Is there a https header on the server, or JavaScript method in the browser, that will let us detect when the user has intentionally bypassed the security certificate, or any other way to detect and report this kind of situation? (We are using Linux / Apache / jQuery.)
The Web is filled with ways to routinely skip the warning, but I haven't been able to find a single thing about detecting when users skip it - just the horrifying statistic that 70% of users bypass the warning as quick as they can. (How do they measure that?)
We operate a web application that lets teachers make and administer tests. Teachers are connecting to unauthorized WiFi networks, getting invalid certificate warnings, and clicking on the browser's "accept anyway" feature so they can get to our application despite having certificate that is not authenticated. We want to understand how often this happens, and who is doing it, and progress to stopping it.
I should note that there are schools that proxy requests through their own server, with their own certificate, and we are OK with this - it's the "ignore and connect anyway" connections that we want to measure and mitigate, because those are the ones that students are setting up, without access to their own CA but ample access to lazy users.
One way to make sure that the client has seen the server certificate you sent is to use client-certificate authentication. One of the last steps of the SSL/TLS handshake when using client-certificate authentication consists of a hash of all the handshake messages signed with the client's private key.
A side effect of this is that, if the client didn't see the exact same server certificate, the server wouldn't be able to validate this signed hash coming from the client.
This certainly doesn't necessarily mean that the client checked the certificate as it should have (i.e. whether the certificate was trusted and belonged to the server the client intended to contact), but at least the server has a way there was no fake cert in the middle.
HSTS (which you mention) also has a way to make the client enforce these checks (see Section 8.4 of RFC 6797). However, it only works if the client already knows HSTS needs to be used (either as a pre-loaded host, or after a first visit), and of course relies on the client supporting HSTS (browser support is still limited).
Not sure what you mean by bypassing HTTPS. If you mean they can visit your URI without HTTPS, that means you need to block HTTP access in Apache's .htaccess, httpd.conf, or default-ssl config files. Broken padlock could mean a number of different things so it's not clear which problem you're having. You can test your site for SSL security problems here:
https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/
Edit:
You can compare the fingerprint of the SSL certificate on the server and on the client to make sure they match (if the client is able to get the fingerprint). That should prevent man-in-the-middle attacks with bogus certificates.
Article
and here's an answer for doing this on the server side of things. It sounds like the best way to avoid interception is to authenticate the client with their own certificate.
There is no way to detect this - the user is the only one who can see if the padlock is green and locked or red and broken.
Firefox will do this by extension and through xhtml, but it is, as of now, the only browser to support this.
I was looking for HSTS. Here is how it works and how to implement it.
TL;DR: Header add Strict-Transport-Security "max-age=15768000 includeSubDomains"
Related
Can a website check in the application layer which key/certificate the client is using?
Somehow detect that the certificate is not the real one, but issued by Sneakycorp Inc. because a man-in-the-middle attack is in progress.
I realize that the mitm could fake the response, but that raises the bar for simple copying proxies.
I see two possibilities:
Use code on client side
Use code on client side (e.g. JavaScript) to read the used certificate and send the info back to the server. Then on server side you could compare if the used certificate is the expected one.
It seems like in JavaScript it is not that easy to get the necessary info on the certificate. The used method in the linked answer seems to be Firefox only at the moment.
TLS fingerprinting
A second way is used by large content delivery sites: HTTPS fingerprinting
Based on the TLS headers you can generate a fingerprint on TLS stack and often also on the used technology/run-time and OS like .Net, Java, Python, and so on. If you then compare that with what you expect e.g. based on the user agent you can calculate the chance that you have a direct connection or if some man-in-the-middle server is active.
I did create a ssl virtualhost in apache with a self-signed certificate.
In my opinion the configuration is correct however it is possible to access this url using "curl --insecure".
Searching at google, reading several tutorials and trying several configurations (diretives SSLVerifyClient|SSLVerifyDepth|AuthType|AuthBasicProvider|AuthUserFile|Require valid-user) I did not have any success in block this url using "curl --insecure"
I have been thinking in testing mod_security but I don't know if is the right way.
Could you give me some advice?
Thanks
Hudson
I suspect you may need to refine the understanding of sleep. You can't force clients to verify your SSL certificate. Besides, if you're using a self signed cert, it would never verify for anyone who didn't add the cert to their ca library.
You could block curl by rejecting requests based on their User Agent string. But that's just a header, and can be set by the client to anything ( such as a "valid" browser URL). If you really want to control clients, one way would be to use client certificates, which is the analog of the server certificate you set up, but on the client side. In that case, in addition to the client (ostensibly) verifying the server's cert, the server would verify the client's cert, providing a very strong and reliable mechanism to verify client access. Unfortunately, due the the difficulty of generating keys and cert signing requests, and signing certs for clients, client http certificates are not common. But they're very secure, and a good choice if you control both sides.
A middle ground would be to add an authentication layer into your app to control who can access it (you'd then refuse unauthenticated requests altogether)
In short, though, none of these things block curl. They block clients who cannot authenticate. I would recommend you not focus on the remote browser/client in use ( that's at the discretion of your http client). instead, focus on providing the security authentication you require. IMHO, trying to block client user-agents is a fool's errand. It's security by obscurity. Anyone can set any user-agent.
We have a HTTP endpoint where a form request is posted containing transaction data from a 3rd party https website.
We are investigating ways that our HTTP endpoint can contain code to check that the host that posted the request is the 3rd party website and no-one else (i.e. a hacker).
Is there any way our HTTP endpoint can authenticate with the website where the posted form request originated? Maybe by SSL Certificate Authentication?
Many thanks in advance.
To guarantee that the server on the other side is who they say they are the safest way is to have them use an SSL Certificate. If the they also need to trust who you are then each side should have their own SSL Certificate.
The IP Range solution provided in the comment could be a possible hack but it's quite brittle and it couldn't be applied in a very serious environment.
The Shared Key solution will work and it's reliable but you have to change keys from time to time depending on the volume of traffic between the two servers.
Hope this helps.
It might be better to use message-level security instead of transport-level security (SSL/TLS).
The third party website would sign the message using its certificate (or to be precise, using the private key matching its certificate), and your website would verify this signature.
This could allow for that message to be relayed by the user's browser, without needing a direct connection between the two servers.
This sort of mechanism already exists in the Identity Management world, for example with SAML and Shibboleth. (You can still have direct connections between the servers to get additional information too.)
I ask this because I work on an application where the X-AUTH-TOKEN can be copied from one request to another and impersonate another person. This makes me nervous, but I'm told since we're going to use HTTPS we don't have to worry about anything.
So, my question is: Is it good enough trust SSL to protect against stealing headers used for auth/sessions?
Thanks,
Using HTTPS encryption will indeed prevent someone from stealing your authentication token if they can intercept the traffic. It won't necessarily prevent a man-in-the-middle attack though unless the client enables peer certificate checking.
This question from the security stackexchange describes how to implement MITM attacks against SSL. If I can convince a client running HTTPS to connect to my server, and they accept my certificate then I can steal your authentication token and re-use it. Peer certificate validation is sometimes a bit of a pain to setup but it can give you a higher chance of whomever you are connecting to are who they say that are.
"Good enough" is a relative definition and depends on your level of paranoia. Personally I would be happy that my connection is secure enough with HTTPS and peer certificate validation turned on.
Presumably also your authentication token times out so the attack window would be time limited. For example the OpenStack authentication token is by default valid for 24 hours before it expires and then you are required to obtain a new one.
The HTTPS standard implements HTTP entirely on top of SSL/TLS. Because of this, practically everything except for the DNS query is encrypted. Since headers are part of the request and response, and only sent after the secure-channel has been created, they are precisely as secure as the implementation of HTTPS on the given server.
HTTPS is an end-to-end encryption of the entire HTTP session, including the headers, so on the face of it, you should be safe from eavesdropping.
However, that is only part of the story: depending on how the clients are actually connecting (is this a website or an API service?), it may still be possible to trick them into sending the data to the wrong place, for instance:
Presenting a "man in the middle" site with an invalid SSL certificate (since it won't be from a trusted authority, or won't be for the right domain) but convincing users to by-pass this check. Modern browsers make a big fuss about this kind of thing, but libraries for connecting to APIs might not.
Presenting a different site / service end-point at a slightly different URL, with a valid SSL certificate, harvesting authentication tokens, and using them to connect to the real service.
Harvesting the token inside the client application, before it is sent over HTTPS.
No one approach to security is ever sufficient to prevent all attacks. The main consideration should be the trade-off between how complex additional measures would be to implement vs the damage that could be done if an attacker exploited you not doing them.
I have a client that needs SSL to protect online donations, but I have limited experience with how/when to use SSL.
I understand that in purchasing a certificate that I am assigning that certificate to an entire domain (IP address really). Is there a way to isolate the encryption to only a single page of the website, or should I just go ahead and secure the entire site even though only one page needs it?
Unsure of best practice here. Please advise.
SSL incurs quite a bit of extra processing time. For low bandwidth sites, the extra processing required by SSL is not really noticeable. But for sites with heavy traffic like Facebook, Twitter and Flickr, the load caused by SSL is heavy enough that they would have to use dedicated SSL encoding/decoding hardware.
So basically yes, it makes sense to minimize the number of pages using SSL. That is why you often see banking sites only protect the actual account pages via https. The home/landing page is usually plain old http.
On the other hand, unless you really are a site like Twitter or Facebook or Gmail, worrying about this is a bit of a premature optimization. First do it simple if you can. Be aware of this issue and be aware of upgrade strategies when your site finally get heavy traffic.
My boss has a saying:
This is a happy problem to have. First solve the sad problem of
not having enough users then you'd be happy to have a problem that
requires you to refactor your architecture.
You don't encrypt a website with SSL. you encrypt the connection. Therefore if you have SSL enabled for the webserver simply adding https:// to the url will encrypt the connection and whatever page the url points to will be encrypted while in transit.
so
https://www.website.com/index.html is encrypted and http://www.website.com/index.html is NOT encrypted
I prefer for that to never happen so I always put my encrypted pages in a subdomain eg.
https://secure.website.com/index.html
SSL comes with a couple of gotcha's
1/ a basic SSL certificate will only be valid for a specific domain name so if the certificate for is www.website.com and someone follows a link for website.com a warning will be displayed. (see note below)
2/ SSL requires a dedicated IP (which you appear to have). that means you may have problems if you are on a shared platform. this is because in HTTP the host or domain name is part of the headers but the headers are encrypted so the server can't know where to route the request to. (see note below)
It sounds like you really need to employ the services of someone familiar with ecommerce and SSL to help you. navigating the minefield with limited knowledge and forum responses is not the safest thing to do. especially if financial transactions are taking place because there are other requirements that must be considered such as the legal requirements in storing and using financial information such as credit card numbers.
DC
Addendum:
For donations consider Paypal. They have a complete donation solution and more people will trust it than a roll your own solution.
EDIT 2016:
The world moves on and some of the advice above is not as true as it was when originally answered.
SSL no longer requires a dedicated IP address. SNI (Server name indication) resolves that and is almost universal now (IE8 on winXP does not support it and a few phones).
You will find most certificate vendors now include the main domain name as a SAN (subject alternative name) in a certificate. Which is to say they will provide a certificate for both www.website.moc and website.moc if you get a certificate for www.website.moc. Do not assume this, make sure your certification authority specifies it.
also, you mentioned that an SSL certificate protects an IP address. This is incorrect. An SSL certificate corresponds to a domain. Many schemes exist where several domains share a single IP address. If one of these shared domains has an SSL certificate, that certificate is only good for that domain, not the others.
Cookie security is the main thing that I'd point to for your approach.
A user that logs in on your secure login page gets a cookie for their session, right? That cookie's then being transmitted in plain text for someone watching the wire (Firesheep) to intercept and steal the session.
There is additional overhead in terms of negotiation time and CPU load from SSL, but it's rather minimal. If there's anything sensitive going on on your site, just use SSL everywhere.
The other answers are inaccurate in this regard: An SSL certificate binds to BOTH a dedicated IP address that is assigned to a static single domain name, unless you purchase a wild card SSL. Both the domain name and IP must match the certificate.