OK, I'm probably just having a bad Monday, but I have the following need and I'm seeing lots of partial solutions but I'm sure I'm not the first person to need this, so I'm wondering if I'm missing the obvious.
$client has 50 to 500 bytes worth of binary data that must be inserted into the middle of a URL and roundtrip to their customer's browser. Since it's part of the URL, we're up against the 1K "theoretical" limit of a GET URL. Also, $client doesn't want their customer decoding the data, or tampering with it without detection. $client would also prefer not to store anything server-side, so this must be completely standalone. Must be Perl code, and fast, in both encoding and decoding.
I think the last step can be base64. But what are the steps for encryption and hashing that make the most sense?
I have some code in a Cat App that uses Crypt::Util to encode/decode a user's email address for an email verification link.
I set up a Crypt::Util model using Catalyst::Model::Adaptor with a secret key. Then in my Controller I have the following logic on the sending side:
my $cu = $c->model('CryptUtil');
my $token = $cu->encode_string_uri_base64( $cu->encode_string( $user->email ) );
my $url = $c->uri_for( $self->action_for('verify'), $token );
I send this link to the $user->email and when it is clicked on I use the following.
my $cu = $c->model('CryptUtil');
if ( my $id = $cu->decode_string( $cu->decode_string_uri_base64($token) ) ) {
# handle valid link
} else {
# invalid link
}
This is basically what edanite just suggested in another answer. You'll just need to make sure whatever data you use to form the token with that the final $url doesn't exceed your arbitrary limit.
Create a secret key and store it on the server. If there are multiple servers and requests aren't guaranteed to come back to the same server; you'll need to use the same key on every server. This key should be rotated periodically.
If you encrypt the data in CBC (Cipher Block Chaining) mode (See the Crypt::CBC module), the overhead of encryption is at most two blocks (one for the IV and one for padding). 128 bit (i.e. 16 byte) blocks are common, but not universal. I recommend using AES (aka Rijndael) as the block cipher.
You need to authenticate the data to ensure it hasn't been modified. Depending on the security of the application, just hashing the message and including the hash in the plaintext that you encrypt may be good enough. This depends on attackers being unable to change the hash to match the message without knowing the symmetric encryption key. If you're using 128-bit keys for the cipher, use a 256-bit hash like SHA-256 (you can use the Digest module for this). You may also want to include some other things like a timestamp in the data to prevent the request from being repeated multiple times.
I see three steps here. First, try compressing the data. With so little data bzip2 might save you maybe 5-20%. I'd throw in a guard to make sure it doesn't make the data larger. This step may not be worth while.
use Compress::Bzip2 qw(:utilities);
$data = memBzip $data;
You could also try reducing the length of any keys and values in the data manually. For example, first_name could be reduced to fname.
Second, encrypt it. Pick your favorite cipher and use Crypt::CBC. Here I use Rijndael because its good enough for the NSA. You'll want to do benchmarking to find the best balance between performance and security.
use Crypt::CBC;
my $key = "SUPER SEKRET";
my $cipher = Crypt::CBC->new($key, 'Rijndael');
my $encrypted_data = $cipher->encrypt($data);
You'll have to store the key on the server. Putting it in a protected file should be sufficient, securing that file is left as an exercise. When you say you can't store anything on the server I presume this doesn't include the key.
Finally, Base 64 encode it. I would use the modified URL-safe base 64 which uses - and _ instead of + and / saving you from having to spend space URL encoding these characters in the base 64 string. MIME::Base64::URLSafe covers that.
use MIME::Base64::URLSafe;
my $safe_data = urlsafe_b64encode($encrypted_data);
Then stick it onto the URL however you want. Reverse the process for reading it in.
You should be safe on size. Encrypting will increase the size of the data, but probably by less than 25%. Base 64 will increase the size of the data by a third (encoding as 2^6 instead of 2^8). This should leave encoding 500 bytes comfortably inside 1K.
How secure does it need to be? Could you just xor the data with a long random string then add an MD5 hash of the whole lot with another secret salt to detect tampering?
I wouldn't use that for banking data, but it'd probably be fine for most web things...
big
Related
It seems I can't get rid of this "Cookie "myname" is bigger than 4KiB" error
in my startup sub:
my $app = $self->sessions(Mojolicious::Sessions->new);
my $sessions = $app->sessions;
$sessions->cookie_name('cookie_name');
# $sessions->max_cookie_size(4096*2); <= that's what I'm looking for
Any ideas on how to get around this?
Is there a way to increase and check the cookie size?
Help would be appreciated.
RFC 6265, suggests (SHOULD) that browsers allow at least 4096 for the entire collection of cookie data (not just the value):
At least 4096 bytes per cookie (as measured by the sum of the
length of the cookie's name, value, and attributes).
That's the number that the popular browsers support. If they get a bigger cookie, they likely ignore it.
Note that if you have a large cookie, the client has to send that back. That might have to split a request, even if it doesn't need the cookie, to be split over several packets and so on. Small wins matter, so the RFC goes on to say:
Servers SHOULD use as few and as small cookies as possible to avoid
reaching these implementation limits and to minimize network
bandwidth due to the Cookie header being included in every request.
Beyond that, realize that storing a bunch of information in the cookie means that the client side has the opportunity to change that information in some way that allows them to do things you don't intend.
On the technical side, there are various things that you can do to shorten a string by using your 4096 octets more efficiently. Things the uuencode (7-bit encoding), Perl's pack for numbers, and other binary techniques (Sereal, msgpack, whatever) can squeeze more info in.
I will start with a disclaimer that I am out of my depth here. A colleague was showing me a decryption routine he wrote with pycryptodomex. He had an encrypted file, a key, and a nonce (extracted from the file). He was able to decrypt the file contents in a very straight forward way.
c = Crypto.Cipher.AES.new(key, AES.MODE_GCM, nonce)
c.decrypt(encrypted_data)
You can see a similar implementation in the pycryptodome test for GCM:
cipher = AES.new(self.key_128, AES.MODE_GCM, nonce=self.nonce_96)
pt = get_tag_random("plaintext", 16 * 100)
ct = cipher.encrypt(pt)
cipher = AES.new(self.key_128, AES.MODE_GCM, nonce=self.nonce_96)
pt2 = cipher.decrypt(ct)
Unfortunately, pycryptdomex is an additional dependency that I would need to carry around and I am looking to avoid this. I have a base installation of Anaconda, which brings with it the pyCrypto and pyCA/cryptography packages. It appears that pycryptodomex is a fork of pyCrytpo, which didn't have a stable GCM implementation to begin with. When I look at the implementation for PyCA/cryptography, it looks straight forward:
cipher = Cipher(algorithms.AES(key), modes.GCM(nonce), backend=default_backend())
d = cipher.decryptor()
But when we want to decrypt content we have to call finalize_with_tag and produce an authentication tag:
d.update(encrypted_data) + d.finalize_with_tag(tag)
Unfortunately, I don't have an authentication tag nor do I know where to find it. I can't set the value to None as there is a minimum length requirement. I'm also not sure why I need to produce an authentication tag in the first place for AES GCM decryption with PyCA/Cryptography but I do not need to produce a tag when decrypting with the pycryptodomex. I'm ultimately looking for clarity on the following:
Is it possible to implement AES/GCM decryption with the Anaconda PyCA/cryptography package if I only have access to the key, nonce, and encrypted data?
Why do I need to provide an authentication tag for decryption with one implementation and not the other?
Is pycryptodomex doing something under the hood to determine the tag?
GCM without authentication tag is equivalent to CTR mode. (except the + 1 difference in starting counter value)
Calling decrypt does not verify the tag (as far as I know). You can test this yourself by altering the ciphertext just one byte. It will decrypt just fine (to a plaintext that is off by one byte). Use decrypt_and_verify (see test_invalid_mac test).
See 2.
Apologies as I can't reply to comments. Is it possible to derive the tag from the decrypted data after decryption? This PR associated with PyCA/cryptography seems to imply the exact scenario considered here.
According to the GCM spec (section 7.2: “Algorithm for the
Authenticated Decryption Function”), the tag itself is not needed
until the ciphertext has been decrypted.
Does calling d.update(encrypted_data) decrypt data successfully and d.finalize() is only needed to verify the integrity of the data?
I'm writing a Perl email subscription management app, based on a url containing two keycode parameters. At the time of subscription, a script will create two keycodes for each subscriber that are unique in the database (see below for script sample).
The codes will be created using Digest::SHA qw(sha256_hex). My understanding of it is that one way to ensure that codes are not duplicated in the database is to create a unique prefix in the raw data to be encoded. (see below, also).
Once a person is subscribed, I then have a database record of a person with two "code" fields, each containing values that are unique in the database. Each value is a string of alphanumeric characters that is 64 characters long, using lower case (only?) a-z and 0-9, e.g:
code1: ae7518b42b0514d69ae4e87d7d9f888ad268f4a398e7b88cbaf1dc2542858ba3
code2: 71723cf0aecd27c6bbf73ec5edfdc6ac912f648683470bd31debb1a4fbe429e8
These codes are sent in newsletter emails as parameters in a subscription management url. Thus, the person doesn't have to log in to manage their subscription; but simply click the url.
My question is:
If a subscriber tried to guess the values of the pair of codes for another person, how many possible combinations would there be to not only guess code1 correctly, but also guess code2? I suppose, like the lottery, a person could get lucky and just guess both; but I want to understand the odds against that, and its impact on security.
If the combo is guessed, the person would gain access to the database; thus, I'm trying to determine the level of security this method provides, compared to a more normal method of a username and 8 character password (which generically speaking could be considered two key codes themselves, but much shorter than the 64 characters above.)
I also welcome any feedback about the overall security of this method. I've noticed that many, many email newsletters seem to use similar keycodes, and don't require logging in to unsubscribe, etc. To, the primary issue (besides ease of use) is that a person should not be able to unsubscribe someone else.
Thanks!
Peter (see below for the code generation snippet)
Note that each ID and email would be unique.
The password is a 'system' password, and would be the same for each person.
#
#!/usr/bin/perl
use Digest::SHA qw(sha256_hex);
$clear = `clear`;
print $clear;
srand;
$id = 1;
$email = 'someone#domain.com';
$tag = ':!:';
$password = 'z9.4!l3tv+qe.p9#';
$rand_str = '9' x 15;
$rand_num = int(rand( $rand_str ));
$time = time() * $id;
$key_data = $id . $tag . $password . $rand_num . $time;
$key_code = sha256_hex($key_data);
$email_data = $email . $tag . $password . $time . $rand_num;
$email_code = sha256_hex($email_data);
print qq~
ID: $id
EMAIL: $email
KEY_DATA: $key_data
KEY_CODE: $key_code
EMAIL_DATA: $email_data
EMAIL_CODE: $email_code
~;
exit;
#
This seems like a lot of complexity to guard against a 3rd party unsubscribing someone. Why not generate a random code for each user, and store it in the database alongside the username? The method you are using creates a long string of digits, but there isn't actually much randomness in it. SHA is a deterministic algorithm that thoroughly scrambles bits, but it doesn't add entropy.
For an N bit truly random number, an attacker will only have a 1/(2^N) chance of guessing it right each time. Even with a small amount of entropy, say, 64 bits, your server should be throttling unsubscribe requests from the attacking IP address long before the attacker gets significant odds of succeeding. They'd have better luck guessing the user's email password, or intercepting the unencrypted email in transit.
That is why the unsubscribe codes are usually short. There's no need for a long code, and a long URL is more likely to be truncated or mistyped.
If you're asking how difficult it would be to "guess" two 256-bit "numbers", getting the one specific person you want to hack, that'd be 2^512:1 against. If there are, say, 1000 users in the database, and the attacker doesn't care which one s/he gets, that's 2^512:1000 against - not a significant change in likelihood.
However, it's much simpler than that if your attacker is either in control of (hacked in is close enough) one of the mail servers from your machine to the user's machine, or in control of any of the routers along the way, since your email goes out in plain text. A well-timed hacker who saw the email packet go through would be able to see the URL you've embedded no matter how many bits it is.
As with many security issues, it's a matter of how much effort to put in vs the payoff. Passwords are nice in that users expect them, so it's not a significant barrier to send out URLs that then need a password to enter. If your URL were even just one SHA key combined with the password challenge, this would nearly eliminate a man-in-the-middle attack on your emails. Up to you whether that's worth it. Cheap, convenient, secure. Pick one. :-)
More effort would be to gpg-encrypt your email with the client's public key (not your private one). The obvious downside is that gpg (or pgp) is apparently so little used that average users are unlikely to have it set up. Again, this would entirely eliminate MITM attacks, and wouldn't need a password, as it basically uses the client-side gpg private key password.
You've essentially got 1e15 different possible hashes generated for a given user email id (once combined with other information that could be guessed). You might as well just supply a hex-encoded random number of the same length and require the 'unsubscribe' link to include the email address or user id to be unsubscribed.
I doubt anyone would go to the lengths required to guess a number from 1 to 1e15, especially if you rate limit unsubscribe requests, and send a 'thanks, someone unsubscribed you' email if anyone is unsubscribed, and put a new subsubscription link into that.
A quick way to generate the random string is:
my $hex = join '', map { unpack 'H*', chr(rand(256)) } 1..8;
print $hex, "\n";
b4d4bfb26fddf220
(This gives you 2^64, or about 2*10^19 combinations. Or 'plenty' if you rate limit.)
I want to pass a serialized Perl data structure as a GET variable to a CGI application. I tried Data::Serializer as my first option. Unfortunately the serialized string is too long for my comfort, in addition to containing options joined by '^' (a caret).
Is there a way I can create short encoded strings from perl data structures so that I can safely pass them as GET variables to a perl CGI application?
I would also appreciate being told that this (serialized, encoded strings) is a bad way to pass complex data structures to web applications and suggestions on how I could accomplish this
If you need to send URL's to your users that contains a few key datapoints and you want to ensure it can't be forged you can do this with a Digest (such as from Digest::SHA) and a shared secret. This lets you put the data out there in your messages without needing to keep a local database to track it all. My example doesn't include a time element, but that would be easy enough to add in if you want.
use Digest::SHA qw(sha1_base64);
my $base_url = 'http://example.com/thing.cgi';
my $email = 'guy#somewhere.com';
my $msg_id = '123411';
my $secret = 'mysecret';
my $data = join(":", $email, $msg_id, $secret);
my $digest = sha1_base64($data);
my $url = $base_url . '?email=' . $email . '&msg_id=' . $msg_id' . '&sign=' . $digest;
Then send it along.
In your "thing.cgi" script you just need to extract the parameters and see if the digest submitted in the script matches the one you locally regenerate (using $email and $msg_id, and of course your $secret). If they don't match, don't authorize them, if they do then you have a legitimately authorized request.
Footnote:
I wrote the "raw" methods into Data::Serializer to make translating between serializers much easier and that in fact does help with going between languages (to a point). But that of course is a separate discussion as you really shouldn't ever use a serializer for exchanging data on a web form.
One of the drawbacks of the approach — using a perl-specific serializer, that is — is that if you ever want to communicate between the client and server using something other than perl it will probably be more work than something like JSON or even XML would be. The size limitations of GET requests you've already run in to, but that's problematic for any encoding scheme.
It's more likely to be a problem for the next guy down the road who maintains this code than it is for you. I have a situation now where a developer who worked on a large system before I did decided to store several important bits of data as perl Storable objects. Not a horrible decision in and of itself, but it's making it more difficult than it should be to access the data with tools that aren't written in perl.
Passing serialized encoded strings is a bad way to pass complex data structures to web applications.
If you are trying to pass state from page to page, you can use server side sessions which would only require you to pass around a session key.
If you need to email a link to someone, you can still create a server-side session with a reasonable expiry time (you'll also need to decide if additional authentication is necessary) and then send the session id in the link. You can/should expire the session immediately once the requested action is taken.
We're developing a service that will accept a POST request. Some of the POST data will need to be encrypted before the POST as it will be stored in hidden fields on a form.
The application is written in C#, but we want third party clients to be able to easily integrate with it. We find that most clients use PHP, Classic ASP or VB.Net.
The third parties should only be doing the encryption. We'd do the decryption. There is no two-way communication.
What are the most compatible combinations of encryption algorithm, padding mode and other options?
Assuming that you have a safe way of sharing a key (whether RSA encryption of it, retrieval over an SSH or HTTPS link, or callling the other developer on a secured phone line), any of the major modern encryptions (like AES, as mentioned by #Ed Haber) would be suitable. I would second his suggestion of AES. There should be libraries for PHP, VB, Ruby, etc.
However, remember that with "no two-way communication" you will have to find an out-of-channel method for securely getting the symmetric key to the encrypting party.
If you mean that it should be impossible for third-parties to decrypt data, then you will want to use an asymmetric encryption algorithm such as RSA. This will the third-party to encrypt data with your public key, and then only you can decrypt the data with your private key, which you do not disclose. There should be implementations of RSA available for all the languages you mentioned.
If you don't care if the third-party can decrypt the data, then AES is the way to go. You will have one key which you share with the third-parties. This key is used both for encryption and decryption.
I would use AES for the bulk data encryption and RSA for encrypting the AES Key.
If the data is small enough then just encrypt the whole thing with RSA.
Ed Haber said
I would use AES for the bulk data
encryption and RSA for encrypting the
AES Key. If the data is small enough
then just encrypt the whole thing with
RSA.
I think this is a good solution. What I would do is have your application publish an API for getting a public RSA key. When I third party wants to send you something it gets the public key. It then generates a session key to do the actual encryption using a block cipher, (ie AES), and sends the key to you by encrypting with your public key. You decrypt the session key with your private key. The third party then encrypts the data it wants to send you with AES (using a padding scheme that you also publish) and sends it to you. You decrypt it using the session key.
There are some problems with the method above. Since you are not sending any information (other than publishing your public key, you cannot control how the session key is generated. This means that third parties can use very insecure ways to of generating the session key and you will never know. A second problem is everyone who wants to send you data has to pad data for AES in the same way you do. So you will have to make sure every one co-ordinates. The second issue isn't to big, but the first could be a problem especially if you don't trust the third parties all that much to generate really good session keys from a good cryptographically secure random number generator
You could very easily implement your own XOR key-based bit encryption. With a little thought and ingenuity, you can come up with something that's more than suitable for you application.
Here's a PHP example:
function XOREncryption($InputString, $KeyPhrase){
$KeyPhraseLength = strlen($KeyPhrase);
for ($i = 0; $i < strlen($InputString); $i++){
$rPos = $i % $KeyPhraseLength;
$r = ord($InputString[$i]) ^ ord($KeyPhrase[$rPos]);
$InputString[$i] = chr($r);
}
return $InputString;
}
ColdFusion has the encrypt and decrypt functions capable of handling a range of algorithms and encodings, including the AES recommended above.
Information at: http://www.cfquickdocs.com/cf8/?getDoc=encrypt#Encrypt
Quick example code:
Key = generateSecretKey( 'AES' , 128 )
EncryptedText = encrypt( Text , Key , 'AES' , 'Hex' )
Text = decrypt( EncryptedText , Key, 'AES' , 'Hex' )
Similar functionality is available with this library for PHP:
http://www.chilkatsoft.com/p/php_aes.asp
...and Java, Python, Ruby, and others...
http://www.example-code.com/java/crypt2_aes_matchPhp.asp
http://www.example-code.com/python/aes_stringEncryption.asp
Sounds like RSA is the algorithm for you.
Why not have your server exposed over HTTPS? That way, any client which can handle HTTPS can consume the service securely.