I have seen one or two questions about this but no definite answers. I have a customer requirement to implement a WCF-based client/server solution using Message Encryption AND HTTPS. I understand that WCF doesn't support this as standard, and the options are HTTP with Message Encryption, HTTPS without Message Encryption, or HTTPS with Message Credentials.
None of these will satisfy the customer requirement. I have control over both the service and the desktop-based clients. The service is hosted at my location and the clients access it over the internet.
I have dug around for days (and nights :( ) trying out custom bindings and so on, but whenever I try to combine message encryption with Https, I come up against this error:
"The binding contains both a SymmetricSecurityBindingElement and a secure transport binding element. Policy export for such a binding is not supported."
I would prefer to user username/password for authentication but I am prepared to use client certificates if this makes it possible. So far I haven't found any combination which is acceptable to WCF.
Is there any way to achieve this or am I just wasting my time? I would value a quick answer because my customer's deadline is drawing very near!
Thanks!
According to this, the special both mode for security (meaning both message and transport) is only supported in the NetMsmqBinding binding, which I'm guessing, is not an option for you. Does your client happen to be the NSA? (Just wondering why anyone would need their communication encrypted twice).
OK I've found a solution ...
Using IMessageInspector I intercepted the incoming and outgoing messages so that they can be encrypted and decrypted. Encryption uses a symmetric technique - best because asymmetric only allows encryption of short strings and is very slow.
The downside is that both ends need to have the private key of the certificate - so the cert needs to be installed on both client and server machines (or the key could be placed in config). This works for me though because the number of users is limited and all are under the control of the IT dept.
If I had more time I would have looked at setting up a second SSL connection with a different cert, purely to handle the certificate negotiation and avoid placing the cert on the client machine. Using SslStream was a possibility but I wasn't sure whether I could access key information to use for my own encryption, or whether this is held privately within SslStream class.
For now I'm just pleased to have it working before my deadline (only just though :) ) ...
Related
I am building up a small iot-like system, where mqtt devices(clients) are sending and receiving security-related critical information or commands.
I have got to know that TLS connection can be built optionally without client authentication thru PK certificate on the client side.
Normally, mqtt client devices don't have enough resources to support PKI, where at first it has to store a certificate and from time to time, to update it with newly issued ones when validity has passed or when the original certificate has been revoked.
That was, I think, why many of mqtt brokers have an option to configure on/off the client authentication during TLS handshake.
However, my concern is if there would be any security issue from passing the client authentication step, like, for example, a chance that some other malicious devices impersonating one of my devices can connect to the broker could obtain those critical information and commands.
My question is what best options and practices I can take to minimize that kind of risk considering the constraint resource of devices.
Missing client authentication means that everybody including an attacker can claim to be a valid client. There can be use cases like public services where this is not a problem and there are other use cases where the server wants to restrict access to specific known clients only.
There is no definitive answer to this question, it will always depend on the following factors, and only you as the designer can answer them:
What is the threat model you are working with? E.g. Who are you trying to keep out of the system and why, what are the consequences of somebody connecting a rouge client?
How much are you prepared to spend? If you intend to deploy client certificate or even a unique username/password for each device, how will it be protected? Does the hardware you intend to use support a secure enclave/hardware secret store? Meaning how hard would it be for an attacker to extract the client username/password or secret key from the device?
What other security measures do you have in place? Do you have Access Control Lists to protect which topics a client can publish/subscribe to? Do you have monitoring in place to detect malicious actions from clients so they can be disconnected and banned?
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'm trying to understand more why I shouldn't use WCF transport security over the internet. From the answer here I'm told the chain of hops may not be secure. But isn't transport security just like https (which is widely used on the internet)? Or maybe I should ask, what is the difference between wcf transport and https?
If I need to explain myself clearer, please comment.
Thanks
Transport security is indeed very similar to HTTPS (and identical in many cases). What it provides you is an encrypted tunnel between your client and the server. Providing there's a direct connection from your client to your server, it's perfectly fine (providing that your client verifies that it got the right server certificate). If your client is talking to another intermediate server, on which you rely to pass the message to your server - then that intermediate server would get unencrypted data.
An example :
You have a company that processes payments. Because of some regulations, you need servers in each country, and those in turn pass the requests to your main server in the US.
You want to make sure that even if the local hosting company tries to find out what details are being passed, they can't.
That is what Message Security provides you - you trust only the client and your main servers, so you want only them to be able to encrypt and decrypt.
With Transport Security, there would be two transitions - the client will encrypt, and the intermediate server will decrypt. Then it will encrypt again, and your main servers will decrypt. As you can see, there is an intermediate phase where the data is plain in RAM in the intermediate server.
This MSDN article describes it very well, and where to use each :
MSDN
Look at another answer on the link you gave. It explains that the case where transport security not sufficient is when the client doesn't check server certificate. I quoted the answer below:
Yes it is 100% secure when the clients (which most clients do) validate the server certificate.
The multiple hop scenario mentioned here is complete bogus. This is only true when the same message travels through various applications. Like for example several application brokers. If these brokers do not communicate securely then the message can be read by intermediate network sniffers.
In other words, client/server communication over the internet is 100% secure even when there are a million routers in between but it is only secure when the client validates the server certificate as the client could connect to a man-in-the-middle host that could impersonate the server with a false certificate. If the client does not validate the certificate the message could be compromised.
I'm trying to understand more why I shouldn't use WCF transport security over the internet
You should not because (Quoting from here).
Transport Security
Transport security is used to provide point-to-point security between the two endpoints (service and client). If there are intermediary systems between client and the service, each intermediate point must forward the message over a new SSL connection.
Message Security
When using message security, the user credentials and claims are encapsulated in every message using the WS-Security specification to secure messages. This option gives the most flexibility from an authentication perspective. You can use any type of security credentials you want, largely independent of transport, as long as both the client and service agree.
My scenario:
Many WCF clients which are in environments outside of my control
Server will either be mine OR in an environment outside of my control
So worst case the client and the server is outside of my control. More specifically, I might assume that someone hosting this code could try to maliciously impersonate either the server or the client (the server being more likely). However, the client needs to verify that the server is my code and the server needs to verify that the client is my code. I've seen all the recommendations to use certificates; however, is that an option given my scenario?
One approach I've considered is to write an IClientMessageInspector and an IDispatchMessageInspector to set and verify a custom SOAP header on both sides. I would create an HMAC signature based on a secret key contained within the source code (assume I have a way to keep this hidden) and then verify the digest based on the message body.
I feel like this would work; however, I feel like there might be something more out-of-the-box that I'm missing here. Am I close, way off track? Thanks for any guidance!
Certificates are definitely the way to go in your situation.
Your server will easily be authenticated by clients because it will provide a certificate known to each client, SSL is a good option here.
The server will also be able to authenticate clients by requesting that every client should provide a certificate (server can check for a specific issuer of the certificate - your own issuer in that case).
Now you just need to correctly manage/secure your certificate server to make sure that it won't be compromised.
I don't think there is anything out of the box to do this, simply because it is an unusual requirement for the server to verify that the code on the client calling the service is authorized code.
Generally, it is sufficient to establish trust as follows:
Server has a certificate and service uses SSL - this way clients are confident that they are connecting to the correct server machine.
Clients provide authentication details (eg username/password, certificate etc) to the server so the server knows the connecting client can be trusted.
You are attempting to go the extra step to verify that not only are the users/machines verified, but also that the code running is verified - this is simply overkill. If the code running is not verified, either:
One of the machines has been compromised, in which case you have bigger issues to worry about.
One of your users has written code against your service and is using it 'illegally'. This should not be a problem if your service only allows authorized users to perform 'dangerous' operations.
I have a WCF service and client which is going to be deployed to several companies (hundreds). Some companies will run the software in their network and some will run it over the Internet (WCF server at on office, WCF client at another).
We want to encrypt the communication between the WCF server and client. We don't have any need to authenticate the cient / subscriber using WCF security, because we have our own username/password log-in which the clients will use to log on the server.
We can't rely on Windows auth because some of the users will run it over the Internet, and the WCF server may not be on the same domain as the WCF client.
If we use "real" certificates*, companies running the software would have to purchase certificates from a CA and install it, and then configure our software to use it, but this is too complicated for most of them.
We could auto-create certificates during installation of the WCF server, but then we would have to automatically install it into a certificate store and somehow automatically grant IIS permissions to read the certificate. This is more complicated than we would like.
In short, we want a simple solution where the encryption is just based upon a shared secret, in our case the username / password the user is logging on with. I do understand that this won't give the best available encryption, but we're willing to trade some of the security to make the software easier to deploy.
Is this possible?
*With "real" certificates, I mean certificates purchased from a certificate authority, and not one I've created myself / self-signed.
If you want to encrypt the messages on the transport (which is a really good idea!), there has to be some shared knowledge between the sender (the client) and the server. This can be hardcoded, but that's really not a good idea at all - if that "common shared" knowledge is ever compromised, an attacker could decipher and read all your messages.
Also, since it's definitely not recommended practice, there's no support of any kind in WCF to simplify using a shared secret. You're on your own - you have to roll your own 100% of the way.
The only viable way to have a common shared secret exchanged in a safe way is to use a certificate. No way around this, sorry. The certificate doesn't even have to be used for user authentication or anything - but it establishes a shared secret between the caller and the service and thus allows the caller to encrypt the messages in such a way only the intended recipient can actually decrypt and use them.
So I really don't see any way you can get around having certificates on your servers - doesn't need to be on every client, but on every server where your service runs.
Marc
PS: if you really want to investigate the "hardcoded shared secret" approach, you'll need to think about this:
how do you store a shared secret safely on each and every single one of your clients?
how do you use information from that stored shared secret to encrypt your messages?
Typically, the approach would be two-fold:
exchange some form of a private/public key pair; the server generates a key pair and keeps the private key to itself and shares the public key with the client (e.g. over a WCF message, for instance)
using that private/public key pair, exchange a common shared secret, e.g. an "encryption key" that will symmetrically encrypt your messages (and since it's symmetrical, the server can use the same key to decrypt the messages)
setup infrastructure on your client (e.g. a WCF extension called a behavior) to inspect the message before it goes out and encrypt it with your shared secret
All in all, it's really not trivial - anything simpler than that is not worth being called "security" at all.
If you look at all that work you will have to do - wouldn't it be easier to just use the WCF built-in certificate mechanisms??
Decent security worth its salt is hard - so why not leverage what's available instead of doing all the work yourself, or worse: come up with a half-baked solution that's so easy to crack you could just as easily send everything in cleartext..... don't under estimate the complexity and amount of code needed to handle even the most basic security scenarios - WCF does this all for you - for free and in a reliable and safe manner - use it! You won't regret it!
Well, with WCF you could use Password credential at message level and SSL at transport level, which I think would be enough in your case.
See here.
For message security, your client provides some credentials and server provides some credentials. For this setup and with your scenario could you not use the client username and password with a Custom Username Validator, and a server certificate to provide the server credentials. This Application Scenario provides a fair chucnk of the configuration setup you would need to achieve this, except the aspNet membership sections, which you would have to replace with your custom validation config.
You would still need valid certificates on your servers (no certificates required on the clients), but I can't see any way around this.
Take a look at the following sample:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/WCF/wcfcertificates.aspx
It uses certificates but without a certificate store - so no setup is necessary.
Hmm.. maybe something simple could be used. Move the encryption from software to hardware. VPN from each client network to your own and then you can do whatever you like for WCF transport. The line is not clear text and the problem is solved.
Of course this is easier said than done, but most network vendors provide a pretty easy VPN config and it maybe easier than trying to develop an installer for SSL certs and configure the client.
I hope it helps!