I just read about how access keys and secret ids could be used to send authenticated requests to a RESTful webservice. However, I dont understand the advantages of using it over other alternatives(such as sending over the username and password, for instance), assuming that all communication with the server is over HTTPS.
What are the advantages of using such a mechanism?
Thanks.
Access key is roughly equivalent to a username, and access secret is roughly equivalent to a password. The access key makes it possible for the service to figure out who you are, and the access secret affirms that it's really you ("you" being your site in this context). The access key is not sensitive, and it is usually okay to be published in frontend code (Javascript, links in HTML, etc), while the access secret you need to keep, well, secret, because otherwise other people/sites will be able to impersonate your requests to the service. There is not much difference between key/secret and username/password scheme; the main difference is that key and secret are usually randomly generated by the service, which prevents people from using values like "default/12345" and similar nonsense.
Related
I have a web application where the regular user login is handled via SSO.(This prevents me from creating a service user)
In this application I have some web service endpoints that are not in the scope of any user. They will be triggered by another application and do some stuff.
Is the following the right way to do.
A token string is created by hand(because of simplicity)
The token string is stored in the environment variables of the system that provides the webservice endpoint as well as in the system that calls those endpoints.
On every call a simple equality check is proceeded - if the token is not present, the endpoint returns a 401.
Is my approach to simple?
I have not found much on this topic - my approach comes from the moodle-webservice handling, where you generate a webservice token in moodle and place it aswell in the application that calls the webservice.
For a basic application with no high security requirements, this might be ok.
A few things you could do (all of which will increase complexity and/or cost):
The service could store a proper password hash (like bcrypt, pbkdf2 or argon2) instead of the actual password. This would help, because if it is compromised, the actual key would not be lost, the attacker could still not easily call the service. (But it's already compromised, and this is not like a user password that would be reused, so it depends your choices and threat model.)
You could store this secret in a proper vault like AWS Secrets Manager or Hashicorp Vault or similar. This would enable you to control access to the key in one place, and audit key usage (maybe alert on attempts and so on). Access to the vault would still have to be managed, but that's easy via roles on AWS for example, where instances with the right role can access the secret but others cannot.
I want to build a webapp that uses the wallet address as account, but yet I want to store the user in my db to allow specifying a nickname.
The problem I'm dealing with is that I want to call different apis, where the user needs to be authenticated / authorized in order to gain access .
Since the authentication happens 100% client side in my case (through the tronlink extension and TronWeb), I don't see another way as to add supplementary authentication for my webapp specifically.
If the user logs in to my app with a different password (not using the private key of the wallet), it seems like bad user experience as the user needs to authenticate twice (through Tronweb AND my webapp with a password).
How do you solve this problem?
It seems that the way to handle this is to foresee a separate login flow for the web app after all.
Even when the user already has logged in into Tronlink, it needs to obtain a token to authenticate rest calls.
The way it would appear to work is by generating a random nonce and storing this nonce along with the public key in the User table.
The login flow then consists of signing the nonce in the front-end, and verifying the signature in the backend after which the token will be generated and returned.
Our intranet system stores user data once the user logs in simply using a cookie (UserID, Name, Role..)
I was learning about JWT and tokens today and wondering is there any advantage to using that over the current way?
It seems like something might be insecure storing plain text in cookies but I also read that other web sites cannot see those cookies..
So is there any strong reason to use JWT tokens instead ?
A cookie can not be accesed by a different domain that the one which created it. This restriction is called "same-origin" policy and is a security measure to protect the local data of the site, but it does not mean that your cookie is conveniently secured
Since you are not validating the cookie content in server side, for example a user could change his UserId or Role to get access to unauthorized resources.
JWT can help you because thencontent is signed with a secret key. Any alteration to the content will break the digital signature and the server will reject the token.
An alternative is to use server session and store this data on server.
The drawback with respect to JWT is that it needs server storage.
I have setup an web-based API to allow a remote app to GET/POST data. Every API call is authenticated with a User ID and Password that is encrypted with a secret key known only to the remote app and the website. This authentication not only ensures that the user can access the API, but also allows me to implement security features based on the user's profile (i.e. User A can see items A & B, but not item C).
I would like my server-side website pages to be able to call the same API methods remotely via AJAX calls, but, something just doesn't seem right about storing encrypted passwords in the code, and, my website implements a "Login As" feature, which will not allow me to set the encrypted password, since the passwords are not stored in plain text.
What is a good way to implement API security for both remote and "local" calls that doesn't require encrypting the user's password?
You should not be storing usernames and passwords in server side code. Sooner or later someone will lay eyes on your code and your data will be vulnerable.
But you should also not be storing secrets (key) in client side code. You should not assume your client can be trusted to keep that secret.
Giving user A access to item A and B, but not C is called authorization and depends on you knowing who calls your API (authentication).
You should probably look into a authentication protocol like OpenID Connect and an authorization protocol like OAuth 2.0.
Also see my answer to this question.
I need to create an application for a company and they would like to have people login to the application to have different permissions to perform different tasks.
My initial idea was to create a MySQL database, hardcode the credentials into the application and have the application connect to the MySQL database. The MySQL database would then have a table called "users" which would store usernames, passwords and permissions. The application would then query the server and perform the authentication.
The biggest problem with this is having the MySQL credentials hard coded into the application. If the application gets into the wrong hands, they could do lots of damage to the MySQL database if they snoop around to find the credentials and start dropping tables.
So I thought of developing a server that acts as an interface for the MySQL Database. For example, the client application would connect to the Server via TCP, and the server connects to a MySQL database. That way the MySQL credentials are never exposed to end-users. However, this means I have to develop a server application which a) will be harder to maintain and deploy for my customer (as opposed to just setting up a MySQL Server) and b)Has potential to introduce more bugs since I have an additional system I need to make (which relates back to point a for deploying bug fixes, etc)
So I was thinking instead of having a table of users in the database and having the application connect directly to the MySQL server with hardcoded credentials, the end-user would be given actual MySQL user credentials in which they would enter into the application to connect to the MySQL server. This means if someone gets their hands on the application, they can't do any damage to the MySQL database, but there still remains the risk of an end-user giving their credentials to the wrong person.
What are the best ways to have a desktop application connect to a MySQL database? Are there any other solutions other than the 3 I have thought of, or do you have any thoughts on my solutions?
As #Perception noted. Your best bet here is to implement a web service in front of MySQL. You don't want unknown numbers of clients from unknown IP addresses all having access to your database.
It would be really easy to DOS attack you by tying up MySQL connections. Not to mention that you would very severely limit your ability to scale your backend service to meet the demands of an increased client base without having a web service in between.
The web service could also offer you the ability to control user authentication and authorization in any number of ways (user/pass combination, token-based access, OAuth access, etc.).
Where I work there are two practices I have seen:
Each entity (person, thing, or business (depending on level of granularity needed) accessing the database) has their very own credentials. This was used on an MSSQL and on a Rocket Universe database. This is mostly the retail and legacy software.
We host the application ourselves and use a separate authentication system for users. The database credentials are stored on our server where the application is hosted. The client knows nothing of the backing database. These are usually web apps and web services.
Something you could do that we have done is that many of our applications actually talk through a RESTful service that emulates the database in a way. The application itself has no access to the database. I would read the wikipedia article on restful services for more information. Our authentication is done using Nonce encoded HMAC requests where each user is given their very own key tied to their credentials.
Wrapping the database in a web service gives you a few possible advantages:
If you decide to change your database structure while keeping the same information, you might not even need to update the client applications, just the service.
Credentials never leave the server, your credentials remain safe so long as nobody gains access to your server. Security in general is increased.
If you do your service cleverly enough, you could even transfer much of the internal logic that would normally be client side onto the server, making updates and bugfixes virtually seamless to the client.
The disadvantages that I see:
It is one more thing to maintain
Your application is vulnerable to denial of service attacks, but since it is a database that's a possible problem anyway
If the server goes down, all the client applications go down, but again, still a problem anyway.
RESTful architecture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer
HMAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash-based_message_authentication_code
Our HMAC system works like so:
User logs in using username and password to their local application.
The local application communicates to our authentication service and gets a "Session Key" and shared secret for that username and password.
Using the Session Key (which expires in a short period of time), the application creates an API Key (which lasts a long time) and stores it to the computer. The session key could be used instead of an API Key if the user is required to log in each time. We mainly did it this way for convenience for some programs. If the computer is not secure, the Session Key should be used only and no API key is stored on the local machine. Each time the user logs in, they get a new Session Key.
Each request to the database service is accompanied by a HMAC-signed nonce which the application gets from the authorization service based on the API key. After getting the nonce, the application signs it using the shared secret. These signed requests can only be used once since the web service (which the user could know nothing about) authenticates the request. Once the signed nonce has been authenticated server-side by seeing if hashing the nonce with that particular API/Session Key's shared secret results in the same digest, the nonce is marked expired and the request is granted.
The above is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks if HTTPS is not used, so often people make a message based on the nonce and the URL being requested along with a timestamp and compute the HMAC on that. The server then recreates the message based on the URL, checks to see if the timestamp is within some bounds (+/- 4mins or something), and then authorizes the user based on that information.
To further granulate operations, we also have a role system which checks to see if the user who owns the Session/API Key has been given permission to request the thing that they were requesting. If they have the appropriate role, the request is granted.
Summary: Credentials are done user-by-user, the end user has no knowledge of the database, a web service wraps the database in a RESTful API, and a role based system is used to make permissions granular.
This is just a suggestion and I am not saying this is the best or only way to do this. This just happens to be how we have ended up doing it where I work.
Let's look at two ways of dealing with database:
Client directly connects database, and manipulate database
Server connects to database and provide interface for client to use
Considering your use case:
valid valid serial number or to store/read information about certain user
it can be designed in the following way to provide security. (I'm no expert in this)
Client directly connects database, and manipulate database
You don't have to use your admin to visit database, instead you create a user for client only, and limit user's access privilege to only viewing (certain data). And you can enforce security policy at database by changing privilege for this user.
you can consult MySQL :: MySQL 5.1 Reference Manual :: 6 Security for more info.
6.2 The MySQL Access Privilege System
6.3 MySQL User Account Management
Server connects to database and provide interface for client to use
You can use HTTP and provide interface to client to use. And only the backend connects to the database.
Something like RESTful API, there are many easy to use framework that provides authentication and authorization.
I don't think it's good idea to let client have direct access to database in your case. So if possible, the second option is better.
Also note that password based authentication is not ideal.