Let's suppose a HTTPS connection has just been formed but the server doesn't yet know who the client is. The client is about to pass some pre-agreed secret through the tunnel to prove its identity to the server.
If the client is foolish enough to send this secret without authenticating the server first, then the server should fear that the secret might have been leaked, in which case it should not accept the secret as authentication.
Can a server be programmed to behave in this way using the usual HTTP(S) tools?
For the purposes of secrecy and authenticity of communications I use SSL / TLS (https) with client certificate. If I log the entire SSL traffic on the server side, is the SSL log sufficient evidence that the communication between the server and the other side with client certificate was exactly as it is recorded in the log? At the beginning an asymmetric handshake is used but further communication continues with symmetric encryption. Symmetric encryption would not mind if one of the messages cannot be forged on the receiving side. As a server I know the symmetric key so it should be able for me to spoof one of the messages sent by the client, shouldn't it? What algorithm and what special settings shall I use, so that client could not say that he sent a different message than what I recorded in the log?
Logging anything (including data from SSL) does not proof the origin of the data. In theory you've could made up the data yourself. Even logging the complete SSL traffic including the necessary encryption key does not proof anything because in most cases this could have been made up too.
It might be acceptable as a proof if the whole SSL traffic is logged including the encryption key and if a client certificate was used for authentication (i.e. two-way SSL). The real client certificate owned by the client is a part you can not make up yourself. But there is still no guarantee that some judge would accept it as proof. And of course the client could try to deny that this is its own client certificate which was used.
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 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 am trying to understand what's the actual difference between SSL and Kerberos authentications, and why sometimes I have both SSL traffic and Kerberos.
Or does Kerberos use SSL in any way?
Anyone could help?
Thank you!
SSL uses public key cryptography:
You (or your browser) has a public/private keypair
The server has a public/private key as well
You generate a symmetric session key
You encrypt with the server's public key and send this encrypted session key to the server.
The server decrypts the encrypted session key with its private key.
You and the server begin communicating using the symmetric session key (basically because symmetric keys are faster).
Kerberos does not use public key cryptography. It uses a trusted 3rd party. Here's a sketch:
You both (server and client) prove your identity to a trusted 3rd party (via a secret).
When you want to use the server, you check and see that the server is trustworthy. Meanwhile, the server checks to see that you are trustworthy. Now, mutually assured of each others' identity. You can communicate with the server.
2
While Kerberos and SSL are both protocols, Kerberos is an authentication protocol, but SSL is an encryption protocol. Kerberos usually uses UDP, SSL uses (most of the time) TCP. SSL authentication is usually done by checking the server's and the client's RSA or ECDSA keys embedded in something called X.509 certificates. You're authenticated by your certificate and the corresponding key. With Kerberos, you can be authenticated by your password, or some other way. Windows uses Kerberos for example, when used in domain.
Keep in mind: Recent versions of SSL are called TLS for Transport Layer Security.
To put simply, Kerberos is a protocol for establishing mutual identity trust, or authentication, for a client and a server, via a trusted third-party, whereas SSL ensures authentication of the server alone, and only if its public key has already been established as trustworthy via another channel. Both provides secure communication between the server and client.
More formally (but without getting into mathematical proofs), given a client C, server S, and a third-party T which both C and S trust:
After Kerbeos authentication, it is established that:
C believes S is who it intended to contact
S believes C is who it claims to be
C believes that it has a secure connection to S
C believes that S believes it has a secure connection to C
S believes that it has a secure connection to C
S believes that C believes it has a secure connection to S
SSL, on the other hand, only establishes that:
C believes S is who it intended to contact
C believes it has a secure connection to S
S believes it has a secure connection to C
Clearly, Kerberos establishes a stronger, more complete trust relationship.
Additionally, to establish the identity of S over SSL, C needs prior knowledge about S, or an external way to confirm this trust. For most people's everyday use, this comes in the form of Root Certificates, and caching of S's certificate for cross-referencing in the future.
Without this prior knowledge, SSL is susceptible to man-in-the-middle attack, where a third-party is able to pretend to be S to C by relaying communication between them using 2 separate secure channels to C and S. To compromise a Kerberos authentication, the eavesdropper must masquerade as T to both S and C. Note, however, that the set of trusts is still unbroken according to the goal of Kerberos, as the end-state is still correct according to the precondition "C and S trusts T".
Finally, as it has been pointed out in a comment, Kerberos can be and has been extended to use SSL-like mechanism for establishing the initial secure connection between C and T.
In short:
Kerberos usually does not encrypt transferring data, but SSL and TLS do.
"there are no standard APIs for accessing these messages. As of
Windows Vista, Microsoft does not provide a mechanism for user
applications to produce KRB_PRIV or KRB_SAFE messages." - from
http://www.kerberos.org/software/appskerberos.pdf
In opposite, SSL and TLS usually do not transfer and proof Yours Windows domain login name to the server, but Kerberos does.
A short answer: SSL and Kerberos both use encryption but SSL uses a key that is unchanged during a session while Kerberos uses several keys for encrypting the communication between a client and a client.
In SSL, encryption is dealt with directly by the two ends of communication while in Kerberos, the encryption key is provided by a third party - some kind of intermediate - between the client and the server.
From http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/:
Kerberos was created by MIT as a solution to these network security problems. The Kerberos protocol uses strong cryptography so that a client can prove its identity to a server (and vice versa) across an insecure network connection. After a client and server has used Kerberos to prove their identity, they can also encrypt all of their communications to assure privacy and data integrity as they go about their business.
Meanwhile:
SSL is used for establishing server<-->server authentication via public key encryption.
From https://www.eldos.com/security/articles/7240.php?page=all,
Kerberos and TLS are not the things to compare. Their have different objectives and different methods. In the beginning of our article we mentioned the frequently asked questions like “which is better” and “what to choose”. The former is not a question at all: nothing is better and everything is good if you use it in a right way. The latter question is worth a serious consideration: what to choose depends on what you have and what you want.
If you want to secure your communications in a sense that nobody can read it or tamper it, perhaps the right choice is to use TLS or some other protocols based on it. A good example of TLS usage for securing World Wide Web traffic carried by HTTP is to use HTTPS. For secure file transferring you may use FTPS, and take into account that SMTP (though it stands for a “simple” mail transfer protocol, not “secure”) is also may be protected with TLS.
On the other hand, if you need to manage user access to services, you may want to use Kerberos. Imagine, for example, that you have several servers like Web server, FTP, SMTP and SQL servers, and optionally something else, everything on one host. Some clients are allowed to use SMTP and HTTP, but not allowed to use FTP, others may use FTP but don’t have access to your databases. This is exactly the situation when Kerberos is coming to use, you just have to describe user rights and your administrative policy in Authentication Server.
SSL authentication uses certifiactes to verify youself to server whereas Kerberos works entirely different.
SSL can be imported manually and added as per configurations in client and host manually.
Whereas kerberos is authentication where no password are transmitted over network. Here kerberos KDC server doesn't need to communicate with any service or host to verify the client. Client uses principle stored in kerberos to communicate with kerberos server. In return kerberos server provides ticket using keytab of other server stored beforehand. In the other server, the client provides the ticket and services matches the ticket with their own keytab and verify the client.
Simply put,
SSL is to encrypt the data so that the data cannot be understood by someone who is trying to steal it out in the network.
Kerberos is a network authentication protocol which helps in authenticating a client to talk to server without sharing any password/token during the time of the request.