I'm new to ExactTarget, and I'm having some hard time to do something that should be simple.
We direct our e-mails using a list of All Subscribers, and filter then using data extensions. When I go on the tracking page of a particular e-mail, there it is in the Summary, all the info and the Data Extensions, on the format:
name (number) sent (Using All Subscribers) (number sent)
The thing is, when I do a tracking extract I don't get this information. I tried to extract everything that was possible, and couldn't get this information. All I get is, for each sendID (for each subscriber in fact), the ListID, which will always be the same (the one for All Subscribers). I want to know which segment we used.
Tried to deep dive on the SOAP API, with no luck, again all I can retrieve is the List, never the data extension.
This must be retrievable, once it is on the Tracking Summary. So my question is how do I retrieve is.
I considered programming a simple robot to scrape for this info, but there must be a better way.
Thanks
Guess nobody cares much, but in case someone faces the same problem, I've got a final answer for support, the information is not retrievable (except through the tracking summary, which must be accessed one by one) through API or UI
But a custom report can be asked for. Still waiting to see if it's free of charge (should be, right? As it's something that should be available in first place)
I want to verify if the text log files created by my program being run at my customer's site have been tampered with. How do you suggest I go about doing this? I searched a bunch here and google but couldn't find my answer. Thanks!
Edit: After reading all the suggestions so far here are my thoughts. I want to keep it simple, and since the customer isn't that computer savy, I think it is safe to embed the salt in the binary. I'll continue to search for a simple solution using the keywords "salt checksum hash" etc and post back here once I find one.
Obligatory preamble: How much is at stake here? You must assume that tampering will be possible, but that you can make it very difficult if you spend enough time and money. So: how much is it worth to you?
That said:
Since it's your code writing the file, you can write it out encrypted. If you need it to be human readable, you can keep a second encrypted copy, or a second file containing only a hash, or write a hash value for every entry. (The hash must contain a "secret" key, of course.) If this is too risky, consider transmitting hashes or checksums or the log itself to other servers. And so forth.
This is a quite difficult thing to do, unless you can somehow protect the keypair used to sign the data. Signing the data requires a private key, and if that key is on a machine, a person can simply alter the data or create new data, and use that private key to sign the data. You can keep the private key on a "secure" machine, but then how do you guarantee that the data hadn't been tampered with before it left the original machine?
Of course, if you are protecting only data in motion, things get a lot easier.
Signing data is easy, if you can protect the private key.
Once you've worked out the higher-level theory that ensures security, take a look at GPGME to do the signing.
You may put a checksum as a prefix to each of your file lines, using an algorithm like adler-32 or something.
If you do not want to put binary code in your log files, use an encode64 method to convert the checksum to non binary data. So, you may discard only the lines that have been tampered.
It really depends on what you are trying to achieve, what is at stakes and what are the constraints.
Fundamentally: what you are asking for is just plain impossible (in isolation).
Now, it's a matter of complicating the life of the persons trying to modify the file so that it'll cost them more to modify it than what they could earn by doing the modification. Of course it means that hackers motivated by the sole goal of cracking in your measures of protection will not be deterred that much...
Assuming it should work on a standalone computer (no network), it is, as I said, impossible. Whatever the process you use, whatever the key / algorithm, this is ultimately embedded in the binary, which is exposed to the scrutiny of the would-be hacker. It's possible to deassemble it, it's possible to examine it with hex-readers, it's possible to probe it with different inputs, plug in a debugger etc... Your only option is thus to make debugging / examination a pain by breaking down the logic, using debug detection to change the paths, and if you are very good using self-modifying code. It does not mean it'll become impossible to tamper with the process, it barely means it should become difficult enough that any attacker will abandon.
If you have a network at your disposal, you can store a hash on a distant (under your control) drive, and then compare the hash. 2 difficulties here:
Storing (how to ensure it is your binary ?)
Retrieving (how to ensure you are talking to the right server ?)
And of course, in both cases, beware of the man in the middle syndroms...
One last bit of advice: if you need security, you'll need to consult a real expert, don't rely on some strange guys (like myself) talking on a forum. We're amateurs.
It's your file and your program which is allowed to modify it. When this being the case, there is one simple solution. (If you can afford to put your log file into a seperate folder)
Note:
You can have all your log files placed into a seperate folder. For eg, in my appplication, we have lot of DLLs, each having it's own log files and ofcourse application has its own.
So have a seperate process running in the background and monitors the folder for any changes notifications like
change in file size
attempt to rename the file or folder
delete the file
etc...
Based on this notification, you can certify whether the file is changed or not!
(As you and others may be guessing, even your process & dlls will change these files that can also lead to a notification. You need to synchronize this action smartly. That's it)
Window API to monitor folder in given below:
HANDLE FindFirstChangeNotification(
LPCTSTR lpPathName,
BOOL bWatchSubtree,
DWORD dwNotifyFilter
);
lpPathName:
Path to the log directory.
bWatchSubtree:
Watch subfolder or not (0 or 1)
dwNotifyFilter:
Filter conditions that satisfy a change notification wait. This parameter can be one or more of the following values.
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_FILE_NAME
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_DIR_NAME
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_SIZE
FILE_NOTIFY_CHANGE_SECURITY
etc...
(Check MSDN)
How to make it work?
Suspect A: Our process
Suspect X: Other process or user
Inspector: The process that we created to monitor the folder.
Inpector sees a change in the folder. Queries with Suspect A whether he did any change to it.
if so,
change is taken as VALID.
if not
clear indication that change is done by *Suspect X*. So NOT VALID!
File is certified to be TAMPERED.
Other than that, below are some of the techniques that may (or may not :)) help you!
Store the time stamp whenever an application close the file along with file-size.
The next time you open the file, check for the last modified time of the time and its size. If both are same, then it means file remains not tampered.
Change the file privilege to read-only after you write logs into it. In some program or someone want to tamper it, they attempt to change the read-only property. This action changes the date/time modified for a file.
Write to your log file only encrypted data. If someone tampers it, when we decrypt the data, we may find some text not decrypted properly.
Using compress and un-compress mechanism (compress may help you to protect the file using a password)
Each way may have its own pros and cons. Strength the logic based on your need. You can even try the combination of the techniques proposed.
I want to store confidential data in a digitally signed file, so that I know when its contents have been tampered with.
My initial thought is that the data will be stored in NVPs (name value pairs), with some kind of CRC or other checksum to verify the contents.
I am thinking of implementing the creating (i.e. writing) and verification (reading) of such a file, using ANSI C++.
Assuming this is the data I want to store:
//Unencrypted, raw data to be stored in file
struct PrivateInfo {
double age; weight;
FitnessScale fitness;
Location loc;
OtherStuff stuff;
};
//128-bit Encrypted Data (Payload to be stored in file)
struct EncryptedData {
// unknown fields/format ??
};
[After I have read a few responses to this question]
Judging by the comments I have received so far, I fear people are getting side tracked by the word "licensing" which seems to be a red flag to most people. I suspected that may be the case, but in todays atmosphere of heightened security and general nervousness, I thought I'd better detail what I needed to be "hiding" lest someone thought I was thinking of passing on the "Nuke password" to some terrorists or something. I will now remove the word "license" from my question.
View it more as a technical question. Imagine I am a student (which I am), and that I am trying to find out about recommended (or best practices) for encoding information that needs to be secure.
Mindful of the above, I will reformat my questions thus:
Given a struct of different data type fields, what is the "recommended" algorithm to give it a "reasonable secure" encryption (I still prefer to use 128 bit - but thats just me)
What is a recommended way of providing a ROBUST check on the encrypted data, so I can use that check value to know if the contents of the file (the Payload of encrypted data) differs from the original.?
First, note that "signing" data (to notice when it has been tampered with) is a completely separate and independent operation from "encrypting" data (to prevent other people from reading it).
That said, the OpenPGP standard does both. GnuPG is a popular implementation: http://www.gnupg.org/gph/en/manual.html
Basically you need to:
Generate a keypair, but don't bother publishing the public part.
Sign and encrypt your data (this is a single operation in gpg)
... storage ...
Decrypt and check the signature (this is also a single operation).
But, beware that this is only any use if you can store your private key more securely than you store the rest of the data. If you can't guarantee the security of the key, then GPG can't help you against a malicious attempt to read or tamper with your data. And neither can any other encryption/signing scheme.
Forgetting encryption, you might think that you can sign the data on some secure server using the private key, then validate it on some user's machine using the public key. This is fine as far as it goes, but if the user is malicious and clever, then they can invent new data, sign it using their own private key, and modify your code to replace your public key with theirs. Their data will then validate. So you still need the storage of the public key to be tamper-proof, according to your threat-model.
You can implement an equivalent yourself, something along the lines of:
Choose a longish string of random characters. This is your key.
Concatenate your data with the key. Hash this with a secure hash function (SHA-256). Then concatenate the resulting hash with your data, and encrypt it using the key and a secure symmetric cipher (AES).
... storage ...
Decrypt the data, chop off the hash value, put back the key, hash it, and compare the result to the hash value to verify that it has not been modified.
This will likely be faster and use less code in total than gpg: for starters, PGP is public key cryptography, and that's more than you require here. But rolling your own means you have to do some work, and write some of the code, and check that the protocol I've just described doesn't have some stupid error in it. For example, it has potential weaknesses if the data is not of fixed length, which HMAC solves.
Good security avoids doing work that some other, smarter person has done for you. This is the virtuous kind of laziness.
Err, why not use a well known encryption system like GPG?
The answers to the edited question depend on the specific scenario.
For q1 (encryption): if you encrypt and decrypt at your servers you can use a symmetric key algorithm. Otherwise you may want to use public key cryptography.
For q2, if you simply want to check if a file has changed you can use any cryptographic hash such as SHA-1 -- assuming that you can make sure that the hash itself wasn't change.
If the data generator and the verifier are both secure you can use MAC algorithm such as HMAC to to verify that the data and the MAC match. But this works only if the secret key remains secret.
Otherwise, you may be able to use digital signatures.
I'm going to change the phrasing of the question and see if it makes people happier (or I get downvoted). There are really two types of questions being asked:
You are making some computer game and you want to know if someone has been messing with your save files. (data signing)
You are writing a messaging program and want to keep people's message logs private. (data encryption)
I will deal with the second one (data encryption). It's a massively difficult topic and you should be looking for pre-built programs (such as PGP/GPG) even then it's going to take you a lot of time to understand and use properly. Think about encryption like this: it will be broken; your job is to make it not worth the effort. In other words make the effort required to break it greater than the value of the information.
As for the first one, again it can be broken. But a checksum is a good idea. see Amnon's answer for some links on that.
Hope this points you in the right direction. I'm not an expert on either topics but I hope this gives you a starting point. (you might want to re-phrase the question and see if you get some better answers)
User equals untrustworthy. Never trust untrustworthy user's input. I get that. However, I am wondering when the best time to sanitize input is. For example, do you blindly store user input and then sanitize it whenever it is accessed/used, or do you sanitize the input immediately and then store this "cleaned" version? Maybe there are also some other approaches I haven't though of in addition to these. I am leaning more towards the first method, because any data that came from user input must still be approached cautiously, where the "cleaned" data might still unknowingly or accidentally be dangerous. Either way, what method do people think is best, and for what reasons?
Unfortunately, almost no one of the participants ever clearly understands what are they talking about. Literally. Only Kibbee managed to make it straight.
This topic is all about sanitization. But the truth is, such a thing like wide-termed "general purpose sanitization" everyone is so eager to talk about is just doesn't exist.
There are a zillion different mediums, each require it's own, distinct data formatting. Moreover - even single certain medium require different formatting for it's parts. Say, HTML formatting is useless for javascript embedded in HTML page. Or, string formatting is useless for the numbers in SQL query.
As a matter of fact, such a "sanitization as early as possible", as suggested in most upvoted answers, is just impossible. As one just cannot tell in which certain medium or medium part the data will be used. Say, we are preparing to defend from "sql-injection", escaping everything that moves. But whoops! - some required fields weren't filled and we have to fill out data back into form instead of database... with all the slashes added.
On the other hand, we diligently escaped all the "user input"... but in the sql query we have no quotes around it, as it is a number or identifier. And no "sanitization" ever helped us.
On the third hand - okay, we did our best in sanitizing the terrible, untrustworthy and disdained "user input"... but in some inner process we used this very data without any formatting (as we did our best already!) - and whoops! have got second order injection in all its glory.
So, from the real life usage point of view, the only proper way would be
formatting, not whatever "sanitization"
right before use
according to the certain medium rules
and even following sub-rules required for this medium's different parts.
It depends on what kind of sanitizing you are doing.
For protecting against SQL injection, don't do anything to the data itself. Just use prepared statements, and that way, you don't have to worry about messing with the data that the user entered, and having it negatively affect your logic. You have to sanitize a little bit, to ensure that numbers are numbers, and dates are dates, since everything is a string as it comes from the request, but don't try to do any checking to do things like block keywords or anything.
For protecting against XSS attacks, it would probably be easier to fix the data before it's stored. However, as others mentioned, sometimes it's nice to have a pristine copy of exactly what the user entered, because once you change it, it's lost forever. It's almost too bad there's not a fool proof way to ensure you application only puts out sanitized HTML the way you can ensure you don't get caught by SQL injection by using prepared queries.
I sanitize my user data much like Radu...
First client-side using both regex's and taking control over allowable characters
input into given form fields using javascript or jQuery tied to events, such as
onChange or OnBlur, which removes any disallowed input before it can even be
submitted. Realize however, that this really only has the effect of letting those
users in the know, that the data is going to be checked server-side as well. It's
more a warning than any actual protection.
Second, and I rarely see this done these days anymore, that the first check being
done server-side is to check the location of where the form is being submitted from.
By only allowing form submission from a page that you have designated as a valid
location, you can kill the script BEFORE you have even read in any data. Granted,
that in itself is insufficient, as a good hacker with their own server can 'spoof'
both the domain and the IP address to make it appear to your script that it is coming
from a valid form location.
Next, and I shouldn't even have to say this, but always, and I mean ALWAYS, run
your scripts in taint mode. This forces you to not get lazy, and to be diligent about
step number 4.
Sanitize the user data as soon as possible using well-formed regexes appropriate to
the data that is expected from any given field on the form. Don't take shortcuts like
the infamous 'magic horn of the unicorn' to blow through your taint checks...
or you may as well just turn off taint checking in the first place for all the good
it will do for your security. That's like giving a psychopath a sharp knife, bearing
your throat, and saying 'You really won't hurt me with that will you".
And here is where I differ than most others in this fourth step, as I only sanitize
the user data that I am going to actually USE in a way that may present a security
risk, such as any system calls, assignments to other variables, or any writing to
store data. If I am only using the data input by a user to make a comparison to data
I have stored on the system myself (therefore knowing that data of my own is safe),
then I don't bother to sanitize the user data, as I am never going to us it a way
that presents itself as a security problem. For instance, take a username input as
an example. I use the username input by the user only to check it against a match in
my database, and if true, after that I use the data from the database to perform
all other functions I might call for it in the script, knowing it is safe, and never
use the users data again after that.
Last, is to filter out all the attempted auto-submits by robots these days, with a
'human authentication' system, such as Captcha. This is important enough these days
that I took the time to write my own 'human authentication' schema that uses photos
and an input for the 'human' to enter what they see in the picture. I did this because
I've found that Captcha type systems really annoy users (you can tell by their
squinted-up eyes from trying to decipher the distorted letters... usually over and
over again). This is especially important for scripts that use either SendMail or SMTP
for email, as these are favorites for your hungry spam-bots.
To wrap it up in a nutshell, I'll explain it as I do to my wife... your server is like a popular nightclub, and the more bouncers you have, the less trouble you are likely to have
in the nightclub. I have two bouncers outside the door (client-side validation and human authentication), one bouncer right inside the door (checking for valid form submission location... 'Is that really you on this ID'), and several more bouncers in
close proximity to the door (running taint mode and using good regexes to check the
user data).
I know this is an older post, but I felt it important enough for anyone that may read it after my visit here to realize their is no 'magic bullet' when it comes to security, and it takes all these working in conjuction with one another to make your user-provided data secure. Just using one or two of these methods alone is practically worthless, as their power only exists when they all team together.
Or in summary, as my Mum would often say... 'Better safe than sorry".
UPDATE:
One more thing I am doing these days, is Base64 encoding all my data, and then encrypting the Base64 data that will reside on my SQL Databases. It takes about a third more total bytes to store it this way, but the security benefits outweigh the extra size of the data in my opinion.
I like to sanitize it as early as possible, which means the sanitizing happens when the user tries to enter in invalid data. If there's a TextBox for their age, and they type in anything other that a number, I don't let the keypress for the letter go through.
Then, whatever is reading the data (often a server) I do a sanity check when I read in the data, just to make sure that nothing slips in due to a more determined user (such as hand-editing files, or even modifying packets!)
Edit: Overall, sanitize early and sanitize any time you've lost sight of the data for even a second (e.g. File Save -> File Open)
The most important thing is to always be consistent in when you escape. Accidental double sanitizing is lame and not sanitizing is dangerous.
For SQL, just make sure your database access library supports bind variables which automatically escapes values. Anyone who manually concatenates user input onto SQL strings should know better.
For HTML, I prefer to escape at the last possible moment. If you destroy user input, you can never get it back, and if they make a mistake they can edit and fix later. If you destroy their original input, it's gone forever.
Early is good, definitely before you try to parse it. Anything you're going to output later, or especially pass to other components (i.e., shell, SQL, etc) must be sanitized.
But don't go overboard - for instance, passwords are hashed before you store them (right?). Hash functions can accept arbitrary binary data. And you'll never print out a password (right?). So don't parse passwords - and don't sanitize them.
Also, make sure that you're doing the sanitizing from a trusted process - JavaScript/anything client-side is worse than useless security/integrity-wise. (It might provide a better user experience to fail early, though - just do it both places.)
My opinion is to sanitize user input as soon as posible client side and server side, i'm doing it like this
(client side), allow the user to
enter just specific keys in the field.
(client side), when user goes to the next field using onblur, test the input he entered
against a regexp, and notice the user if something is not good.
(server side), test the input again,
if field should be INTEGER check for that (in PHP you can use is_numeric() ),
if field has a well known format
check it against a regexp, all
others ( like text comments ), just
escape them. If anything is suspicious stop script execution and return a notice to the user that the data he enetered in invalid.
If something realy looks like a posible attack, the script send a mail and a SMS to me, so I can check and maibe prevent it as soon as posible, I just need to check the log where i'm loggin all user inputs, and the steps the script made before accepting the input or rejecting it.
Perl has a taint option which considers all user input "tainted" until it's been checked with a regular expression. Tainted data can be used and passed around, but it taints any data that it comes in contact with until untainted. For instance, if user input is appended to another string, the new string is also tainted. Basically, any expression that contains tainted values will output a tainted result.
Tainted data can be thrown around at will (tainting data as it goes), but as soon as it is used by a command that has effect on the outside world, the perl script fails. So if I use tainted data to create a file, construct a shell command, change working directory, etc, Perl will fail with a security error.
I'm not aware of another language that has something like "taint", but using it has been very eye opening. It's amazing how quickly tainted data gets spread around if you don't untaint it right away. Things that natural and normal for a programmer, like setting a variable based on user data or opening a file, seem dangerous and risky with tainting turned on. So the best strategy for getting things done is to untaint as soon as you get some data from the outside.
And I suspect that's the best way in other languages as well: validate user data right away so that bugs and security holes can't propagate too far. Also, it ought to be easier to audit code for security holes if the potential holes are in one place. And you can never predict which data will be used for what purpose later.
Clean the data before you store it. Generally you shouldn't be preforming ANY SQL actions without first cleaning up input. You don't want to subject yourself to a SQL injection attack.
I sort of follow these basic rules.
Only do modifying SQL actions, such as, INSERT, UPDATE, DELETE through POST. Never GET.
Escape everything.
If you are expecting user input to be something make sure you check that it is that something. For example, you are requesting an number, then make sure it is a number. Use validations.
Use filters. Clean up unwanted characters.
Users are evil!
Well perhaps not always, but my approach is to always sanatize immediately to ensure nothing risky goes anywhere near my backend.
The added benefit is that you can provide feed back to the user if you sanitize at point of input.
Assume all users are malicious.
Sanitize all input as soon as possible.
Full stop.
I sanitize my data right before I do any processing on it. I may need to take the First and Last name fields and concatenate them into a third field that gets inserted to the database. I'm going to sanitize the input before I even do the concatenation so I don't get any kind of processing or insertion errors. The sooner the better. Even using Javascript on the front end (in a web setup) is ideal because that will occur without any data going to the server to begin with.
The scary part is that you might even want to start sanitizing data coming out of your database as well. The recent surge of ASPRox SQL Injection attacks that have been going around are doubly lethal because it will infect all database tables in a given database. If your database is hosted somewhere where there are multiple accounts being hosted in the same database, your data becomes corrupted because of somebody else's mistake, but now you've joined the ranks of hosting malware to your visitors due to no initial fault of your own.
Sure this makes for a whole lot of work up front, but if the data is critical, then it is a worthy investment.
User input should always be treated as malicious before making it down into lower layers of your application. Always handle sanitizing input as soon as possible and should not for any reason be stored in your database before checking for malicious intent.
I find that cleaning it immediately has two advantages. One, you can validate against it and provide feedback to the user. Two, you do not have to worry about consuming the data in other places.