Why a service certificate is required when non-windows client credential specified ?
(i found some specifications on the book said that, a service certificate can be used to negotiate a symmetric key for messaging encryption and signing when negotiation is enabled, but if negotiation is disabled, the client must reference the certificate in the store or including the BASE64 encoded public key, it comes out another question as below)
when the negotiation is disabled, definitely the service certificate will be used for encrypting message, because the client knows the public key, but which one will be used for message signing ?
when the transport security is enabled, and the service certificate is also specified, it said that the certificate will be used for negotiate a SSL session key for message signing and encryption, it applied to all the bindings ,such as HTTP, TCP, etc.
when we are using the windows client credentials, which one will be used for message encryption and signing?
thanks.
IF you choose to authentucate the client you can choose between windows credentials, username, certificate or SAML token. If windows auth is not available you need some other mechanism.
As for the other questions please be more specific. In general client will generate a temporary key (session key) which will be used to encrypt the message. Server certificate will encrypt the session key.
Related
Currently I want to expose a gRPC Method as Public API and protected by Auth0 (JWT Token), with Istio(Envoy Proxy) will help validating the token on server side. Since the JWT Token is not encrypted by the standard (it is only used to end-user authentication and authorization layer), I want to encrypt the communication using TLS. Also, my public server already have valid certificate.
The problem is on the gRPC Client side. Every example I look, the gRPC Client have to initialize the TLS Connection with server cert pem file. Is it really necessary? Because it adds operational burden and complexity, where we have to distribute our server pem file everytime we renew the certificate AND/OR the client side has to restart the application.
Thanks,
Agung
If you are using a self signed certificate, then yes you must explicitly trust it in your client. If you use a publicly signed certificate on your Server, gRPC will use the Operating System's certificate authorities to verify the cert. (In the case of Java, it uses the JVMs cert authorities.)
If you are using a self-signed certificate you need to specify the server's root certificates in the pem_root_certs member of the SslCredentialsOptions struct passed in when creating a channel, as Carl says.
However if you are using a CA issued certificate, leaving the pem_root_certs member empty will cause gRPC to default to its own master list (reviewable online), not any OS-specific list.
I am somewhat confused as to how two-way SSL works. How does the client create its certificate to send to the server? Is it generated from the server and distributed to the client?
Also, what is the advantage of two-way SSL over one-way SSL?
Both certificates should exist prior to the connection. They're usually created by Certification Authorities (not necessarily the same). (There are alternative cases where verification can be done differently, but some verification will need to be made.)
The server certificate should be created by a CA that the client trusts (and following the naming conventions defined in RFC 6125).
The client certificate should be created by a CA that the server trusts.
It's up to each party to choose what it trusts.
There are online CA tools that will allow you to apply for a certificate within your browser and get it installed there once the CA has issued it. They need not be on the server that requests client-certificate authentication.
The certificate distribution and trust management is the role of the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI), implemented via the CAs. The SSL/TLS client and servers and then merely users of that PKI.
When the client connects to a server that requests client-certificate authentication, the server sends a list of CAs it's willing to accept as part of the client-certificate request. The client is then able to send its client certificate, if it wishes to and a suitable one is available.
The main advantages of client-certificate authentication are:
The private information (the private key) is never sent to the server. The client doesn't let its secret out at all during the authentication.
A server that doesn't know a user with that certificate can still authenticate that user, provided it trusts the CA that issued the certificate (and that the certificate is valid). This is very similar to the way passports are used: you may have never met a person showing you a passport, but because you trust the issuing authority, you're able to link the identity to the person.
You may be interested in Advantages of client certificates for client authentication? (on Security.SE).
What you call "Two-Way SSL" is usually called TLS/SSL with client certificate authentication.
In a "normal" TLS connection to example.com only the client verifies that it is indeed communicating with the server for example.com. The server doesn't know who the client is. If the server wants to authenticate the client the usual thing is to use passwords, so a client needs to send a user name and password to the server, but this happens inside the TLS connection as part of an inner protocol (e.g. HTTP) it's not part of the TLS protocol itself. The disadvantage is that you need a separate password for every site because you send the password to the server. So if you use the same password on for example PayPal and MyPonyForum then every time you log into MyPonyForum you send this password to the server of MyPonyForum so the operator of this server could intercept it and try it on PayPal and can issue payments in your name.
Client certificate authentication offers another way to authenticate the client in a TLS connection. In contrast to password login, client certificate authentication is specified as part of the TLS protocol. It works analogous to the way the client authenticates the server: The client generates a public private key pair and submits the public key to a trusted CA for signing. The CA returns a client certificate that can be used to authenticate the client. The client can now use the same certificate to authenticate to different servers (i.e. you could use the same certificate for PayPal and MyPonyForum without risking that it can be abused). The way it works is that after the server has sent its certificate it asks the client to provide a certificate too. Then some public key magic happens (if you want to know the details read RFC 5246) and now the client knows it communicates with the right server, the server knows it communicates with the right client and both have some common key material to encrypt and verify the connection.
In two way ssl the client asks for servers digital certificate and server ask for the same from the client. It is more secured as it is both ways, although its bit slow. Generally we dont follow it as the server doesnt care about the identity of the client, but a client needs to make sure about the integrity of server it is connecting to.
I have some simple questions that i can't get a direct answer in any site because the variety of options in this subject.
In Message Level Security, is mandatory for the client to have an installed certificate? I assume this because the server should encrypt the response message with the client Public Key and then the client decrypt it with his own Private Key.
Is any alternative to not have the certificate in the client and have the messages encrypted in both ways(client->server) and (server->client)?
You can have message security without the client authenticating at all. You only need a client cert if the client is authenticating via certificates
The server cert is used for securing the message in the first case. The client encrypts with the public key of the server and the server can then decrypt with its private key
If you are using secure conversation then the server cert is just used to bootstrap a session key which is then used for encryption/decryption
As long as the server cert has a full chain of trust in the client then there is no need to install the server cert on the client either
Mostly, my confusion seems to be eminating from my attempts to understand security within the context of WCF. In WCF, it looks like certificates can be used for the purpose of authentication, as well as encryption. Basically, I am trying to understand:
How can an X509 certificate be used as an authentication token? Aren't ssl certificates usually made to be publically available? Wouldn't this make it impossible for them to be used for authentication purposes? If not, are there some protocols which are commonly used for this purpose?
When encrypting messages with WCF, are certificates used which have been issued only to the client, only to the server, or to both? If certificates from the client and server are both used, I'm a little unclear as to why. This mostly stems from my understanding of https, in which case only a certificate issued to the server (and chained to some certificate issued by a root CA) would be necessary to establish an encrypted connection and authenticate the server.
I'm not entirely sure this is the correct forum. My questions stemmed from trying to understand WCF, but I guess I would like to understand the theory behind this in general. If it's a good idea, please suggest the correct forum for me. I'd be happy to try to get this question migrated, if necessary.
Thanks in advance!
Well this is pretty complex question. I will try to explain some parts but avoiding as much detail as possible (even after that it will be pretty long).
How does authentication with certificate work?
If a holder of the private key signs some data, other participants can use the public key of the signer to validate the signature. This mechanism can be used for authentication. Private and public keys are stored in certificate where private key is kept safe on the holder machine whereas certificate with public key can be publicly available.
How does it relate to HTTPS?
WCF offers transport and message security. The difference between them is described here. The transport security in case of HTTP is HTTPS where only server needs issued certificate and client must to trust this certificate. This certificate is used both for authenticating server to the client and for establishing secure channel (which uses symmetric encryption).
HTTPS also offers variant called Mutual HTTPS where client must have also issued certificate and client uses the certificate to authenticate to the server.
How does message security work and what is a purpose of two certificates in that scenario?
In case of message security each message is signed, encrypted and authenticated separately = all these security informations are part of the message. In case of SOAP this is described by many specifications but generally you are interested in security bindings and X.509 Token profile.
Security binding is part of WS-SecurityPolicy assertions and it is describes how the message is secured. We have three bindings:
Symmetric security binding - symmetric encryption
Asymmetric security binding - asymmetric encryption
Transport security binding - assertion that message must be send over HTTPS or other secured transport
X.509 Token profile specifies how to transport certificates (public keys) in messages and how to use them.
Now if you have symmetric security binding you need only server certificate because
When client wants to send message to the server it will first generate random key.
It will use this key to encrypt and sign request
It will use service certificate to encrypt derived key and pass it to the request as well.
When the server receives the message it will first use its private key to decrypt that key.
It will use decrypted key to decrypt the rest of the message.
It will also use the key to encrypt the response because client knows that key.
Client will use the same key generated for request to decrypt the response
This is symmetric encryption which is much more faster then asymmetric encryption but key derivation should not be available in WS-Security 1.0. It is available in WS-Security 1.1. HTTPS internally works in similar way but the key is the same for the whole connection lifetime.
If you have asymmetric security binding you need two certificates:
Initiator must have its own certificate used to sign requests and decrypt responses
Recipient must have its own certificate used to decrypt requests and sign responses
That means following algorithm
Initiator encrypts request with recipient's public key
Initiator signs request with its private key
Recipient uses initiator's public key to validate request signature
Recipient uses its private key to decrypt request
Recipient uses initiator's public key to encrypt response
Recipient uses its private key to sign response
Initiator uses recipient's public key to validate response signature
Initiator uses its private key to decrypt response
The order of signing and encrypting can be changed - there is another WS-SecurityPolicy assertion which says what should be done first.
These were basics. It can be much more complex because message security actually allow you as many certificates as you want - you can for example use endorsing token to sign primary signature with another certificate etc.
The certificate only has the public key of a public/private key pair. It does not have the private key -- this is separate from the certificate proper. When you connect to an HTTPS server, you can trust that the server is the owner of that certificate because the server must be holding the private key (and hopefully nobody else has it) because otherwise the SSL connection is not possible. If the server did not hold the private key that pairs with the public key of its certificate, it could not present you with a valid SSL connection.
You then can decide whether or not you trust that particular certificate based on one or more certificate authorities (CA) that have signed the chain of certificates. For example, there may be just one CA that has signed this certificate. You have a trusted CA root certificate locally, and so you know that it in fact was your trusted CA that signed that server certificate, because that signature would not be possible unless that CA held the private key to the CA certificate. Once again it is merely holding the private key, in this case that proves who signed the certificate. This is how you can trust the certificate.
When you present the optional client certificate on the SSL connection, the server can trust you because 1) it can see the CA (or CA's) that sign your client certificate, and 2) it can tell that you have your private key in your possession because otherwise the SSL connection would not be possible. So it also works in reverse for the server trusting the client.
You can tell that everybody is honest if you trust that the server and client are keeping their private keys private, and if you trust the source of your root certificates that sign the server and client certificates (or chains of certificates.)
Can any one explain me, what exactly the role of Service Certificate and what exactly it does in this Combination (Message Security - Client: UserName Validator, Server: Server Certificate)..
If you can explain me step by step, it'll be really helpfull.
Thanks in advance
Service certificate is used as key artifact to establish secure channel between client and server.
When client starts communication with server it first validates that certificate is trusted (it must be either installed in clients certification store or it must be issued by the authority the client trusts to). This validation should ensure that client communicates with the right server it trust to.
My understanding of using service certificate for securing messages is:
The client creates derived key used to encrypt and sign the request message with symmetric security. Service will need the same key to decrypt the message and validate the signature so the client must pass the key within the message. The key is encrypted with service's public key passed in the certificate because only holder of the private key (the server) can decrypt this derived key and then decrypt the request message itself.
The service uses decrypted derived key to encrypt and sign the response message and pass it back to the client. The client remembers its derived key used to send the request so he can also decrypt the response.
The same process is used for the next exchange but client creates a new derived key for each request.
User name and password are only data passed in the message used on the server to validate that user can use the service.