I recently switched to Mutt. Being able to backing up emails sounds cool. I use rsync to do so but I have a big headache. I use Maildir format. Each time Mutt opens an email, it changes the file name of the email, e.g. it likes to add one ",S" to the end. Then weeks later when I back up my mails, rsync is driven crazy. I guess Mutt does so because of some concurrency issues but as a personal user I do not have to worry about this. I hope to tell Mutt to keep the names of email files permanently unchanged. Question: how?
the ,S ismaildir flag for seen ("mark as read"). that's the way maildirs work, i can't tell whether you can run mutt in read-only mode as far as that is concerned.
usually, when working with maildirs, it's a better idea to use a maildir-awaresynchronization like mbsync. it will know of those flags and synchronize more efficiently because it can rely on all involved utilities to be aware of the ways to handle maildirs (that is, don't change files in-place, how to set flags etc).
Related
I want to create portable c++ application for myself [CLI] which will store my secret project information.
But i am not sure, how can i store information in my program, as whatever i will update in program when i am using it will be stored in buffer and when i will close it, it will get deleted and same informations will not be available at any place.
I want to store information persistently, what is the best way to do it. [Considering my application will be portable, i.e, i can carry it in my pen drive in any place and i can fetch my information from program].
Option i found was Datbase , but i have certain problem with database :-
1). sqlite => If any one gets my sqlite.db file, he will know all my secret project.
2). mysql/sql or any other database => They are not portable, it needs to be installed in system too and i need to import , export everytime in system wherever i will have to use it.
How such application stores information in crypted format, so that no one can read it easily.
Any help will be great.
Thanks
If you want your data to remain secret then you must encrypt it.
How you persist the data (sqlite, text file, etc.) makes no difference whatsoever.
See also:
encrypt- decrypt with AES using C/C++
This is not REALLY an answer, but it's far too long "discussion about your subject" to fit as a comment, and I'd rather break the rules by writing one "non-answer answer" (especially now that you have already accepted another answer) than write 6 comments.
First of all, if it's written in C++, it won't be truly portable in the sense that you can carry it around and plug it in anywhere you like and just access the ifnormation, because different systems will have different OS and processor architecture. Fine if you restrict being able to "plug in" on Windows and Linux with x86 - you only need to build two copies of your code. But covering more architectures - e.g. being able to plug into a iPad or a MacBook will require two more builds of the software. Soon you'll be looking at quite a lot of code to carry around (never mind that you need the relevant C++ compiler and development environment to built the original copy). Yes, C++ is a portable language, but it doesn't mean that the executable file will "work on anything" directly - it will need to be compiled for that architecture.
One solution here may of course be to use something other than C++ - for example Java, that only needs a Java VM on the target system - it's often available on a customer system already, so less of an issue. But that won't work on for example an ipad.
Another solution is to have your own webserver at home, and just connect to your server from your customer's site. That way, none of the information (except the parts you actually show the customer) ever leaves your house. Make it secure by studying internet/web-site security, and using good passwords [and of course, you could even set it up so that it's only available at certain times when you need it, and not available 24/7]. Of course, if the information is really top-secret (nuclear weapons, criminal activities, etc), you may not want to do that for fear of someone accessing it when you don't want it to be accessed. But it's also less likely to "drop out of your pocket" if it's well protected with logins and passwords.
Encrypting data is not very hard - just download the relevant library, and go from there - crypt++ is one of those libraries.
If you store it in a database, you will need either a database that encrypts on itself, or a very good way to avoid "leaking" the clear-text information (e.g. storing files on /tmp on a linux machine), or worse, you need to decrypt the whole database before you can access it - which means that something could, at least in theory, "slurp" your entire database.
Depending on how secret your projects are, you may also need to consider that entering for example a password will be readable by the computer you are using - unless you bring your own computer as well [and in that case, there are some really good "encrypt my entire disk" software out there that is pretty much ready to use].
Also, if someone says "Can I plug in my memory stick on your computer and run some of my from it", I'm not sure I'd let that person do that.
In other words, your TECHNICAL challenges to write the code itself may not be the hardest nut to crack in your project - although interesting and challenging.
I'm working on a wxWidgets GUI application that allows the user to upload files to an FTP server and a pair of username/password is required to access the FTP server.
As far as I know, STL strings or even char* strings are visible to end user even the program is compiled already, using hex editors or maybe string extractors like Sysinternals String Utility.
So, is there a safe/secure way to store sensitive informations inside a C++ application?
PS. I cannot use .NET for this application.
This is actually independent of the programming language used.
FTP is a protocol that transfers its password in plain text. No amount of obfuscation will change that, and an attacker can easily intercept the password as it is transmitted.
And no amount of obfuscation, no matter the protocol used, will change the fact that your application has to be able to decode that password. Any attacker with access to the application binary can reverse-engineer that decoding, yielding the password.
Once you start looking at secure protocols (like SFTP), you also get the infrastructure for secure authentication (e.g. public/private key) when looking at automated access.
Even then you are placing the responsibility of not making that key file accessable to anyone else on the file system, which - depending on the operating system and overall setup - might not be enough.
But since we're talking about an interactive application, the simplest way is to not make the authentication automatic at all, but to query the user for username and password. After all, he should know, shouldn't he?
Edit: Extending on the excellent comment by Kate Gregory, in case that users share a common "technical" (or anonymous) account accessing your server, files uploaded by your app should not be visible on the server before some kind of filtering was done by you. The common way to do this is having an "upload" directory where files can be uploaded to, but not be downloaded from. If you do not take these precautions, people will use your FTP server as turntable for all kind of illegal file sharing, and you will be the one held legally responsible for that.
I'm not sure if that is possible at all, and if, than not easy. If the password is embedded and your program can read it, everybody with enough knowledge should be able to do.
You can improve security against lowlevel attempts (like hexeditor etc.) by encrypting or obfuscating (eg two passwords which generate the real password by XOR at runtime and only at the moment you need it).
But this is no protection against serious attacks by experienced people, which might decompile you program or debug it (well, there are ways to detect that, but it's like cold-war - mutual arms race of debugging-techniques against runtime-detection of these).
edit: If one knows an good way with an acceptable amount of work to protect the data (in c++ and without gigantic and/or expensive frameworks), please correct me. I would be interested in that information.
While it's true that you cannot defend against someone who decompiles your code and figures out what you're doing, you can obscure the password a little bit so that it isn't in plain text inside the code. You don't need to do a true encryption, just anything where you know the secret. For example, reverse it, rot13 it, or interleave two literal strings such as "pswr" and "asod". Or use individual character variables (that are not initialized all together in the same place) and use numbers to set them (ascii) rather than having 'a' in your code.
In your place, I would feel that snooping the traffic to the FTP server is less work than decompiling your app and reading what the code does with the literal strings. You only need to defeat the person who opens the hex and sees the strings that are easily recognized as an ID and password. A littel obscuring will go a long way in that case.
As the others said, storing a password is never really save but if you insist you can use cryptlib for encryption and decryption.
Just a raw idea for you to consider.
Calculate the md5 or SHA-2 of your password and store it in the executable.
Then do the same for input username/password and compare with stored value.
Simple and straightforward.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2
I'm writing a game that will have a lot of information (configuration, some content, etc) inside of some xml documents, as well as resource files. This will make it easier for myself and others to edit the program without having to edit the actual C++ files, and without having to recompile.
However, as the program is starting to grow there is an increase of files in the same directory as the program. So I thought of putting them inside a file archive (since they are mostly text, it goes great with compression).
My question is this: Will it be easier to compress all the files and:
Set a password to it (like a password-protected ZIP), then provide the password when the program needs it
Encrypt the archive with Crypto++ or similar
Modify the file header slightly as a "makeshift" encryption, and fix the file's headers while the file is loaded
I think numbers 1 and 2 are similar, but I couldn't find any information on whether zlib could handle password-protected archives.
Also note that I don't want the files inside the archive to be "extracted" into the folder while the program is using it. It should only be in the system's memory.
I think you misunderstands the possibilities brought up by encryption.
As long as the program is executed on an untrusted host, it's impossible to guarantee anything.
At most, you can make it difficult (encryption, code obfuscation), or extremely difficult (self-modifying code, debug/hooks detection), for someone to reverse engineer the code, but you cannot prevent cracking. And with Internet, it'll be available for all as soon as it's cracked by a single individual.
The same goes, truly, for preventing an individual to tamper with the configuration. Whatever the method (CRC, Hash --> by the way encryption is not meant to prevent tampering) it is still possible to reverse engineer it given sufficient time and means (and motivation).
The only way to guarantee an untampered with configuration would be to store it somewhere YOU control (a server), sign it (Asymmetric) and have the program checks the signature. But it would not, even then, prevent someone from coming with a patch that let's your program run with a user-supplied (unsigned) configuration file...
And you know the worst of it ? People will probably prefer the cracked version because freed from the burden of all those "security" measures it'll run faster...
Note: yes it is illegal, but let's be pragmatic...
Note: regarding motivation, the more clever you are with protecting the program, the more attractive it is to hackers --> it's like a brain teaser to them!
So how do you provide a secured service ?
You need to trust the person who executes the program
You need to trust the person who stores the configuration
It can only be done if you offer a thin client and executes everything on a server you trust... and even then you'll have trouble making sure that no-one finds doors in your server that you didn't thought about.
In your shoes, I'd simply make sure to detect light tampering with the configuration (treat it as hostile and make sure to validate the data before running anything). After all file corruption is equally likely, and if a corrupted configuration file meant a ruined client's machine, there would be hell to pay :)
If I had to choose among your three options, I'd go for Crypto++, as it fits in nicely with C++ iostreams.
But: you are
serializing your data to XML
compressing it
encrypting it
all in memory, and back again. I'd really reconsider this choice. Why not use eg. SQLite to store all your data in a file-based database (SQLite doesn't require any external database process)?
Encryption can be added through various extensions (SEE or SQLCipher). It's safe, quick, and completely transparent.
You don't get compression, but then again, by using SQLite instead of XML, this won't be an issue anyway (or so I think).
Set a password to it (like a password-protected ZIP), then provide the password when the program needs it
Firstly, you can't do this unless you are going to ask a user for the password. If that encryption key is stored in the code, don't bet on a determined reverse engineer from finding it and decrypting the archive.
The one big rule is: you cannot store encryption keys in your software, because if you do, what is the point of using encryption? I can find your key.
Now, onto other points. zlib does not support encryption and as they point out, PKZip is rather broken anyway. I suspect if you were so inclined to find one, you'd probably find a zip/compression library capable of handling encryption. (ZipArchive I believe handles Zip+AES but you need to pay for that).
But I second Daniel's answer that's just displayed on my screen. Why? Encryption/compression isn't going to give you any benefit unless the user presents some form of token (password, smartcard etc) not present in your compiled binary or related files. Similarly, if you're not using up masses of disk space, why compress?
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 need to programmely switch the current user to another,then the followed code should be executed in the environment(such as path,authority..) of another user.
I've find the 'chroot()','setuid()' may be associated with my case, but these functions need the root authority, I don't have root authority, but I have the password of the second user. what should I do?
I have tried shell "su - " can switch current user, can this command help me in my C++ code?
Don't laugh at me if my question is very stupid, I'm a true freshman on linux. :)
Thanks!
when clients connect to the server,
the server transfer the data what they
need,but the precondition is the
correct username and password.
If your primary requirement is to authenticate, then try man pam. There are also some libraries allowing to auth over LDAP. Unfortunately I have no personal experience implementing neither.
Otherwise, recreating complete user environment is unreliable and error prone. Imaging a typo or endless loop but in user's ~/.profile.
I haven't done that for some time, but I would also have tried to dig in direction of "su", figuring out user shell (from /etc/passwd) and trying to exec() it as if it was a login shell (with "-"). But after that you would need somehow to communicate a command for execution to it and that's a problem: shells run differently in batch more and in interactive mode. As a possible hack, expect (man expect) comes to mind, but it is still IMO too unreliable.
I have in past used ssh under expect (to input the password), but it was breaking on customized user profiles every other time. With expect, to send a command, one has to recognize somehow that shell has finished initialization (execution of profile and rc files). But since many people customize the shell prompt and their profile/rc files print extra info, it was quite often that expect was recognizing shell prompt too soon.
BTW, depending on number of users, one can try a setup where users manually start the server under their own account. The server would have access only to the information which is only accessible to the user.
You can use the system function to execute shell commands on the operating system.
You could take a look at the source code of the login command, or you could try using the exec()-family functions to call on login.
EDIT: Seems like you will need root access in any case.
Is setuid what you're looking for?
I think the key point here is that you can't change the user of the running process (easily). All the programs like 'su' are effectively starting a new process as the specified user.
Therefore, in your design I would recommend seperating off the functionality that needs to be done into a different executable and then investigate using execve() to start it.