I am thinking for ways to implement a mechanism which enables a user to vote,without logging any of his details. Each user has a set of attributes that enable him to vote. For eg. Id,name,email-id.
Using these attributes we must guarantee that the user can vote for the first time. During this time,complete anonymity is guaranteed.
But if the user comes for a second time to vote,he should not be allowed to vote. Is this remotely possible?We are not storing any of the information related to the user.No ip adddress,email-id or student id. They are just used as a means of authentication.
I read many research papers for this but not able to find anything specific.
a mechanism which enables a user to vote,without logging any of his
details
Sure you can. Just don't log anything. But you do need to store information about which user has voted. You actually need info of the user not even the machine the user used as the user could vote from another machine.
Related
So for the login, since it doesn't really make anything new in the database but rather just returns if we've logged in, and possibly some user data, should it be a command or query?
And as for the register, since it creates a new user, should it be a command then? What if i want to return the users data or a jwt?
Should i run my commands and once the client receives a response run a query right after them?
As with most design related questions, I’d answer this one with ‘it depends’. I have seen both solutions implemented in different situations.
The main question you’d need to ask is whether you consider a user logging in as a state change of the system or not. Note that whether it changes state in de database isn’t relevant. The system is more than the database.
Log in as a command
For some systems, it’s important to know which users had been logged in and when, from where, etc. One example I had seen was a medical system that needed to record which doctor logged in when and where, and which medical records had been accessed. Also, logging in on one machine would stop tbe session on another. A reliable trace of these actions was essential to the application. As such, log in was implemented as a command which generated events that were stored in the Event Store. Projections kept the current logged in state for each user.
Log in as a query
Most systems I have seen, however, simple beed to know whether any given credentials can ve mapped to a user account. If that is the case, a token is generated containing the ‘proof’ of authentication. The system itself doesn’t really care who is logged in. It’s just that each request needs to be validated by checking the ‘proof’. In this case, logging in is a query.
It seems to be common practice to lock user accounts after enough failed attempts in a particular time window.
I am wondering how you prevent denial-of-service attacks since a malicious user who had the username of someone he wished to DoS could simply rapidly make logon attempts.
Is the remedy to lock the account for only the IP address of the user who exceeded the logon attempt count+window ?
Is there any better way?
EDIT:
I don't want to make my users solve a captcha on each login attempt.
You shouldn't block the user by its IP, because maybe it is a real user that forgot his pass and did the retries manually.
The worst thing (business-wise) is that a real user will not be able to access your service.
So, your problem is actually "How do I know that the user is not a robot?".
One of the most popular ways to deal with this is to use a different mechanism for multiple login attempts.
For instance, Google uses Captcha after about 3 trials,
so an automatic bot will get stuck on this stage.
Of course it is possible to get the bot to read the captcha, but it's a start.
You can read more about captcha implementation in their official site: http://www.captcha.net/
Other alternative ideas here: http://econsultancy.com/il/blog/63144-six-alternatives-to-using-the-dreaded-captcha-images
We are building a CRM type app although this would apply to any application where there are "members" and "staff" e.g. a shopping site, dating site, facebook etc.
In our app, users can change their password the usual way, by resetting it with email confirmation. Users can also have more than one email address associated with their account.
What we are trying to work out is how to prevent staff using the system taking over the accounts. We want staff to be able to edit the email address (because someone may phone in and request a change); the issue then is they can simply change the email to one they control - and request a password re-set as a user.
Are there any recommended best practices for this?
You could require the user to also authenticate the action by other means, such as when the email address is changed the user is sent a confirmation code via text message that they must input somewhere.
Another means would be to only allow access to the account if certain information is inputted correctly. This could be address information or DOB. It is unlikely that this information could be guessed from something like a name or account number.
1) Add one of those silly security questions like "What is your favorite color?" and store the answer, encrypted, in the database. Staff could edit the email to their heart's content, but if they didn't know the answer to the secret question the system wouldn't let them change the password. If you have concerns about staff trustworthiness, then you need to introduce something outside their control that serves as a final gateway before you can change the user account.
I imagine a simple implementation would simply check to see if the user reset their password. If so, on login, it challenges them with the security question to "authenticate" them before allowing them to proceed.
2) Logging, monitoring, and auditing. Record which staff accounts accessed the email address change form, what address(es) they changed, what they changed them too, and when they changed them. Also record the connection information of the people accessing the accounts. If your logs show one IP address accessing 4-5 completely disparate accounts, you might need to look into that. (Yes, I know you can use proxies etc. to mask this. Not perfect but it'd weed out the chaff pretty fast).
3) Hire trustworthy people! #2 should really only need to be used as a "check" against abuse instead of the end all be all to stop it.
I will like to know how does Stackoverflow maintain the additional details of users logging in using open-ids? In my knowledge, the details of these users are stored in the server of google,facebook etc. (The ones whose open id is being used). How then this site is also storing info about user's points, badges, privileges etc.?
Open id Selector, the one being used by Stackoverflow, is a client side javascript library so how is this possible?
Is a separate database created? If yes, how? There is no registration even!
Please provide the details of how this is being done.
When you login, the server checks if you already have an account. If there is no entry (it is the very first login), the server will automatically create a new user and save the openid identifier.
So the next time you login, the row is already there, and Stack Overflow will recognize you. By the way, you can learn the id of your database entry by looking at your profile url.
The JavaScript openid-selector is not involved in any of this. It just is a convenience feature which allows easy selection of an openid provider. All its magic is done before the openid magic takes place.
I know the title is a little off, but it's hard to explain the problem in a short sentence.
I am the administrator of a legacy webapp that lets users create surveys and distribute them to a group of people. We have two kinds of "users".
Authorized licenseholders which does all setup themselves.
Clients who just want to have a survey run, but still need a user (because the webapp has "User" as the top entity in a surveyenvironment.)
Sometimes users in #1 want us to do the setup for them (which we offer to do). This means that we have to login as them.
This is also how we do support: we login as them and then follow them along, guiding them.
Which brings me to my dilemma. Currently our security is below par. But this makes it simple for us to do support. We do want to increase our security, and one thing I have been considering is just doing the normal hashing to DB, however, we need to be able to login as a customer, and if they change their password without telling us, and the password is hashed in the db, we have no way of knowing it.
So I was thinking of some kind of twoway encryption for the passwords. Either that or some kind of master password.
Any suggestions?
(The platform is classic ASP... I said it was legacy...)
Both options you present sound unattractive to me.
A master password is probably even more dangerous than what you are doing right now
Encrypting (instead of hashing) passwords in the database is not good enough either IMO, as it takes only a break-in on your end to get hold of all passwords. They really should be hashed.
I assume the product, being an old legacy app, is impossible (or not economically feasible) to change in a way that administrator accounts can impersonate user accounts, which in my opinion is still the best approach to this in a real-world scenario (not everyone shares that opinion, discussion on the issue here).
How about introducing a second password column (password2) containing a hashed password that you enter? The login process of the app may be easy to tweak into looking in a second column as well. It might be easy to implement, and I can not see any additional security problems coming from it (correct me if I'm wrong of course.)
What I would do is to let the support staff login with their username/password but to chose a user to "impersonate". So in your session you will have:
logged_user - the actual user who typed in his/her username and password
impersonated user - the user (1) is acting on behalf of
Everything you do is done with the impersonated_user's permissions and preferences.
If you are not impersonating anyone impersonated_user=logged_user.
This way you have to always log any operation with both "actual" username and "impersonated" username; for example:
2010-03-09 | 11:34 am | deleted item #890 | 'George' impersonating 'Lizzie'
sounds like you want to decouple your authentication from your identity a bit. Maybe something like an administrator override page, so that after you log in as the administrator, you have a choice of which user identity you wish to assume. After selecting an identity, you continue to use the app without further authentication.
I like the solution offered by Manrico Corazzi. It reminded me that when you need support from Microsoft, there is way to hand over the control of your machine to a technician. That could be another way to achieve the impersonating mechanism. In order for an administrator account to log in, an authorized license-holders would have to explicitly allow him to join his session and act with all his privileges.