"Instead of using cookies for authorization, server operators might
wish to consider entangling designation and authorization by treating
URLs as capabilities. Instead of storing secrets in cookies, this
approach stores secrets in URLs, requiring the remote entity to
supply the secret itself. Although this approach is not a panacea,
judicious application of these principles can lead to more robust
security." A. Barth
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6265
What is meant by storing secrets in URLs? How would this be done in practice?
One technique that I believe fits this description is requiring clients to request URLs that are signed with HMAC. Amazon Web Services offers this technique for some operations, and I have seen it implemented in internal APIs of web companies as well. It would be possible to sign URLs server side with this or a similar technique and deliver them securely to the client (over HTTPS) embedded in HTML or in responses to XMLHttpRequests against an API.
As an alternative to session cookies, I'm not sure what advantage such a technique would offer. However, in some situations, it is convenient or often the best way to solve a problem. For example, I've used similar techniques when:
Cross Domain
You need to give the browser access to a URL that is on another domain, so cookies are not useful, and you have the capability to sign a URL server side to give access, either on a redirect or with a long enough expiration that the browser has time to load the URL.
Examples: Downloading files from S3. Progressive playback of video from CloudFront.
Closed Source Limitations
You can't control what the browser or other client is sending, aside from the URL, because you are working with a closed source plugin of some kind and can't change its behavior. Again you sign the URL server side so that all the client has to do is GET the URL.
Examples: Loading video captioning and/or sprite files via WEBVTT, into a closed-source Flash video player. Sending a payload along with a federated single sign-on callback URL, when you need to ensure that the payload can't be changed in transit.
Credential-less Task Worker
You are sending a URL to something other than a browser, and that something needs to access the resource at that URL, and on top of that you don't want to give it actual credentials.
Example: You are running a queue consumer or task-based worker daemon or maybe an AWS Lambda function, which needs to download a file, process it, and send an email. Simply pre-sign all the URLs it will use, with a reasonable expiration, so that it can perform all the requests it needs to without any additional credentials.
Related
Here is my little API with two URL :
/api/location/list -> GET
/api/location/detail -> GET
I'm looking for a process to secure this service with authentication. For now, it can be accessed by only one user (me).
I think oAuth is too complex in my case and I found this resource for designing a simple API.
I understand the principle of private/public key and HMAC but I have a big concern about this :
Say my webservice is consumed by an ajax request with GET verb. I have something like /api/location/list?apikkey=userid&hash=abcde.
A end user can easily sniffed the network during the request (via a simple chrome console), capture full url and access directly to the service multiple times (I think it's a case of replay attacks).
Differents resources talk about timestamp or nonce to make a request unique but I'm a bit lost with implementation.
Any ideas ?
You can try JWToken auth specs, simpler than Oauth, but avoid authorization data as url parameter if possible and use Header's request instead.
If needed consider also ssl encryption at tcp level.
Perhaps you could try to use a token-based approach for security, as described in this blog post:
Implementing authentication with tokens for RESTful applications - https://templth.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/implementing-authentication-with-tokens-for-restful-applications/
The idea is to authenticate to an authentication resource (that can be part of your application) to get temporary token that can be refreshed with a refresh token when expired.
With the use of HTTPS, it seems to be appropriate.
I think that it depends on the security level you expect. Signature-based authentication (the AWS approach) is great but is a bit complex to implement by hand.
Hope it helps you,
Thierry
I've read aws docs about using s3 + cloudfront + signed URL architecture to securely serve private content to public users. However it seems not secure enough to me. Let's me describe in steps:
Step 1: user logs in to my website.
Step 2: user clicks download (pdf, images, etc.)
Step 3: my web server will generate signed URL (expiry time: 30 secs), redirect user to the signed url and the downloading process happens.
Step 4: now, even though it's timed out after 30 secs, there is still a chance that any malicious snipper on my network will be able to catch the signed url and download my user's private content.
Any thought for this?
The risks you anticipate exist no matter what mechanism you use to "secure" anything on the web, if you aren't also using HTTPS to encrypt your users' interactions with the web site.
Without encryption, the login information, or perhaps cookies conveying the user's authentication state are also being sent in cleartext, and anything the user downloads can be directly captured without need for the signed link... making concern about capturing a download link via sniffing seem somewhat uninteresting compared to the more significant risk of general and overall insecurity that exists in such a setup.
On the other hand, if your site is using SSL, then when you deliver the signed URL to the user, there's a reasonable expectation that it will be hidden from snooping by the encryption... and, similarly, if the link to S3 also uses HTTPS, the SSL on that new connection is established before the browser transmits any information over the wire that would be discoverable by sniffing.
So, although it seems correct that there are potential security issues involved with this mechanism, I would suggest that a valid overall approach to security for user interactions should reduce the implications of any S3 signed URL-specific concerns down to a level comparable to any other mechanism allowing a browser to request a resource based on possession of a set of credentials.
I have a RESTful API which has annotations like #Consumes(MediaType.JSON) - in that case, would the CSRF attack still be possible on such a service? I've been tinkering with securing my services with CSRFGuard on server side or having a double submit from client side. However when I tried to POST requests using FORM with enctype="text/plain", it didn't work. The technique is explained here This works if I have MediaType.APPLICATION_FORM_URLENCODED in my consumes annotation. The content negotiation is useful when I'm using POST/PUT/DELETE verbs but GET is still accessible which might need looking into.
Any suggestions or inputs would be great, also please let me know if you need more info.
Cheers
JAX-RS is designed to create REST API which is supposed to be stateless.
The Cross Site Request Forgery is NOT a problem with stateless applications.
The way Cross Site Request Forgery works is someone may trick you to click on a link or open a link in your browser which will direct you to a site in which you are logged in, for example some online forum. Since you are already logged in on that forum the attacker can construct a url, say something like this: someforum.com/deletethread?id=23454
That forum program, being badly designed will recognize you based on the session cookie and will confirm that you have the capability to delete the thread and will in fact delete that thread.
All because the program authenticated you based on the session cookie (on even based on "remember me" cookie)
With RESTful API there is no cookie, no state is maintaned between requests, so there is no need to protect against session hijacking.
The way you usually authenticate with RESTFul api is be sending some additional headers. If someone tricks you into clicking on a url that points to restful API the browser is not going to send that extra headers, so there is no risk.
In short - if REST API is designed the way it supposed to be - stateless, then there is no risk of cross site forgery and no need to CSRF protection.
Adding another answer as Dmitri’s answer mixes serverside state and cookies.
An application is not stateless if your server stores user information in the memory over multiple requests. This decreases horizontal scalability as you need to find the "correct" server for every request.
Cookies are just a special kind of HTTP header. They are often used to identify a users session but not every cookie means server side state. The server could also use the information from the cookie without starting a session. On the other hand using other HTTP headers does not necessarily mean that your application is automatically stateless. If you store user data in your server’s memory it’s not.
The difference between cookies and other headers is the way they are handled by the browser. Most important for us is that the browser will resend them on every subsequent request. This is problematic if someone tricks a user to make a request he doesn’t want to make.
Is this a problem for an API which consumes JSON? Yes, in two cases:
The attacker makes the user submit a form with enctype=text/plain: Url encoded content is not a problem because the result can’t be valid JSON. text/plain is a problem if your server interprets the content not as plain text but as JSON. If your resource is annotated with #Consumes(MediaType.JSON) you should not have a problem because it won’t accept text/plain and should return a status 415. (Note that JSON may become a valid enctype one day and this won’t be valid any more).
The attacker makes the user submit an AJAX request: The Same Origin Policy prevents AJAX requests to other domains so you are safe as long as you don’t disable this protection by using CORS-headers like e.g. Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *.
When designing REST API is it common to authenticate a user first?
The typical use case I am looking for is:
User wants to get data. Sure cool we like to share! Get a public API key and read away!
User wants to store/update data... woah wait up! who are you, can you do this?
I would like to build it once and allow say a web-app, an android application or an iPhone application to use it.
A REST API appears to be a logical choice with requirements like this
To illustrate my question I'll use a simple example.
I have an item in a database, which has a rating attribute (integer 1 to 5).
If I understand REST correctly I would implement a GET request using the language of my choice that returns csv, xml or json like this:
http://example.com/product/getrating/{id}/
Say we pick JSON we return:
{
"id": "1",
"name": "widget1",
"attributes": { "rating": {"type":"int", "value":4} }
}
This is fine for public facing APIs. I get that part.
Where I have tons of question is how do I combine this with a security model? I'm used to web-app security where I have a session state identifying my user at all time so I can control what they can do no matter what they decide to send me. As I understand it this isn't RESTful so would be a bad solution in this case.
I'll try to use another example using the same item/rating.
If user "JOE" wants to add a rating to an item
This could be done using:
http://example.com/product/addrating/{id}/{givenRating}/
At this point I want to store the data saying that "JOE" gave product {id} a rating of {givenRating}.
Question: How do I know the request came from "JOE" and not "BOB".
Furthermore, what if it was for more sensible data like a user's phone number?
What I've got so far is:
1) Use the built-in feature of HTTP to authenticate at every request, either plain HTTP or HTTPS.
This means that every request now take the form of:
https://joe:joepassword#example.com/product/addrating/{id}/{givenRating}/
2) Use an approach like Amazon's S3 with private and public key: http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/designing-a-secure-rest-api-without-oauth-authentication/
3) Use a cookie anyway and break the stateless part of REST.
The second approach appears better to me, but I am left wondering do I really have to re-invent this whole thing? Hashing, storing, generating the keys, etc all by myself?
This sounds a lot like using session in a typical web application and rewriting the entire stack yourself, which usually to me mean "You're doing it wrong" especially when dealing with security.
EDIT: I guess I should have mentioned OAuth as well.
Edit 5 years later
Use OAuth2!
Previous version
No, there is absolutely no need to use a cookie. It's not half as secure as HTTP Digest, OAuth or Amazon's AWS (which is not hard to copy).
The way you should look at a cookie is that it's an authentication token as much as Basic/Digest/OAuth/whichever would be, but less appropriate.
However, I don't feel using a cookie goes against RESTful principles per se, as long as the contents of the session cookie does not influence the contents of the resource you're returning from the server.
Cookies are evil, stop using them.
Don't worry about being "RESTful", worry about security. Here's how I do it:
Step 1: User hits authentication service with credentials.
Step 2: If credentials check out, return a fingerprint, session id, etc..., and pop them into shared memory for quick retrieval later or use a database if you don't mind adding a few milliseconds to your web service turnaround time.
Step 3: Add an entry point call to the top of every web service script that validates the fingerprint and session id for every web service request.
Step 4: If the fingerprint and session id aren't valid or have timed out redirect to authentication.
READ THIS:
RESTful Authentication
Edit 3 years later
I completely agree with Evert, use OAuth2 with HTTPS, and don't reinvent the wheel! :-)
By simpler REST APIs - not meant for 3rd party clients - JSON Web Tokens can be good as well.
Previous version
Use a cookie anyway and break the stateless part of REST.
Don't use sessions, with sessions your REST service won't be well scalable... There are 2 states here: application state (or client state or session s) and resource state. Application state contains the session data and it is maintained by the REST client. Resource state contains the resource properties and relations and is maintained by the REST service. You can decide very easy whether a particular variable is part of the application state or the resource state. If the amount of data increases with the number of active sessions, then it belongs to the application state. So for example user identity by the current session belongs to the application state, but the list of the users or user permissions belongs to the resource state.
So the REST client should store the identification factors and send them with every request. Don't confuse the REST client with the HTTP client. They are not the same. REST client can be on the server side too if it uses curl, or it can create for example a server side http only cookie which it can share with the REST service via CORS. The only thing what matters that the REST service has to authenticate by every request, so you have to send the credentials (username, password) with every request.
If you write a client side REST client, then this can be done with SSL + HTTP auth. In that case you can create a credentials -> (identity, permissions) cache on the server to make authentication faster. Be aware of that if you clear that cache, and the users send the same request, they will get the same response, just it will take a bit longer. You can compare this with sessions: if you clear the session store, then users will get a status: 401 unauthorized response...
If you write a server side REST client and you send identification factors to the REST service via curl, then you have 2 choices. You can use http auth as well, or you can use a session manager in your REST client but not in the REST service.
If somebody untrusted writes your REST client, then you have to write an application to authenticate the users and to give them the availability to decide whether they want to grant permissions to different clients or not. Oauth is an already existing solution for that. Oauth1 is more secure, oauth2 is less secure but simpler, and I guess there are several other solution for this problem... You don't have to reinvent this. There are complete authentication and authorization solutions using oauth, for example: the wso identity server.
Cookies are not necessarily bad. You can use them in a RESTful way until they hold client state and the service holds resource state only. For example you can store the cart or the preferred pagination settings in cookies...
I consider myself newbie when it comes to securing my web applications.
I have built a website which updates the webpages regularly through an AJAX call. The Ajax call returns a decent JSON object to be used at the client side.
There is a simple problem I need to overcome: How can I prevent other people to use the same AJAX call without permission? What if they build a website, AND at the client side they allow their users to make the same AJAX call to my servers and grab what they need.. AND THEN parse it to their own needs at the client side?
I cannot put an extra layer of security like user authentication.
They won't be able to actually do this from the client directly because the browser will prevent cross domain AJAX requests for anything other than JSONP (scripts). That said, they can proxy it on their server if they want so it doesn't buy you much.
ASP.NET MVC has an antiforgery token mechanism that you should look at for inspiration. The basic idea is that you use both an encrypted cookie and an encrypted, hidden form input containing the same data that you write to each page that you want to secure. Do your AJAX calls using a POST and make sure to send back the form input. On the server-side decrypt the cookie and input and compare the data to ensure they're the same. Since the cookie is tied to your domain, it will be much harder to inject in the request that is being sent back. Use SSL and regenerate the cookie/input content periodically to make it even harder to fake the cookie/input.
You can check the HTTP_REFERER http header and see if the request originates from your page. This can however be spoofed, so don't think of it as a bulletproof solution. The best counter-meassure is user authentication, really.
You can't. That's because you can't differenciate between an AJAX call from your web app and another user's webapp.
Here are some things that might help a little bit.
Obscuring/encrypting your AJAX response. This fails mainly because you have to include the decryption code in your app as well.
Check the IP origin. If the IP didn't access your server before, you can assume that the AJAX call is not from your website. This doesn't work if a) the user switches the IP while being on your site / timing out or b) if another website sends a fake http request first before using your AJAX API.
Another idea would be to send Javascript instead of a JSON object. The Javascript should contain all the logic needed to update your website, and of course could check if the website is your own. (window.location). That has some disadvantages though: more work for you, higher traffic load and it can be broken anyways.
I don't think it's a bad thing actually. Another website could have just as easily scraped the info from your website.
If by "stealing" you mean getting some content from your website (using HTTP GET), that's more or less the same problem as hot-linking. You could have some basic protection technique using the HTTP Referer header (it can be worked around, but it works in most cases).
The other problem you have (making sure the requests come from your application) have to do with CSRF (Cross-Site Request Forgery). There are various protection mechanisms against this, mostly based on embedding tokens in forms for example.
You could potentially combine the two approaches, although the real protection against getting the content would come from user authentication (otherwise, the other site could also get the page from which you're delivering those tokens and proxy it).
(In addition, techniques that rely on remembering the IP address would probably not work well in the whole web architecture: it might cause problems if you get a pool of proxy servers or if the client is a mobile device that may change IP address between various requests, which would be perfectly legitimate.)