My parents own a wallbox for charging a electric car. The wallbox is controllable with an app which uses an authenticated API. I already did a MITM attack to get that traffic. I also have the login data, as it is the wallbox of my parents and they agreed that I do this. (If you are interested: I try to automate that the car is always charging when there is enough power from the photovoltaic but at the same time the car should never run low if there is not enough sun.)
I want to write a small Python script which controls the wallbox, but the only problem is, that I don‘t know how the authentication works.
Is there any way to find that out, without decompiling the app (which I found hard because it apparently uses React Native with the Hermes engine from Facebook which can‘t be decompiled as nicely as other Android apps)?
Is it realistic to find the used authentication method by just looking at the example I show below?
Or is the only way to understand the authentication with the decompiled app? I pasted an example of what I sniffed below.
If there is an easy solution to my problem, I am happy to take that, but if you say that I should look more into these and that, then I am also good with that, as I am kinda stuck at the moment.
Thank you very much!
Two messages from the API
They come automatically after opening the websocket connection.
{
"type":"hello",
"message":"Hello app",
"serial":"3215XXXX",
"devicetype":"deviceName",
"manufacturer":"companyName",
"protocol":2
}
The first token stays the same for multiple hours, even if you make multiple requests to the API.
{
"type":"authRequired",
"token1":"0dtOJ1LkCrMgaz5ri8MZmgHBcXXXXXXX",
"token2":"Ij10ETYSo2GJSVMJlDNzMGW9TXXXXXXX"
}
From the app
{
"type":"auth",
"token3":"b4eb9e8baae62429c577216aaXXXXXXX",
"hash":"cbc3d99391db59e59174ddb01073157581afb2ad1e392433c9107477eXXXXXXX"
}
Answer from the API
{
"type":"authSuccess",
"message":"Successfully authenticated"
}
It's not super-realistic to assess the auth method from that data, however, you can get some idea.
There could be multiple reasons why the server provides two tokens (rather than just one), but I'm going to give a "best estimation" example scenario. The auth method is possibly something fairly similar to this. It's possible that one of the two tokens is authenticating the server to the client.
One of the two tokens the server provides is likely some sort of challenge for the client: it may be a hash of current time or day, or a hash of a client-specific identifier, or just some random data used to prevent replay attacks.
The client response to the server is probably some hashed or encrypted combination of one of the tokens from the server and the client secret (your password, or username:password, or username:password:productID or something like that.)
The hash may be a protection against replay attacks by hashing the current time along with the client secret info, or possibly an authentication sequence number along with client secret info.
So as you can probably tell there are many, many possibilities here. It's possible the whole protocol is custom designed by the charging station manufacturer.
You might try sniffing some data again, and within the first token timeframe try to replay what your client sent. It will most likely not auth you, but It's possible you'll be presented with some error information that is useful and can give you more clues about what's going on.
Otherwise, the disassembler is probably going to be the way to go, and may be tedious, but should give you a much clearer picture of the correct auth protocol.
Related
I'm building an API using the Django Rest Framework.
I've looked at a whole bunch of documentation, however I can't seem to answer this:
How can I restrict my API such that only my iOS client can register users / log them in?
I understand that I can use OAuth2 or Token Authentication for additional endpoints. But for unauthenticated requests, is there any way of restricting them?
There's no truly secure way to guarantee requests are coming from a specific device. Checking headers seems like the best way, as mentioned by #dukebody, but should be considered as a "good enough" solution for most users.
I'd also question why you want to do this. APIs generally shouldn't be restricted to certain devices because it makes them less extensible. Moreover, REST/HTTP services should return the same result regardless of the client device; otherwise, you will cause headaches when dealing with caches and proxies between clients and your service.
If you are trying to format content specifically for iOS, you'd be better off adding a specific parameter like ?format=ios without checking headers, then just make sure your iOS client uses that param. That would be more in the spirit of REST and make things easier to cache as well as test.
I also encounter this issue.I would like to provide some of my thought.
My team would need to support some APIs with heavy operation and it would be open to unauthenticated users which is design by business logic.
That's why we need to restrict api requests to our app clients.
The API call is stateless and irrelative with caching and proxies.
In the other hand, some malicious attack like CSRF, you should also provide some additional protection on you API to prevent request sending from untrusted way.
There are several mechanism we considered.
Using HTTP header
This is untrusted and very easy to crack.
Use one static random generated API Key
Very common and easy-implementation way. Server generated one static random string as key and client must carry when sending request.
If you have to support web, this would be leak by web console.But if you only support app client and restrict your API connection with HTTPs. This should be safe enough.
Dynamic change API key with AES crypto algorithm
To prevent MITM or static API key is leak, I proposed to use AES crypto algorithm and encrypt current timestamp.
When server receive, decrypt and check whether the request is valid or not.
You can also append some string as salt to make the mechanism harder to brute force attack.
You can do as much effort to make it harder to crack, but it would never be absolutely 100% safe.
Hackers can still reverse engineer your app to see how the encryption works.
All you can do is making it harder.
This is my propose and hope it could inspire you.
If you have any other better solutions or find some bug in my proposal, please let me know.
Restrict the views to the user agent of the iOS client, checking the headers. See https://stackoverflow.com/a/4617648/356729
I'm creating an app where user submissions (e.g. photo) are designed to be captured via crowdsourcing. The app connects to an API using an API key, and the app then submits the data anonymously.
We want to avoid the overhead of people creating user accounts and passwords.
However, it seems to me this is vulnerable to a the problem of the key getting revealed. The result is that spammy submissions could be made much more quickly via browser/wget HTTP requests. Because the app is installed on people's devices, it would take a long time for us to be able to withdraw a key and replace it with another.
The approaches to deal with this problem I can think of are:
Hope that the key stays secret. Not ideal from a risk perspective. Using HTTPS for the API endpoint would reduce this risk, but presumably the app could still be decompiled to reveal it (not that in practice anyone would really bother)
Store a fixed username and password in the app, and submit as that. That basically seems to run the same problem - if the credentials are leaked then this has the same problem as 1.
Require a first-run fetch of a token to auto-create a username and password. However, if the key is compromised then this is no more secure. Also, this means we end up with lots of junky usernames and passwords in our database that really don't mean anything.
Not considered desirable: force users to create a username/password. However, that then means a lot of messing around with accounts, and compromises the anonymity of submissions, meaning data protection implications.
Are there standard patterns dealing with this scenario?
The first time the app runs, it could get a random token from the server, store this, and use it on all subsequent requests. The server just checks that the token is one it produced itself. After each request, block the token for 5 minutes (or make a counter so 10 requests are ok but the 11th gets blocked, depending on your use case). When a token gets misused, block it, so the user will have to deinstall/reinstall your app, or, if he made a script to emulate the app, he'd have to re-register after every few posts (plus you can limit the numer of registrations per IP or something similar).
You can assume any fixed credentials will be compromised. A good attacker can and will reverse-engineer the client. On the flip-side, a username/password combo will compromise anonymity (and nothing is stopping a spammer from creating an account).
Honestly, this is a very difficult problem. The (inelegant) solution involves something like a captcha where you provide a problem that is difficult for a bot but easy for a human to solve (for the record, I think captchas are almost useless, although there have been some less annoying alternatives).
Alternatively, sites like Facebook use sophisticated algorithms to detect spam. (This is a difficult approach so I would not recommend it unless you have the manpower to dedicate to it).
I want to write a google chrome extension, that should make a request to my website to send and get some data, so, actually I should do an ajax request like it is written here https://developer.chrome.com/extensions/xhr.html
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open("GET", "http://api.example.com/data.json", true);
I wanted ask if there is a way to somehow secure the code or prevent others from using my api, because actually the other users can see the source code of the extension when they install it and so use my api without me being aware of it.
EDIT:
If I need to make some sort of authentication, than how can I authenticate the user before making the ajax call ? for authentication I will need to send a request to my server , but for that I should send , e.g. username and password, that should be saved somewhere in the extension's files, which, in fact, can be seen by the users, when they install the extension.
Thanks
Don't trust the browser, take steps to authenticate the user instead. So, in this case, you could require that YOU enter in a password that is used to communicate with your server.
Your Google extension would simple require you to enter in a password before it attempts to use AJAX to communicate with your server.
Be aware that you should build in means of protecting yourself from brute-force attacks. So, do things like lock everything down if there are more than some small number of wrong passwords, etc.
You could also consider using the password to simply decrypt the destination of the XHR, but if you go this route, you should store this very carefully, because this will be brute-forceable offline.
EDIT
Trying to lock down an API so that only a single application can use it is just not practical nor technically possible, so you're only hope of doing this is to authenticate the user using the API, regardless of the accessing software he is using. You could have the user sign an agreement that legally limits them to only your extension, but I suspect this will go largely unenforceable and will consume your time tracking abusers down.
If you don't want unauthorized people even knowing where the API is, you could perform authentication using an out-of-band mechanism: over the telephone, email, SMS, or simply, another API that will grant the user a password or token that requests to your API must be accompanied with.
During this out-of-band process, you could also grant the user, a unique URI (the API access point) that is only valid per authenticated session (https://api.totally-cool-extension.com/api/ijyeDvB5dYvSiWG97OLuTAoNWwbhuZ0/, for example). Any requests to your server on OTHER URIs simply won't work. However, this isn't theoretically much different than using the same API access point, and having a good password. It just changes the number of places in your architecture that will be performing authentication and/or authorization checks.
<aside>My vote would be to reduce the number of authorization/authentication points to as few as possible so that you can spend more time on getting that one place correct rather than having multiple places and possibly multiple logic flaws or other things that could lead to vulnerabilities.</aside>
You could also explore using Public Key Infrastructure and/or one-time passwords schemes or device-based token generators, etc., but in the end, you'll be allowing authenticated and authorized users to use your API. And, thanks to the Internet, this will not remain an undisclosed URI for long.
And, more importantly, it will not prevent someone from using the data on their own. Even with all these measures in place, it would be trivial for an authorized user to collect this data as it is being streamed to your extension. Or, if you employ point-to-point encryption, they could screen-scrap or use some form of JS introspection on your very code or even extract the data from their computer's memory.
I know you were looking for a silver bullet here, but it doesn't exist.
I think you are doing it wrong. You should never trust what's going on on internet users PC's. Never!
Move the line of trust one step inward, make your API public and then design the security where you have perfect control - server side.
I could not get correct aspect of your use case
Few Points:
Your extension code is always traceable( Any one who has installed extension can view the code)
If you are looking for security through complicated or obfuscated coding patterns you end up slow down of understanding process not the whole.
If your target is to ensure users who install your extension should be able to access and inert all other users( Who have gained illegal access or downloaded and edited code) have a session shared key per installation.
Please explain further use case so i can help you better.
Overview
I'm looking to create a (REST) API for my application. The initial/primary purpose will be for consumption by mobile apps (iPhone, Android, Symbian, etc). I've been looking into different mechanisms for authentication and authorization for web-based APIs (by studying other implementations). I've got my head wrapped around most of the fundamental concepts but am still looking for guidance in a few areas. The last thing I want to do is reinvent the wheel, but I'm not finding any standard solutions that fits my criteria (however my criteria my be misguided so feel free to critique that as well). Additionally, I want the API to be the same for all platforms/applications consuming it.
oAuth
I'll go ahead and throw out my objection to oAuth since I know that will likely be the first solution offered. For mobile applications (or more specifically non-web applications), it just seems wrong to leave the application (to go to a web-browser) for the authentication. Additionally, there is no way (I am aware of) for the browser to return the callback to the application (especially cross-platform). I know a couple of apps that do that, but it just feels wrong and gives a break in the application UX.
Requirements
User enters username/password into application.
Every API call is identified by the calling application.
Overhead is kept to a minimum and the auth aspect is intuitive for developers.
The mechanism is secure for both the end user (their login credentials are not exposed) as well as the developer (their application credentials are not exposed).
If possible, not require https (by no means a hard requirement).
My Current Thoughts on Implementation
An external developer will request an API account. They will receive an apikey and apisecret. Every request will require at minimum three parameters.
apikey - given to developer at regisration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The apikey is required to identify the application issuing the request. The timestamp acts similarly to the oauth_nonce and avoids/mitigates replay attacks. The hash ensures that request was actually issued from the owner of the given apikey.
For authenticated requests (ones done on the behalf of a user), I'm still undecided between going with an access_token route or a username and password hash combo. Either way, at some point a username/password combo will be required. So when it does, a hash of several pieces of information (apikey, apisecret, timestamp) + the password would be used. I'd love feedback on this aspect. FYI, they would have to hash the password first, since I don't store the passwords in my system without hashing.
Conclusion
FYI, this isn't a request for how to build/structure the API in general only how to handle the authentication and authorization from solely within an application.
Random Thoughts/Bonus Questions
For APIs that only require an apikey as part of the request, how do you prevent someone other than the apikey owner from being able to see the apikey (since sent in the clear) and make excessive requests to push them over usage limits? Maybe I'm just over thinking this, but shouldn't there be something to authenticate that a request was verified to the apikey owner? In my case, that was the purpose of the apisecret, it is never shown/transmitted without being hashed.
Speaking of hashes, what about md5 vs hmac-sha1? Does it really matter when all of the values are hashed with with sufficiently long data (ie. apisecret)?
I had been previously considering adding a per user/row salt to my users password hash. If I were to do that, how could the application be able to create a matching hash without knowing the salt used?
The way I'm thinking about doing the login part of this in my projects is:
before login the user requests a login_token from the server. These are generated and stored on the server on request, and probably have a limited lifetime.
to login the application calculates the hash of the users password, then hashes the password with the login_token to get a value, they then return both the login_token and the combined hash.
The server checks the login_token is one that it has generated, removing it from its list of valid login_tokens. The server then combines its stored hash of the user's password with the login_token and ensures that it matches the submitted combined token. If it matches you have authenticated your user.
Advantages of this are that you never store the user's password on the server, the password is never passed in the clear, the password hash is only passed in the clear on account creation (though there may be ways around this), and it should be safe from replay attacks as the login_token is removed from the DB on use.
That's a whole lot of questions in one, I guess quite a few people didn't manage to read all the way to the end :)
My experience of web service authentication is that people usually overengineer it, and the problems are only the same as you would encounter on a web page. Possible very simple options would include https for the login step, return a token, require it to be included with future requests. You could also use http basic authentication, and just pass stuff in the header. For added security, rotate/expire the tokens frequently, check the requests are coming from the same IP block (this could get messy though as mobile users move between cells), combine with API key or similar. Alternatively, do the "request key" step of oauth (someone suggested this in a previous answer already and it's a good idea) before authenticating the user, and use that as a required key to generate the access token.
An alternative which I haven't used yet but I've heard a lot about as a device-friendly alternative to oAuth is xAuth. Have a look at it and if you use it then I'd be really interested to hear what your impressions are.
For hashing, sha1 is a bit better but don't get hung up about it - whatever the devices can easily (and quickly in a performance sense) implement is probably fine.
Hope that helps, good luck :)
So what you're after is some kind of server side authentication mechanism that will handle the authentication and authorisation aspects of a mobile application?
Assuming this is the case, then I would approach it as follows (but only 'cos I'm a Java developer so a C# guy would do it differently):
The RESTful authentication and authorisation service
This will work only over HTTPS to prevent eavesdropping.
It will be based on a combination of RESTEasy, Spring Security and CAS (for single sign on across multiple applications).
It will work with both browsers and web-enabled client applications
There will be a web-based account management interface to allow users to edit their details, and admins (for particular applications) to change authorisation levels
The client side security library/application
For each supported platform (e.g.
Symbian, Android, iOS etc) create a
suitable implementation of the
security library in the native
language of the platform (e.g. Java,
ObjectiveC, C etc)
The library
should manage the HTTPS request
formation using the available APIs
for the given platform (e.g. Java
uses URLConnection etc)
Consumers of the general authentication and
authorisation library ('cos that's
all it is) will code to a specific
interface and won't be happy if it
ever changes so make sure it's very
flexible. Follow existing design
choices such as Spring Security.
So now that the view from 30,000ft is complete how do you go about doing it? Well, it's not that hard to create an authentication and authorisation system based on the listed technologies on the server side with a browser client. In combination with HTTPS, the frameworks will provide a secure process based on a shared token (usually presented as a cookie) generated by the authentication process and used whenever the user wishes to do something. This token is presented by the client to the server whenever any request takes place.
In the case of the local mobile application, it seems that you're after a solution that does the following:
Client application has a defined Access Control List (ACL) controlling runtime access to method calls. For example, a given user can read a collection from a method, but their ACL only permits access to objects that have a Q in their name so some data in the collection is quiety pulled by the security interceptor. In Java this is straightforward, you just use the Spring Security annotations on the calling code and implement a suitable ACL response process. In other languages, you're on your own and will probably need to provide boilerplate security code that calls into your security library. If the language supports AOP (Aspect Oriented Programming) then use it to the fullest for this situation.
The security library caches the complete list of authorisations into it's private memory for the current application so that it doesn't have to remain connected. Depending on the length of the login session, this could be a one-off operation that never gets repeated.
Whatever you do, don't try to invent your own security protocol, or use security by obscurity. You'll never be able to write a better algorithm for this than those that are currently available and free. Also, people trust well known algorithms. So if you say that your security library provides authorisation and authentication for local mobile applications using a combination of SSL, HTTPS, SpringSecurity and AES encrypted tokens then you'll immediately have creditibility in the marketplace.
Hope this helps, and good luck with your venture. If you would like more info, let me know - I've written quite a few web applications based on Spring Security, ACLs and the like.
Twitter addressed the external application issue in oAuth by supporting a variant they call xAuth. Unfortunately there's already a plethora of other schemes with this name so it can be confusing to sort out.
The protocol is oAuth, except it skips the request token phase and simply immediately issues an access token pair upon receipt of a username and password. (Starting at step E here.) This initial request and response must be secured - it's sending the username and password in plaintext and receiving back the access token and secret token. Once the access token pair has been configured, whether the initial token exchange was via the oAuth model or the xAuth model is irrelevant to both the client and server for the rest of the session. This has the advantage that you can leverage existing oAuth infrastructure and have very nearly the same implementation for mobile/web/desktop applications. The main disadvantage is that the application is granted access to the client's user name and password, but it appears like your requirements mandate this approach.
In any case, I'd like to agree with your intuition and that of several other answerers here: don't try to build something new from scratch. Security protocols can be easy to start but are always hard to do well, and the more convoluted they become the less likely your third-party developers are to be able to implement against them. Your hypothetical protocol is very similar to o(x)Auth - api_key/api_secret, nonce, sha1 hashing - but instead of being able to use one of the many existing libraries your developers are going to need to roll their own.
Super late to the party but I wanted to throw in some additional points to consider for anyone interested in this issue. I work for a company doing mobile API security solutions (approov) so this whole area is definitely relevant to my interests.
To start with, the most important thing to consider when trying to secure a mobile API is how much it is worth to you. The right solution for a bank is different to the right solution for someone just doing things for fun.
In the proposed solution you mention that a minimum of three parameters will be required:
apikey - given to developer at registration
timestamp - doubles as a unique identifier for each message for a given apikey
hash - a hash of the timestamp + the apisecret
The implication of this is that for some API calls no username/password is required. This can be useful for applications where you don't want to force a login (browsing in online shops for example).
This is a slightly different problem to the one of user authentication and is more like authentication or attestation of the software. There is no user, but you still want to ensure that there is no malicious access to your API. So you use your API secret to sign the traffic and identify the code accessing the API as genuine. The potential problem with this solution is that you then have to give away the secret inside every version of the app. If someone can extract the secret they can use your API, impersonating your software but doing whatever they like.
To counter that threat there are a bunch of things you can do depending on how valuable the data is. Obfuscation is a simple way to make it harder to extract the secret. There are tools that will do that for you, more so for Android, but you still have to have code that generates your hash and a sufficiently skilled individual can always just call the function that does the hashing directly.
Another way to mitigate against excessive use of an API that doesn't require a login is to throttle the traffic and potentially identify and block suspect IP addresses. The amount of effort you want to go to will largely depend upon how valuble your data is.
Beyond that you can easily start getting into the domain of my day job. Anyway, it's another aspect of securing APIs that I think is important and wanted to flag up.
Creating a API here and I want people to be able to make simple mobile apps that could get the username/password of my users and of they go to interact with my server. So I need to have a Basic Auth(OAuth and other stuff are also going to be supported, mostly for a different use case). Right now I have a example from a Book saying i could just receive the (unencrypted) password as part of the post and looking at successful APIs I see that twitters gets unencrypted passwords on the headers of their HTTP request.
Another options would be to get md5 or SHA1 hashes, but without a secret salt, this seems like an exercise in futility. I asked a couple of people and everyone had a different(strong and heuristic) point of view, so....
What is the best way to get passwords for basic auth in a API and why?
Uh, do not give out the passwords of your users to other apps. Or via your API. Or ever. They should be stored 1-way anyway (i.e. hashed).
But I'm not so sure if that is what you are saying. You talk about OAuth (which you can use to generate tokens that let API's access various components of your system, because the user says that it is possible).
For example, say you wish to allow API-users to query a certain users properties (say, their location), then you create a token for this access via OAuth, and the API-caller passes that. At least, this is my understanding of the model. Obviously, you should review OAuths webside, and find an appropriate implementation for your given language.