I am considering using ASP.NET Core Data Protection to protect long living tokens. The default Data Protection key lifetime is 90 days, which is enough in this case.
Is it a good idea to use Data Protection for this scenario or should I rather use something else?
As from the documentation (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/aspnet/core/security/data-protection/configuration/default-settings?view=aspnetcore-2.1#key-lifetime) you can use this API to protect also long living tokens.
Only newly encrypted tokens will use the newest key. You are able to decrypt all your old encrypted tokens, also if they were encrypted longer then 90 days ago. All the old keys are saved on your system for decryption purpose.
Related
It seems to me that if my private and public key are compromised (which i use to sign and verify JWTs), that anyone can independently generate JWT tokens for themselves to use on my API?
Whereas on the other hand if I generated my own tokens myself, and stored a look-up table of 'one-way-hashed user id' => 'token', then if someone broke into my system, they would not be able to generate tokens to use on my API, and they would also not be able to use the tokens (because they would not know which token belonged to which user)
If someone breaks into your system and it is still secure, then you made a secure system; nothing to worry about.
with JWT, it appears to me that if someone breaks in, I do have something to worry about.
It seems to me that if my private and public key are compromised (which i use to sign and verify JWTs), that anyone can independently generate JWT tokens for themselves to use on my API?
Yes, that's correct.
Public keys are intended to be public and can be distributed.
On the other hand, private keys are supposed to be private and must be kept secure in your server. Anyone who has access to the private keys should be capable to issue tokens.
Disclosing your private key is a huge security breach.
It seems to me that if my private and public key are compromised (which i use to sign and verify JWTs), that anyone can independently generate JWT tokens for themselves to use on my API?
As also pointed out that you need to keep your Private Key Secure , the best way to keep it secure is to use an HSM for signing your data , in this case you can extend the JWT generator to sign the data through a crypto dll inside the HSM , this insures that the private key is never exposed outside the HSM
Whereas on the other hand if I generated my own tokens myself, and
stored a look-up table of 'one-way-hashed user id' => 'token',
Any one can generate your non-keyed hash. Secure hashes involved a private key which becomes a digital signature. Now we've come full circle, because that's exactly what a JWT token is.
Alternatively, you store them in a datastore, but now you must query this on every round trip. Most ticket(cookie)/token authentication systems use public key verification, which verifies the validity of the ticket/token without a database roundtrip.
If you store them in a datastore, now you must track expiration in the datastore as well. Tickets/tokens can have an expiration built into them. The nice thing about tickets/tokens is the client holds them. You can expire a session more quickly than the authentication. I.e. often you get a ticket that may allow you to be logged in for 2 hours, but the web server can expire your session in 10 minutes to reduce memory usage. When you access the web server in 15 minutes, it will see your ticket/token and see that it is still valid, and create a new session. This means at any point in time the server is tracking far fewer idle users.
JWT issuers are great for distributed systems, where authentication is shared. Rather than reimplement the authentication in every system, exposing multiple systems to the private key, as well as potential bugs in the authentication, we centralize it to one system. We can also leverage third party integrators that generate JWTs. All we need to do is get their public key for verifying the JWTs.
If someone breaks into your system and it is still secure, then you
made a secure system; nothing to worry about.
I have your list of nonces you were saving in your database now, and can login as anyone. I also likely have your connection strings, even if you're encrypting your application config, if I have root access then I can access the same key store that's used by the application to decrypt them. Now I get your username/passwords from your database and can login as anyone, regardless of what authentication scheme you use.
You'll be hard pressed to find a system that can still be secure after someone's gained root or physical access to the machine.
There's a small handful of systems that have purpose built hardware for storing keys and handle requests for encryption operations through an interface, thus ensuring the keys are protected at a hardware level and never accessed directly from software:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_security_module
I have some questions related to tokens and encryption.
First of all Access Tokens :
Regardless the various attacks(that you need to bear in mind so that you take measures against), would you recommend storing an access token on the client?(localstorage/ cookies).
If yes, will I need to encrypt it and store the encrypted token on the client. However, is that really needed since I am using SSL? You are using SSL to prevent a MIM attack.But since you are using HTTPS, why should we also encrypt the access token?
My second question is related to encryption. For SSL, I understand that I need a certificate (or self-signed certificate to test it locally). However, for encrypting the token, do I need the same SSL's certificate, or can I use an RSACryproProvider to generate a pair of public/private keys?
For Refresh tokens :
I believe the best approach is to save the encrypted refresh tokens in the database. It could be an actual API that reads/Writes refresh tokens in the database. However, the refresh token, must be stored along with some user attribute ie UserId, so you can retrieve it based on i.e userid, email etc. Assuming, I use the UserId, I would encrypt it along with some character and date and store it on the client. Do you agree on that? And also, I am thinking to restrict the access on that API, so that it can only serve requests from a particular server or servers (web farm). What is your opinion about this approach?
I would REALLY appreciate your help, as I am really trying to understand in depth some concepts. If there is something, I don't express correctly, please let me know to rephrase my question.
Thanks
I have a design question. I have a web application that uses .NET encryption APIs to encrypt/decrypt data. (App uses old crypto algorithms like MD5 and SHA-1). Also, app hard-codes the encryption keys in the production code.
I would like to;
1 ) Update existing old algorithms (MD5 and SHA-1) to new ones.
2 ) Move encryption keys from source code to a secure share.
3 ) Can change the encryption keys easily and regularly
My Design;
Algorithm Update
For the algorithm update, we use specific .NET implementations of crypto algorithms. We use classes like MD5CryptoProvider or RijndaelManaged. These are all hard-coded. I am going to remove the specific algorithm dependency and make it more agile like;
HashAlgorithm algo = HashAlgorithm.Create(MyPreferredHash.ToString());
algo.ComputeHash(...);
MyPreferredHash value will be loaded from a config file so that we can change this when we want to.
Question: Upgrading the code is easy to do this. However do you see any potential issues with changing crypto algorithms? We do not store any encrypted or hash data anywhere and web application is stateless. All the hash values are generated and appended to url strings and decrypted from another pages. Therefore, no data is stored. Except the cookies. When we encrypt cookie and send it back to user, we decrypt it when server receives it. In this case, i thought of destroying the cookie and send a new one to the client. Is this reasonable? Any other issues you think of ?
Key Management
Second part of the design, is to remove hard-coded keys from source code to secure share. After this, I need to be able to rollout new encryption keys. Each encryption key will be associated with a expire date. When we rollout a new encryption key, new key will be used for encryption and decryption. If it fails to decrypt, then we can try old keys. Old keys will be used for decryption or verification until their expire date. When they pass their expire date, they should retire.
For the storage; I am thinking of storing the encryption keys in a config file in the local machine as "encrypted" by a master key which will reside in a secure share. Therefore, anybody who doesn't have access to this secure share will not be able to see the master key. Master key will be loaded from secure share to machine registry when a machine reboots. The encryption keys in the local machine will be loaded from config file (local) and decrypted by master key in registry.
This storage choice will give us storing only one master key in a secure share and also historical changes to the encryption keys as we will store them in version control system.
The challenging part is the key change/update.
What is the recommended key change algorithm here for a distributed web application? If we are doing partial deployment after a release, not all the machines will have the same config file content (e.g. new encryption key added). All site deployment can take 1-2 weeks. This is also another concern that if we should wait for all deployments complete so that these keys will be active after that.
Any other feedback?
You are quite right to design your app to be agile in the face of unknown future attacks on particular encryption algorithms.
The simplest way to future-proof your app in a robust way would seem to be to switch to using a standard data format for your encrypted information, and use a standard library to do the hard lifting. The choice of a specific standard to use would depend on what kind of data formats you're working with, but there are good candidates to choose from. Then when there is a future attack, you can just change some parameters, or update to the latest version of the implementation.
Doing crypto is very tricky. Best to leave it up to the experts.
I have started to design a RESTful API and I'm thinking about how to handle authentication. I want to use some kind of authentication token but I can't use OAuth o similar infrastructures so I have to handle it myself.
One of the requirements for this API is that it must have good performance, enough to handle a high volume of requests before there is the need to scale; my concern is how to make on each request the time needed to verify the token (integrity, expiration, IP Address, etc...) as little as possibile.
I suppose the token should some kind of hash and not an encrypted string containing the user information because the decryption time would be to heavy.
I've read that I could store the tokens in an in-memory hashtable where the key is the token and the value is the user info needed to process the request, but how can I make this work in a clustered environment where there will be an hashtable on each "node"?
Should I put tokens on a DB table an hit the DB every time also Handling manually the retention of expired tickets?
Probably it's not that important for the question but I'm using Spring MVC for the RESTfull API.
Thanks in advance.
I solved my problem by using both an in-memory cache and a db cache. Here is a summary of my solution that may help anyone with the same task.
the user logs in and in that moment a unique key is generated and sent back to the user.
that login token (which is basically a GUID with some processing) is also store in a db table with additional info like exipiration and with the user's info and roles. the same pieces of information are also store in memory (google guava hashtable where the token is the key)
the token must be passed along with every api call in the authorization token as #ipa suggested
the server code checks if the token is in its memory cache the user info are already available otherwise (e.g. the api call is done on another node in the cluster) the token is search in the token db
once the token is found you can check expiration, roles, etc...
This grants a good level of performance and security, the token can be generated with any arbitrary algorithm even a relative slow one since you don't have to recalculate it on every api call. Also this works with a stateless service wich can be scaled up horizontally.
I assume you use https and therefore all the traffic is encrypted. I'd suggest one of the following principles.
Basic Authentication
You can add the credentials in the Authorization header of the request. This credentials are encoded with Base64 (see below). This credentials could be sent on every request and then checked with your DB. To get this faster and less IO intensive you can still use a cache. Once I implemented an API like this without a cache and was able to handle thousands of requests per second.
Authorization: Basic QWxhZGRpbjpvcGVuIHNlc2FtZQ==
Authorization Token
There are different ways to implement your idea with a token. A common one is that every API user has his own token usually called api key which never expires. Another one is that you first have to authorize (Basic Authentication) and then get a token back which expires. This one is then used as api key for a certain time.
Either way you have to decide whether to use a cache or not. I would keep it simple and go for basic authentication and check the db every time. Almost every framework has very good support for this approach because it's simple http. If this causes performance issues (I'd recommend performance tests anyway) try to add the table with your credentials to the JPA cache. If you want to implement something with expiring tokens have a look at Infinispan.
You can store token in Redis. If you are going to store it in DB, make sure you optimise server (if you are managing it) for read operations. I have couple of implementation where folks have used key value store as well. Hashtable is also good idea.
I have been following a couple of articles regarding RESTful web services with WCF and more specifically, how to go about authentication in these. The main article I have been referencing is Aaron Skonnard's RESTful Web Services with WCF 3.5. Another one that specifically deals with HMAC authentication is Itai Goldstiens article which is based on Skonnards article.
I am confused about the "User Key" that is referenced to in both articles. I have a client application that is going to require a user to have both a user name and password.
Does this then mean that the key I use to initialise the
System.Security.Cryptography.HMACMD5 class is simply the users
password?
Given the method used to create the Mac in Itai's article
(shown below), am I right is thinking that key is the users
password and text is the string we are using confirm that the
details are in fact correct?
public static string EncodeText(byte[] key, string text, Encoding encoding)
{
HMACMD5 hmacMD5 = new HMACMD5(key);
byte[] textBytes = encoding.GetBytes(text);
byte[] encodedTextBytes =
hmacMD5.ComputeHash(textBytes);
string encodedText =
Convert.ToBase64String(encodedTextBytes);
return encodedText;
}
In my example, the text parameter would be a combination of request uri, a shared secret and timestamp (which will be available as a request header and used to prevent replay attacks).
Is this form of authentication decent? I've come across another thread here that suggests that the method defined in the articles above is "..a (sic) ugly hack." The author doesn't suggest why, but it is discouraging given that I've spent a few hours reading about this and getting it working. However, it's worth noting that the accepted answer on this question talks about a custom HMAC authorisation scheme so it is possible the ugly hack reference is simply the implementation of it rather than the use of HMAC algorithms themselves.
The diagram below if from the wikipedia article on Message Authentication Code. I feel like this should be a secure way to go, but I just want to make sure I understand it's use correctly and also make sure this isn't simply some dated mechanism that has been surpassed by something much better.
The key can be the user's password, but you absolutely should not do this.
First - the key has an optimal length equal to the size of the output hash, and a user's password will rarely be equal to that.
Second, there will never be enough randomness (entropy to use the technical term) in those bytes to be an adequate key.
Third, although you're preventing replay attacks, you're allowing anyone potentially to sign any kind of request, assuming they can also get hold of the shared secret (is that broadcast by the server at some point or is it derived only on the client and server? If broadcast, a man-in-the-middle attack can easily grab and store that - height of paranoia, yes, but I think you should think about it) unless the user changes their password.
Fourth - stop using HMACMD5 - use HMAC-SHA-256 as a minimum.
This key should at the very least be a series of bytes that are generated from the user's password - typically using something like PBKDF2 - however you should also include something transitory that is session-based and which, ideally, can't be known by an attacker.
That said, a lot of people might tell you that I'm being far too paranoid.
Personally I know I'm not an expert in authentication - it's a very delicate balancing act - so I rely on peer-reviewed and proven technologies. SSL (in this case authentication via client certificates), for example, might have it's weaknesses, but most people use it and if one of my systems gets exploited because of an SSL weakness, it's not going to be my fault. However if an exploit occurs because of some weakness that I wasn't clever enough to identify? I'd kick myself out of the front door.
Indidentally, for my rest services I now use SCRAM for authentication, using SHA512 and 512 bits of random salt for the stretching operation (many people will say that's excessive, but I won't have to change it for a while!), and then use a secure token (signed with an HMAC and encrypted with AES) derived from the authentication and other server-only-known information to persist an authenticated session. The token is stateless in the same way that Asp.Net forms authentication cookies are.
The password exchange works very well indeed, is secure even without SSL (in protecting the password) and has the added advantage of authenticating both client and server. The session persistence can be tuned based on the site and client - the token carries its own expiry and absolute expiry values within it, and these can be tuned easily. By encrypting client ID information into that token as well, it's possible to prevent duplication on to another machine by simply comparing the decrypted values from the client-supplied values. Only thing about that is watching out for IP address information, yes it can be spoofed but, primarily, you have to consider legitimate users on roaming networks.