I am using SQLCipher in a c++ project. It has multiple users and each one has to have their own database credentials. Can SQLCipher do this for me? If yes, please leave a sample code. If no, please share your opinions of how to do it.
No, you cannot. It looks like SQLCipher uses a key derivation function to turn your password into a key that is applied per page of the SQLite database.
What you can do instead is the usual trick to enable multi-party encryption:
Encrypt the database with a completely random key k;
Store tuples of (user, encrypt(k, user_key)) in a file next to the database.
user_key can in turn be generated from a password using a key derivation function.
Related
I'm using AWS S3 in my C++ app to upload and download files. I've included the access key and secret in my code but I'm worried someone could read them from the binary. Is there any standard technique for obfuscating them?
Update: I'm not running this app on a PC, it's actually on an embedded device so I'm not worried about users reading the key and secret from a file or RAM (accessing the device is a lot harder). What I'm worried about is someone binwalking our update file and pulling the key and secret from the binary.
Storing a secret in computer is not an easy task. One thing you could do is encrypt the key using a password and store the encrypted data in a file. Then when user enters a password you can decrypt the encrypted data using the password and retrieve the key - which you can use.
But this approach will not work for scenarios where the software needs to run without user intervention.
It is better not keeping keys in code. Input when needed.
If kept in code, do not keep the key in simple string. Keep it in some pattern, and generate the key by some algorithm when needed.
I need to create a desktop application via C++ that could store previous successful connections to show it for user next time. What is the best practice to store such login data? Is it acceptable to store it in the encrypted form inside some file or DB? If yes, what type of encryption is the best for such purpose?
the main problem of storing login data is, that you have to retrieve it and you want retrieve it without user input some password. so the password is decodeable by design and the only protection of the password is security through obscurity. so it does not really matter how you encode the password since Joe Badguy can retrieve it in any case. just do not save it in plain text or some "encryption" like XOR. also maybe do not name the parameter "password=" to make detection a bit more difficult.
I've asked a question related to this one here:
Securely Passing UserID from ASP.Net to Javascript
However now I have a more detailed/specific question. I have the service and I have the application that is going to consume the service my plan to secure it, is to generate a hash based on some values, a nonce, and a secret key. My only issue is that it seems that in order to verify the hash I will have to send all of the values plus the nonce, except the secret key. Is this a flaw in my design or is this how such things are done? I have googled around and haven't been able to find out if this is the right and secure way to do this.
For example lets say I need to pass values 1,2, and 3 to my rest service, so I users phone number, the nonce, and, the secret key to generate a hash, now in order to generate the hash again I would need to pass all of the above except the key (which I can retrieve based on the users phone number).
I am totally leaving my service up for attack, securing it properly, or somewhere in between?
EDIT: made a spelling and grammar correction
EDIT 2: Finally came to to a satisfactory solution by using MVC 4 with forms authentication, identical cookie names between two projects, and making use of a globally applied [Authorize] attribute
There is nothing inherently wrong with this plan. If the client sends:
data . nonce . hash(data . nonce . shared-secret)
Then the server verifies the message by checking that hash(data . nonce . shared-secret) matches the hash provided by the client, you would be safe against both tampering and replay (assuming, of course, that you're using a reasonable cryptographic hashing algorithm).
Under this design, the client can even generate its own nonces, provided there is no risk that two clients will generate the same nonce.
However, eavesdroppers will still be able to see all the data you send… So, unless there is a very good reason not to, I would simply use https (which, unless there are other requirements I'm unaware of, be entirely sufficient).
I am looking for protocol/algorithm that will allow me to use a shared secret between my App & a HTML page.
The shared secret is designed to ensure only people who have the app can access the webpage.
My Problem: I do not know what algorithm(my methodology to validate a valid access to the HTML page) & what encryption protocol I should use for this.
People have suggested to me that I use HMAC SHAXXX or DES or AES, I am unsure which I should use - do you have any suggestions?
My algorithm is like so:
I create a shared secret that the App & the HTML page know of(lets call it "MySecret"). To ensure that that shared secret is always unique I will add the current date & minute to the end of the secret then hash it using XXX algorithm/protocol(HMAC/AES/DES). So the unencrypted secret will be "MySecret08/17/2011-11-11" & lets say the hash of that is "xyz"
I then add this hash to the url CGI: http://mysite.com/comp.py?sharedSecret=xyz
The comp.py script then uses the same shared secret & date combination, hashes it, then checks that the resulting hash is the same as the CGI variable sharedSecret("xyz"). If it is then I know a valid user is accessing the webpage.
Can you think of a better methodology to ensure on valid people can access my webpage(the webpage allows the user to enter a competition)?
I think I am on the correct track using a shared secret but my methodology for validating the secret seems flawed especially if the hash algorithm doesn't produce the same result for the same in put all the time.
especially if the hash algorithm doesn't produce the same result for the same in put all the time.
Then the hash is broken. Why wouldn't it?
You want HMAC in the simple case. You are "signing" your request using the shared secret, and the signature is verified by the server. Note that the HMAC should include more data to prevent replay attacks - in fact it should include all query parameters (in a specified order), along with a serial number to prevent the replay of the same message by an eavesdropper. If all you are verifying is the shared secret, anyone overhearing the message can continue to use this shared secret until it expires. By including a serial number, or a short validity range, you can configure the server to flag that.
Note that this is still imperfect. TLS supports client and server side certificate support - why not use that?
The looks like it would work. Clock drift could be a problem, you may need to validate a range of, say, +/- 3 minutes if it fails for the exact time.
flawed especially if the hash algorithm doesn't produce the same result for the same input all the time
Well, that would be a broken hash algorithm then. A hash reliable produces the same output for the same input every time (and almost always a different output for a different input).
Try using some sort of network encryption. Your web server should be able to handle that type of authentication automatically. All that remains is for you to write it into your app (which you have to do anyway). Depending on your app platform, you may be able to do that automatically as well.
Google these: Kerberos, SPNEGO and HTTP 401 Authorization Required. You may be able to get away with simple hard-coded user name and password HTTP headers and run your connections over HTTPS. That way you have less custom code on your server and your server takes care of authenticating your requests for you. Not to mention you are taking advantage of some additional features of HTTP.
I'm building a server-side application which requires the data the be stored encrypted in the database. When a client accesses the data, it also has to be transferred encrypted. The clients each has a unique login.
My original idea to do this, is to store the data encrypted with a symmetric-algorithm like AES. So when a client wants to access the data the encrypted data is transferred to the client, while the key is encrypted with the public key from the client.
Is this a secure way to do store and transfer the data or is there a better solution to this problem?
Update: If following Søren's suggestion to keep a copy of the AES key encrypted using each client's public key, wouldn't that include the key to be stored somewhere in order to add additional clients or could that be generated in any way?
First you should start by defining some security properties you want to provide, for example:
Is it ok to give different users access to the same secret key? Aka if File1 is AES encrypted with key K, is it a problem if user Alice and user Bob both are given K.
How do I revoke users from the system? (It turns out Bob from scenario 1 is actually a Chinese spy working for our company, how do I securely kick him out of the system).
Does the encrypted data that is saved in the database need to be searched? (This problem is well researched and hard to solve!)
How much (if any) and what plaintext data will be placed into the database to help organize it? Databases expect data to have unique keys associated with them. You need to make sure these keys don't leak information, but are useful enough to retrieve the data later.
How often should secret keys be changed? If you are storing files and multiple users are allowed access to encrypted files, what happens when user X modifies a file? Does the secret key change? Should the new key be sent to all users?
What happens when 2 users modify the same data at the same time? Will the database be able to handle this without modification?
There are many others.
If the server is not trusted and must never see plaintext data, then here's a general overview of a possible solution.
Let the clients managed the crypto completely. Clients authenticate with the server and are allowed to store data into the database. It is the responsibility of the client to make sure the data is encrypted.
In this scenario, keys should be saved securely only on the clients computer. If they must be placed elsewhere, a "master key" could be created.
Secure from what? You need to define your goals more clearly.
The solution would protect the data during transfer, but from your description, the server would have full access to the data (since it'd need to store the AES key unencrypted). In other words, a hacker or burglar with access to the server would have full access to the data.
If secure transmission is what you want, use an SSL / TLS wrapper around the database connection. This is a standard solution from all major vendors.
To secure the data server side, the server should not have the AES key. If the number of clients were limited, the server could store a copy of the AES key for every client, each copy of the key already encrypted with the public key of each client, such that the server never sees the plain text data nor any unencrypted AES keys.
That is indeed the common approach, e.g. also used by NTFS file encryption.