can run a malicious script with his own token, your design seems to be broken. You can't prevent a user from sending data that you didn't indented to receive. It's your job to validate any data, the session token is just there to identify multiple requests by the same client.
It could be a security issue if you send that token over unsecured http. Then it could easily be stolen by monitoring the clients network.
Related
I've successfully used cookies before and I'd like to begin using JWT. My biggest question is how to pass your token to a website during the initial GET operation, for example when a user types your domain into their address bar or clicks on a link from some other website like google.
When using cookies for example, if you type stackoverflow.com into your web browser, the persistent cookie is sent to the website which seamlessly allows your own stackoverflow session to be automatically authorized.
I am aware that I can programatically pass my JWT token via a javascript GET through the HTTP headers but how do you pass the token when a visitor types in your URL into their web browser?
Possible solution #1
My thoughts have been to have javascript code check if 'authorized'. If not, check for a JWT token in local storage. If found, redirect to the same address. The problem of course would be that there is no way to pass the token during a redirect.
Possible solution #2
Similar to above but not issuing a redirect, I would update the current page to reflect the 'authorized' state.
Possible solution #3
Use a permanent cookie containing the JWT token. I am thinking that this 3rd option would be the best. If I did this, there would be no need to pass the JWT via an HTTP header.
I've thought about this for a few days, read up on JWT and here are my conclusions for avoiding JWT in my particular case:
No easy way to authorize a user who opens their browser and types in your website. With cookies, your server immediately knows how to respond to this headerless GET request.
No way to easily change the JWT token signature. All users are immediately affected by such a change, essentially forcing everyone to authenticate again.
No way to easily invalidate a specific JWT token. The best you can do is to maintain and check a banned signature list on the server. This of course would require a centralized or distributed server method almost identical to a cookie session management system. This would force a coupling between the token and the server, no longer stateless as intended by JWT.
SUMMARY
Cookie management requires more server infrastructure but you have much greater session control. State is seamless (in the case of #1 above). You can instantly invalidate state. For example, the user can log out (deleting the session at the server level) or the session can be instantly banned by an administrator by simply deleting the session.
I also see the benefits to JWS:
no need to hit the db or cache system when authorizing.
simple authorization between multiple servers having the secret key.
simple authorization, no session management programming and no db session state storage required.
...but the drawbacks stated previously are too great for my particular needs.
I have been reading up on how CSRF Tokens are implemented to prevent CSRF attacks. The OWASP page (https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet) and various articles state that one can generate a random unique token either on a per page basis or a per session basis. (of which they recommend generating it once per sessions)
If only one token is generated per session, then wouldn't that mean that all form pages using tokens for that session will have to have the same token every time the page is loaded (whenever say it is refreshed)? But in most implementations I have seen each load for the form has a different random token.
How does it work? After every successful check at the server side, is the CSRF token present in the session invalidated?
I just wanted to know if I am understanding this right. I read many similar questions on Stackoverflow and other blogs but I am still confused.
Thanks !!
I haven't read the OWASP page, but I believe in this context a session starts when a visitor first arrives at a site, and continues until the session expires (whether through inactivity or other generally server-defined criteria) or the visitor closes their browser.
When a session is first started, there won't be a CSRF token present in the session, so the server will generate one, and store the token in its internal data. A session handle is returned to the browser, and when the visitor loads or reloads another page on the site, it returns the session handle to the server, the server finds it has a CSRF token already set, and uses the existing one, rather than creating a new one. Thus, you don't need to worry about the token being invalidated as long as you only create a new one only if there isn't one already present in the session.
Even if the CSRF secret is only generated once per session, it's possible for each form to get a different token, by salting and hashing the secret (similar to how passwords are salted and hashed) that's sent to the browser. On form submission, the server can verify the salted token against its secret (again, similar to how passwords are checked). That way, each form can get its own unique token, without the server needing to remember or invalidate anything other than the per-session secret.
I am developing a REST application with its own authentication and authorization mechanism. I want to use JSON Web Tokens for authentication. Is the following a valid and safe implementation?
A REST API will be developed to accept username and password and do the authentication. The HTTP method to be used is POST so that there is no caching. Also, there will be SSL for security at the time of transit
At the time of authentication, two JWTs will be created - access token and refresh token. Refresh token will have longer validity. Both the tokens will be written in cookies, so that they are sent in every subsequent requests
On every REST API call, the tokens will be retrieved from the HTTP header. If the access token is not expired, check the privileges of the user and allow access accordingly. If the access token is expired but the refresh token is valid, recreate new access token and refresh token with new expiry dates (do all necessary checks to ensure that the user rights to authenticate are not revoked) and sent back through Cookies
Provide a logout REST API that will reset the cookie and hence subsequent API calls will be rejected until login is done.
My understanding of refresh token here is:
Due to the presence of refresh token, we can keep shorter validity period for access token and check frequently (at the expiry of access token) that the user is still authorized to login.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
A REST API will be developed to accept username and password and do
the authentication. The HTTP method to be used is POST so that there
is no caching. Also, there will be SSL for security at the time of
transit
This is the way most do it, so you're good here.
At the time of authentication, two JWTs will be created - access token
and refresh token. Refresh token will have longer validity. Both the
tokens will be written in cookies so that they are sent in every
subsequent requests
Storing the tokens in cookies I not dangerous in itself, but if you somehow get you JWT module on your server to read them from there you vulnerable to CSRF attacks where any webpage can trigger a users browser to send a form + you sites cookie to your server unless you use CSRF tokens. So generally they are stored in localStorage and "manually" added to request headers every time.
On every REST API call, the tokens will be retrieved from the HTTP
header. If the access token is not expired, check the privileges of
the user and allow access accordingly. If the access token is expired
but the refresh token is valid, recreate new access token and refresh
token with new expiry dates (do all necessary checks to ensure that
the user rights to authenticate are not revoked) and sent back through
Cookies
Apart from the cookie dangers, it seems safe.
Provide a logout REST API that will reset the cookie and hence
subsequent API calls will be rejected until login is done.
You don't even need to make an API call, you can simply just purge the cookies or the localStorage object and make sure your client doesn't break on missing tokens.
The standard for the express-jwt module expects the tokens to be in its own "Authorization: Bearer [Token]" header, which I would strongly recommend over cookies. The localStorage API is available all the way back to IE8 so you should be good.
Edit:
First, it's important to know the difference between XSS and CSRF attacks since they're often believed to be the same thing.
XSS is when users get unsafe JS running on your domain in other users browsers when that happens neither JWT in localStorage or sessions and JWT in cookies are safe. With httpOnly flag on cookies, you can't directly access them, but the browser will still send them with AJAX requests to your server. If this happens you generally out of luck. To prevent this, make sure to escape all user input if it's sent to the browser.
If you load 3rd party JS with script tags or iframes this might compromise localStorage unless you are careful, but I haven't worked enough with this to help you here.
CSRF is only when other domains are trying to send normal HTML forms to your server by getting the browser to send cookies automatically. Frameworks prevent this by inserting unique random strings as hidden fields and checking them again when it's submitted. JWT's in localStorage is safe from this since each domain gets its own separate localStorage area.
But ultimately all this depends on if your service will be using one single domain, in which case httpOnly cookies will be plenty secure and easier to set up, but if you wanna spread your service out on multiple domains like api.domain.com + app.domain.com or add a native app you're forced to store you're JWTs in localStorage or some other native storage area.
Hope this helps!
I asked this question two years back and also accepted the answer. However, based on my experience and study in the last two years, I'd like to answer this just in case someone stumbles on this thread with the same question.
The approach mentioned in the question is similar to the "Resource Owner Password Credentials" grant type of OAuth 2.0. However, I think it is better to use the "Authorization Code Grant" type instead and Cookie to store the tokens instead of browser localStorage or sessionStorage. I have detailed my reasons, implementation points, security considerations and references in this StackOverlow answer.
Like OP I been using resource owner password grant.
I learned so much from Saptarshi Basu's other answer in a different post I think anyone looking into OAuth Code Flow should take a look at it, it has outlined a very solid approach to auth SPA and resource servers. It primarily relies on your backend(resource server) to handle authentication with the auth provider as a private client.
However, I will just add that people looking at implementing authentication with SPA should also consider OAuth Code Flow with PKCE. The main goal of PKCE is to allow public client such as SPA to authenticate directly with auth provider. All PKCE adds, is that when a SPA app initiates authentication, a hashed value is sent to the auth provider when the user is authenticated. And after user authenticate with the authorization provider, it redirects the user back to SPA with that hashed value as well as authorization code. Now, for the next part where the SPA calls auth provider to exchange code for tokens, instead of providing client secret, it has to provide the key that was originally used to create the hashed value. This mechanism guarantees the code cannot be used by someone who intercepted the code, and the SPA doesnt need to store a client secret like a server-side app does.
Now the only thing I'm not certain at this point is which is technically more secure, server-side authentication using standard Code Flow without PKCE or SPA authenticating directly using PKCE? Most resources I could find online currently describes and recommends the latter . However I feel that letting a private server side client handle authentication (as Saptarshi Basu described) might still be more secure. I would love to hear his opinion on this as well.
My understanding of refresh token here is:
Due to the presence of refresh token, we can keep shorter validity period for access token and check frequently (at the expiry of access token) that the user is still authorized to login.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Assuming you're talking about using JWT as Bearer-token in OAuth (and I would strongly advice to follow the OAuth 2.0 protocol), that's right.
With an additional auth-time (timestamp of authentication) claim in your JWT, you could even drop the second token and sent your access- as a refresh-token (the auth-server could then issue a new access-token if token is valid & auth-time within allowed range)... but sure, it's also good to follow the standard ;)
Anyway, there are certain additional aspects (that tend to get difficult or are even against the fundamental ideas of JWT) you should consider before using JWTs as refresh-token, as this basically means you introduce long-living JWT:
do you need to have something like forced user logout/ token revocation by subject (e.g. if user got identified as fraudulent)?
do you need to have something like revocation of a specific token (e.g. if a user looses a device)?
...
Dependent on your use-case you should consider all the possible implications, long-living tokens have as they usually require you to introduce some kind of state on your server-side (e.g. to allow revocation/ blacklisting). Keep in mind the beauty and security of the JWT concept lies within JWTs being short-lived.
I currently have forms on my page, which are there regardless of if a user is logged in or not. Once a user logs in, they are presented with one of these forms (which use CSRF).
The issue is that if this box is presented after the authentication, the CSRF tokens are invalidated. I have confirmed this by allowing myself to submit the form without authentication checks and $form->isValid() returns true whereas after login, it gives me false with the error of:
The CSRF token is invalid. Please try to resubmit the form.
I guess there are three solutions - stop Symfony from regenerating/invalidating the CSRF tokens on authentication, remove the CSRF tokens from these forms or generate my form after authentication (I'd rather avoid this, however). My current solution is to pass a new CSRF token back with the authentication and set forms token input value.
Additional: Does anyone know how to view all CSRF tokens that are currently assigned? The session doesn't seem to hold them.
The usual approach is that when someone logs in successfully, the whole page is refreshed, as potentially different data is going to be displayed, customised to the user.
However if you really don't want to do that, You said:
My current solution is to pass a new CSRF token back with the authentication and set forms token input value.
Just do that. There is nothing wrong with that.
Thanks to #MarkFox for pointing me to this CWE - although I knew it was through design, I'd hoped there would be a way for me to avoid going down the route I ended up.
For anyone interested, the CWE states:
Authenticating a user, or otherwise establishing a new user session, without invalidating any existing session identifier gives an attacker the opportunity to steal authenticated sessions.
For this reason, I recommend that you go down the path I ended up, sending the new request tokens via AJAX and place them into the relevant forms.
Is it a good practice to save the csrf token in a cookie or is it better to use a hidden field in a form? Also is it good to regenerate csrf token every user request like what captchas are doing?
Thanks
It is best to include it in the form. The idea behind a CSRF token is that it is not passed passively (e.g. if a malicious user is able to trick the browser into accessing some URL that does something nasty). Cookies are passed passively.
The best explaination to this question can be found on OWASP website at OWASP CSRF Prevention Cheat Sheet page.
Firstly, using cookie for a CSRF token can not help much because all cookies, even the secret ones, will be submitted with every request. All authentication tokens will be submitted regardless of whether or not the end-user was tricked into submitting the request.
Secondly, the application can include hidden input parameter in the form with a common name such as "CSRFToken". The value of this token must be randomly generated such that it cannot be guessed by an attacker.
Furthermore, Challenge-Response is another defense option for CSRF. It can be implemented in following ways:
CAPTCHA
Re-Authentication (password)
One-time Token
The CSRF cookie is certainly open to attack but implementation safe as the session value will always be checked against a submitted token value either stored in the body or header of the request so I can't see a reason against. The double submit (http only cookie vs post data) or token synchronizer (session vs post data) patterns outlined on the OWASP website are good pratices and both use cookies.
Double submit as mentioned earlier moves the storage to the client so is considered stateless but either way two tokens for comparison, of which one always remains unknown to the attacker.