I'm a little bit confused about what the client certificates all about.
I have set to "IGNORE" the client certificates on my SSL Settings. But i'm worrying if its ok or not. Can someone explain to me the difference or importance/advantages of those three.
and Which one is most used/advisable?
Thanks
Client certificates are used for client side authentication of an SSL connection.
Usually the default is to not request a client certificate since a server may server thousands of clients and the only way to be able to do client authentication (and would make sense) is for the server and clients to be part of the same PKI infrastructure (which practically means part of the same organization).
So unless you are asking about your browser it is ok. There is no vulnerability to fear on your side. The worse thing that could happen is that you would not be able to connect to sites that actually do client authentication
Related
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.
Is there a way in browser or through some tool to see what SSL certificate (client authentication) was sent to server in request?
I'd start with something like Burp Suite (Free Edition). It's a darn good proxy for... lots of things.
If your server negotiates the client certificate during the initial handshake (without renegotiation), you should be able to see it using Wireshark: you should see a Certificate message coming from the client (not the one coming from the server), after a Certificate Request message sent by the server.
If renegotiation is used, this is more complicated.
SSL MITM tools (like Fiddler) won't be of any help, since they perform their own handshakes. Such tools can be configured to fool the client into believing they are the real server, by having the client trust their fake server certificate (a trust setting the user can generally set on the client). However, this doesn't work on when using a client certificate, unless the tool performing the handshake (the SSL MITM tool in this case) was handling the client certificate itself. Otherwise the verification message at the end (which the server uses to verify that the client has the private key for the client certificate) would fail. Some of these tools can indeed be configured with a client certificate, but you need to set them up with the corresponding private key: in this case you would know which client certificate was used.
Another way to check would be to check what the browser itself does. How to do it may depend on the browser. Environment variables like SSLDEBUG might be of interest when using Firefox.
I'm implementing an SSL layer for a web server project. I'm using polarSSL, though I think this question is a general SSL question.
When I get a connection to my server from a client I configure the SSL protcol like this:
ssl_set_endpoint( &mSsl, SSL_IS_SERVER );
ssl_set_authmode( &mSsl, SSL_VERIFY_NONE );
E.g. I'm not verifying the connection from the client. Do I need to do this?
Most browsers don't have client side certificates - though some do (I think). Is there any need or advantage for the server to verify the client? This is for a service where I would happily serve the data to a client that had no client side certificate at all.
Client-side authentication in SSL/TLS is used when it's required for the server to know its client. For example, it's widely used in banking, to access custom corporate servers etc.
In opposite, the common web server is intended to serve wide audience and not care about who's coming in. So client-side authentication is not used unless you know that you need it.
The ColdFusion documentation is weak on how and when to use it. What does it do? How does one use it?
Update: it seems to be broken, as outlined in Washing Client Certs in ColdFusion with SOAP – Part 2.
problems with CFHTTP handling SSLv3 sessions
Client certificates are a bit of a pain because of the overhead involved in using it.
As Jura says, you'll need a target server that uses client certificates as a mechanism for authentication. This server side piece does not need to be CF-based. The web server (IIS, for example) would be set up to require this. This is part of the SSL/TLS protocol, not specific to any language at the application level.
You would use this if the server you are requesting a resource from requires client certificates. The administrator of that server would need to give you the client certificate and private key ahead of time. As mentioned by user349433, this is commonly a PKCS12 (.p12 or .pfx) file.
The server will validate that the client certificate is "trusted" and if it is, it will allow the TLS/SSL handshake to proceed, and CF will be able to write the HTTP request on top of it.
The use case today is to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks, but because of the overhead involved with certificate distribution, revokation, etc. it's not terribly common.
If you want to know more about it, check out TLS 1.1 specification:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4346
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4346#section-7.4.6
You are using client certificate in case if the target server uses that mechanism for authentication. You'll need to obtain specific client certificate from the service provider in order to be able to connect to the service. It's been used for some internet banking applications back in days I believe. Not sure what is the use case today for it, may be distributed corporate networks where you need to connect to corporate server over internet in a highly secure manner?
I have a WCF Server Deployed through IIS. I want to Create a Certificate for it. I could do this by making the server a certificate server.
But then when the client connects to that server I want the client to automatically trust the certificate without having to register that the server as a "trusted authority".
Is this possible?
All this seems a lot of work to put username password protection on a WCF Service!
The short answer is no the client will need to add the server cert root as a trusted authority.
The slightly longer answer is that there is a workaround for needing to implement transport security in WCF when using message based authentication - this workaround is usually used when you want to rely upon another security mechanism that the WCF server is not aware of, like an ISA server providing SSL.
Have a look at Yaron Naveh's post. The essential idea is that you create a transport binding that pretends that it is secure.
With all that, you still need security (you don't want to send your creds in the clear) and so will still need a trust chain for your cert. So, it may not actually help you, but hopefully it gives you some options to consider.
Edit
Sorry if my answer was misleading. The server certificate root cert must by in the client trusted store. My additional detail was giving another option for providing the security (you can use an ISA server with a trusted cert to give your SSL connection)
In a similar situation to yours (needing secure communication when pushing client applicaitons to non technical customers) I have programatically installed the needed root certs.
Here is an SO post that details how to do that: How can I install a certificate into the local machine store programmatically using c#?
You can if you add this to your code but be aware of what you are doing!
System.Net.ServicePointManager.ServerCertificateValidationCallback += ( se, cert, chain, sslerror ) => { return true; };
Well if there would be such a way, it would be a security hole.
If a certificate is not linked to a trusted authority it is easily forged. So your choice is either to link it one way or another (directly or through a parent certificate you control), or configure your client so that it does not require the certificate i.e. using http rather than https.
Just keep in mind that it leaves your clients open to a variety of attacks
Edit
One of the possible attack scenarios is a man in the middle attack - a program inserts itself between your service and the client and channels the information though itself. This way the intruder has complete control over the information flow.
It can make copies of passwords or it can "adjust" the results in both directions any way it wants. The only thing which prevents this from happening is the certificates. But if they are not rooted, they can be forged.