I wonder what is the optimal authentication method for services and webservices:
user/password is sent on each request
user/password is sent once to obtain an authentication code that will be sent on each request
Is there any alternative? Which is better? Why?
Depends on the protocol.
If the service requests are in the clear (http), then you might want to consider a secure (https) logon transaction, which gains you a limited-time token to authorise future requests (a session cookie, in effect). Then at least eavesdroppers don't get credentials that work forever, just for a limited period.
Likewise even if the logon transaction isn't secure, at least if it only happens once it's slightly harder to eavesdrop. It's also slightly harder to use.
If you don't care about security, I wouldn't even use a username/password, just an API key. Amounts to the same thing, but if the user doesn't choose it then at least it won't be similar to any of their other passwords, so it doesn't affect anything else when it's stolen.
If you care about security sufficiently that everything is done over https, then it doesn't really make a lot of difference what identification mechanism you use, AFAIK. So do something simple.
Finally, you might care about the security of the authentication, but not about the secrecy of the requests themselves. So, you don't mind eavesdroppers seeing the data in flight, you just don't want them to be able to issue requests of their own (or spoof responses). In that case, you could sign the requests (and responses) using a public/private keypair or a shared secret with HMAC. That might (or might not) be easier to set up and lower bandwidth than SSL. Beware replay attacks.
By optimal are you thinking about performance ? I would suggest to send credentials and authenticate on each request unless you really find this to be a bottleneck. SSL is not enough at all, it only provides encryption and authentication of the web service. But think about client authentication (a client cert can help here) and authorisation, may be not all users of the web service is not allowed to call all methods and all methods calls needs to be logged for auditing. In this case the user identity needs to presented for each call.
I develop and maintain a SOA based core system web service developed in WCF that authenticates and authorises against .Net based clients using windows identity and uses 2-way certs authentication against Java clients and I have no performance problem.
Steve Jessop clarified things for me:
if the credentials are memorized I should provide a transient authentication cookie after they are received,
but if the credentials are digitally stored then I should only use an API key, because anyone who can access the credential storage wouldn't need to access the cookie
Related
I am developing several Web Services that will be accessed by a mobile application. I have several requirements:
Each user will need to sign in with their own User ID and Password (the same User ID and Password they use to sign into the website).
Every Web Service request will need to be authenticated to ensure that the request is coming from the mobile app(s).
Every Web Service request will need to authenticate the user, since there is user-specific fucntionality built in, and access will need to be blocked if the user's account is disabled.
Let's assume that OAuth is not an option.
In order to ensure that Web Service requests are coming only from the mobile app(s), I am planning to use HTTP Basic Authentication in IIS (the mobile app(s) will need to have a User Account setup in Windows Server and the mobile app will need to store the User Name & Password and pass these in the header).
Next is the User Authentication for each Web Service request. Would it be suitable to encrypt the User ID, Password, and some shared secret key (a "pepper", of sort) with AES-256, pass that encrypted string as a parameter with each request (over HTTPS, of course), and then decrypt and parse it on the server to authenticate? This is the existing plan, but something just doesnt seem right about it - like it's not "secure enough".
What else can I do to properly authenticate users for Web Service requests?
I recently went through this problem and asked opinions from a group of senior people about how they solve the problem. Opinions were varied, but one consistent feeling is that your level of security depends on the use case of your application. Are you doing online banking or storing medical records? Then your security needs may be quite high. Social networking? Maybe not so much.
Basic Authentication is generally fine when encrypted over SSL, ColdFusion works well with it. If you use Basic Auth, make sure to encrypt your traffic with 1024-bit keys or better. Don't authenticate every request with username/password - that's unnecessary. Authenticate the first request, set a session token, and rely on the session token for your identification of users.
Set a polling mechanism from the client to the server to keep the session alive - set the session timeout to 30 minutes and the polling frequency at 25 minutes, for example. Otherwise you may need to re-authenticate expired sessions. Again, how you approach this part of the solution depends on your paranoia level, which depends on what kind of data/app you are dealing with.
Cookies, and therefore sessions, should work fine in iOS apps. If you use sessions to verify identity after authentication, make sure your session cookies are memory-only (set at the server level).
Check the SSL implementation of your server against the Qualysis SSL Test:
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/
The report will give you a surprising amount of detail about the strength of your SSL implementation.
Lastly, consider implementing two-factor authentication to combat password theft.
If you ignore the SSL advice and plan on encrypting your password and communicating over an insecure channel, look at the Kerberos protocol for a well-known example of how to authenticate securely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerberos_%28protocol%29
Yes, you can use Basic Authentication but that means the client will need to store the username/password in plain text, and also send them over in plain text. Sending part is sort of fine if it's under HTTPS, but storing username/password in plain text may not be a good idea, unless you're using some secure key store.
Let's assume you have decided that Basic Authentication is the way to go, and you want to make use of the official CF way of supporting that, then you can use CFLOGIN.name & CFLOGIN.password. You may also check out Ask Ben: Manually Enforcing Basic HTTP Authorization In ColdFusion. In the remote cfc side, always validate the username/password, or return some sort of token and asks the client to use that token going forward. The token can be cfid+cftoken if you like, or even roll your own that never expires. If you use cfid+cftoken, and send them over as cookie or in body along with your web service call, I believe you can resume the session if you so choose.
I have created a web service API and it's architecture is such that the server requires a client to sign the request along with a secret key assigned to it (signature is always different between multiple requests).
Server matches the client's signature with its own computed signature. If they are a match then the server returns the response.
I am wondering if a client should check the response coming back from the server to see if it's from the same application to which the request was made.
Is any kind of attack possible between HTTP request and HTTP response?
Do we need a security signature for the web service response?
It depends. There are a few types of web service APIs out there. Some need strict security other might not. You could have a few types of APIs:
(1) completely opened API. Say you have a blog where you post about writing RESTful services and clients. You host a complete working REST service based on one of your posts so that people give it a spin. You don't care who calls your service, the service returns some dummy data etc. It's just a demo, a toy, no security here, no request signing, nada. It's just plain HTTP calls.
(2) service with an API key. Say you have a web service and you want to know who calls it. This kind of service needs a pre-registration and each client who wants to call your service needs to register and obtain a key first. Do note that the registration is not about authentication or authorization, you just want to know who's using your API (e.g. what business sector they operate in, how many clients they have, why are they using your API for etc) so that you later make some analysis of your own and take some (marketing maybe) decisions of some sort later on based on the data you get back.
There is nothing secret about this API key. It's just an UUID of some sort, the most basic way of differentiating between calls. This again involves only plain HTTP calls with the key as an additional request parameter.
(3) service with an API key and a secret key. This is similar to number (2) but you need to absolutely make sure that the calls are coming from the client that presents some API key. You need this because you probably want to bill the client for how much they have used your service. You want to make sure the calls actually come from that client and not someone ill intentioned that maybe wants to overcharge the client's bill.
So the client uses it's key for identification and a signature of the request with the secret key to actually vouch for it's identity. This again can be plain HTTP calls with the key and signature as additional request parameters.
(4) data "tampered-safe" web services. For numbers (1), (2) and (3) above I haven't considered any message security issues because most APIs don't need it. What's exchanged isn't confidential and not all that important to protect. But sometimes although the data isn't confidential you need to make sure it wasn't tampered with during transit.
Say you are the owner of a shop that builds some product and you want to advertise your product on some partner web sites. You expose a service with the product details and your partners just use this data to display your product details on their sites. Everybody knows what products you are building so you don't need to hide that, but you are paranoid about your competition trying to ruin you so you want to avoid them intercepting the
request and multiplying by 10 all your prices in the responses of your result just to scare potential buyers away.
Number (3) above, although uses the signing part as a way to prove the identity of the caller, also assures the request was not tampered with (server will reject the request if the signature does not match). So if you need to assure an original response you can also sign the response.
For this, the service can provide the client with an API key and two secret keys. One secret key is used by the client to sign their requests while the second secret key is used by the client to verify the signature of the response (using an unique secret key for the server isn't all that safe so the server emits a server secret key specific to each client).
But this has a weak point: you would need to trust your partners that they will indeed validate the response signature before displaying the information on the site and not just bluntly display it. Paranoid as you are you want to protect against this and for this you need HTTPS.
As #SilverlightFox mentioned this proves the validity of the response. The data was not tempered with because it's encrypted. The client does not need to have an extra step to verify the response signature because that verification is already done at a lower (transport) level.
(5) secure services. And now we reach the last type of service where the data is actually confidential. HTTPS is a must for these services. HTTPS ensures the data remains confidential, that it isn't tempered in transit, identifies the server and can also identity the client if client side certificates are used.
So, in conclusion, it depends on what type of service you have.
Make the request over HTTPS to ensure the validity of the response.
This will ensure your data is not vulnerable to a MITM attack. Rolling your own untested encryption/hashing methods is a sure way to open up your application to attack, so you should use TLS/SSL which means that you should connect to your web service API over HTTPS. TLS is the proven and secure way to ensure the response is coming from the application that the request was made to.
I need to centralize authentication to my rest web services and make this authentication the same for all of our webservices. So I started writing an external web service to take care about the authentication.
To keep compatibility, since the authentication was performed using a HMAC signature (signed using a private key) alongside the single request (so there is no token of any sort) I thought to make all web services to send the HMAC included inside the incoming request and the StringToSign (a representation of data used to generate the HMAC).
So the Authorization service can (knowing the private key) try to compose the same signature, if it matches then answers with 200 OK and with a JSON object saying "authorized".
All this communication happens over HTTPS, but I'm trying to figure out what could happen if someone would intercept or modify this answer, making a 403 Forbidden to become 200 OK...
Should I use some sort of way to recognize this is the original answer? If so, what could I do?
I do agree that ssl certificates released by CA's are secure, but how could I make sure my HTTPS layer has not been compromised allowing an attacker to modify authorization responses?
P.S. please provide some standard solution if any, I don't want it to be related to the technology I'm using right now, since each service may use its own stack and I don't really want it to be .NET or something else because there's a proprietary implementation for the authentication mechanism.
All this communication happens over HTTPS, but I'm trying to figure
out what could happen if someone would intercept or modify this answer
This is what the S in HTTPS is for: SSL guarantees integrity of the message. If the attacker forges the request, the client will notice it.
You can ask the experts at #security.
Is an API key worthless over http since requested parameters can be sniffed?
Are they only reliable over https?
Even then, aren't you relying on the client to be careful with their key?
Is an API key worthless over http since requested parameters can be sniffed?
No, because sniffing can only be performed if you are on the same LAN with the sysadmins being clueless about IT security, or if you can otherwise capture the transmitted traffic (which is typically pretty hard). Also, there exist technologies like IPSec that provide authenticity and privacy on the network layer.
So using plaintext authentication does not provide zero additional security.
Are they only reliable over https?
This depends on your definition of "reliable". See above. In any case, using transport security prevents attackers from reading your communication. If SSL is enforced, man-in-the-middle attacks are prevented as well.
Even then, aren't you relying on the client to be careful with their key?
Of course you do, you always have to trust your authorized users. This has nothing to do with API keys or passwords or anything.
Depends on how the API key is being used.
If you assign an API key to a developer, and the developer distributes the API key as part of an mobile app, or uses the API key to make AJAX calls from a web page - then the API key is pointless. Anybody can sniff the key, and it does not need any sophisticated man in the middle attack.
But if the developer uses the API key from server side code, and your API works over https, then this is a fairly secure technique.
In short, the security lies in trusting the developer to keep the API key secret. Just like you'd expect users to keep their passwords secret.
I have a REST service that is called by a mobile app; I need the user to login, then the service generates a unique token associated to user id and this pair of userId/token is passed to every subsequent call to the WS.
I don't like too much this solution because, even if very difficult, if I change the uid and get the right token I can "login" as another user, so I'm trying to understand which is the best practice to handle web service authentication for a mobile (and non) application.
Your issue is not with the methodology, but the fact your service is not checking the combination of UID and token, but rather the token. That is a programming issue, not a methodology issue.
How secure do you need the service to be? Are you talking top secret level of security? Banking? My soccer club site? For high levels of security, you can use digital certificates, but it makes for a much more complex provisioning methodology. But ... Even if you are going to change from UID/Token (or AppId, User, etc), you still need to fix the fact that correct token + wrong UID works. That is a mistake if two-form authentication is a must. Changing methods will solve nothing if you don't have the proper programming on the server side to avoid circumventing the system.
You may also want to look at how you provision the Token. Should this be offline, or is one REST sign up method acceptable. This leads back to the level of security your require.
You might want to forget the token/id solution and consider going the SSL/basic authentication route. SSL will provide the encryption and secure communication, but will not secure the access to your specific web-services on the server side.
For that you can try standard basic http user/password authentication on every call. This way you do not need to worry maintaining state through each REST call. Each call will have an explicit reference to the user. Yes, you will need to re-authenticate the user with each call which is a bit of a pain, but you can cache your results.
However, I am far from an expert on the subject.