Some programs like ProcessExplorer are able to read strings in memory (for example, my error message written in the code could be displayed easily, even though it is compiled already).
Imagine if I have a password string "123456" allocated sequentially in memory. What if hackers are able to get hold of the password typed by the user? Is there anyway to prevent strings from being seen so clearly?
Oh yes, also, if I hash the password and sent it from client to server to compare the stored database hash value, won't the hacker be able to store the same hash and replay it to gain access to the user account? Is there anyway to prevent replaying?
Thank You!
I believe you are confusing two things. The strings ProcessExplorer is finding are also able to be found by the "strings" command in Unix. It just dumps all the stored strings in an executable not the current memory.
Unless you compiled a User password into your program, the memory allocated to store the data shouldn't be read by ProcessExplorer.
There are numerous issues that can occur. Your best bet is to ensure that no other code can run within your process space. Since the days of virtual memory, each process gets its own virtual memory space, ideally preventing any other program from accessing and messing with the memory of other programs. There are ways to detect if your program is being debugged.
You also need to ensure that the memory you are using to store the password is never written to disk or paged out. This web site can point you in the right direction. https://www.securecoding.cert.org/confluence/display/seccode/MEM06-C.+Ensure+that+sensitive+data+is+not+written+out+to+disk
[edit]
I wanted to expand upon my previous post by talking about replay prevention.
If you are truly serious about a complete solution you will need to implement two-way authentication using a PKI system. Your client will have a certificate and so will your server. The client's private key will only be able to unlocked with a password the user will enter. This will allow the server to verify the the client is who he says he is. The client will then verify the server is who he says he is the same way as the client.
By using this system you prevent someone from possing as a server and attempting to get you to send it your password.
This is a topic I can't cover too well on this web site. You will need to research Certificate Authorities and PKI.
Your vulnerabilities are then:
1. Peaking into current memory to extract the password
2. Social engineering
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_key_infrastructure
Andrew's answer gives you good hints for protection of in-memory strings. Regarding replaying - you're certainly right that if someone else intercepts the hashed password, they can replay it and compromise security. The way to defeat that is challenge-response authentication: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenge-response_authentication
Do not store plain passwords in the memory (you can XOR them at least). And read Introduction Into Windows Anti-Debugging
I don't know how is it usually done, but if it's critical for you, you may extend whatever string class you use to store your string at least primitively encrypted and to overwrite it with zeroes or with random data upon destruction/reassignment.
Related
My program allows the user to input a password. The password is immediately hashed with sha1 and a constant salt and stored in memory.
Lets assume an Attacker has physical access to the computer where my application runs, and wants to retrieve the password of the last user.
Would it be possible for him to find the hash in memory with reverse engineering and some memory watch magic? My Application uses a MFC graphical interface and runs on Windows. What would he see if he himself puts in a password? could he monitor the hashing process?
If the password of my user is really bad, like "1234", all the security of the SHA1 hash depends on the SALT. The salt must also be stored somewhere in memory (its a #defined char* array right now). Could he find that with adequate effort?
Input process:
User enters password in a text edit. When done, user clicks "OK" button, BN_CLICKED message gets emitted, OnOK function is called. The function grabs text from edit field, calls hash function, which is (in code) part of another library, so I assume it must be placed somewhere else in memory. Hashed String gets stored also somewhere else. If it matters, the project structure looks like this:
SOLUTION
GUI Project
Data Storage Project
Crypto Lib
If you reverse engineer Win32/MFC applications then you should notice those data are stored in .data section while const data are stored in .rdata section, not unless the developer has explicitly created another section to store those data. I use OllyDbg for reverse engineering applications though IDA is the best one out there. Now to answer your question:
Would it be possible for him to find the hash in memory with reverse engineering and some memory watch magic? My Application uses a MFC graphical interface and runs on Windows. What would he see if he himself puts in a password? could he monitor the hashing process?
A: Yes, it is possible to find the hash in memory with reverse engineering. You just have to find the memory address of that data. Any reverse engineer/hacker can put a break point in GetDlgItem/GetDlgItemText and then capture the entered password and monitor the hashing process.
If the password of my user is really bad, like "1234", all the security of the SHA1 hash depends on the SALT. The salt must also be stored somewhere in memory (its a #defined char* array right now). Could he find that with adequate effort?
A: It requires very little effort to find the SALT too. One can easily go through those sections or use the technique that I mentioned above to debug and find out the SALT while monitoring the process.
If you are really worried about securing those data then you should consider using encryption. I hope that answers your question
I have found a similar question here Saving passwords inside an application but it didn't really answer my concerns.
I am dealing with an application that will receive a password (securely) from the user. Once I receive the password I would need store it in some variable and send it through transactions to other systems (this logic is safe and secure and already implemented).
My worry is that I don't want to be able to see the password in a core dump so I would like to encrypt any password before saving it to any variable.
Questions:
Is encrypting it before saving it to a variable enough? Or am I missing some security loopholes?
Is there a simple header only libraries that can do encryption? Can you guide me to where I can start looking?
Note to answer commenters:
The password will not be stored long term; Only for the lifespan of the transactions.
Unfortunately, the participants of the transactions cannot decrypt the password, therefore I would need to decrypt it before I send it to them.
My main concern right now is to find a way to encrypt and decrypt the password locally - in an easy manner...
I found OpenSSL library and crypto++ but it seams that I would need to link with them, I can't just include and call them (i.e. not header only libraries)...
Thanks,
(Note: I'm sure there are rigorous checklists and official guidelines about how to treat passwords in secure software out there, from people and authorities that actually know something about security. This is not one of those!)
I don't think there is a cryptographically-secure way to have passwords in your process memory, be able to use them, but not give access to it to a user that can run your application under a debugger or inspect your core dumps.
What you can do is obscure the password. Here are some techniques you can use:
Not keep the password as a simple string anywhere in your memory (scatter the characters around, etc.)
Scrub all the variables that the password is stored in after they are used (e.g. if you pass the password to a function, you should set all the characters of that variable to NUL inside the function after you are done with it.
Encrypt the password.
Vary the encryption key at each run of the application (or periodically if it's a long-running app.)
Generate the encryption key procedurally based on some aspect of the system/hardware and not store the encryption key for the password anywhere in your process memory.
Use hardware like the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) if available.
Implementing the above consistently and effectively is quite hard and impacts all of your code that deals with the password. And sometimes you even have to intentionally make your code more obscure and go against all your instincts as a programmer (e.g. not passing the password into functions as a parameter, but using hard-coded addresses inside the function.)
I, once again, have to emphasize that it's probably provably impossible to secure your passwords in software only, when the adversary has complete access to the physical machine.
As for the second part of your question, I don't know of any header-only encryption libraries, but encrypting a password will probably only need a cipher and probably a hash. And all of the best algorithms have public-domain or otherwise free implementations in the wild. You can get one of those and copy/paste into your own application. Don't forget to seriously test it though!
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.