I have an Android app that I allow users to have a password in and "lock" the app so their friends can't look inside without their password. It doesn't use a web service or anything, and the password is stored in a private file within the app. Problem is, the users like to forget their password, then email me asking me to do something about it. Right now I can't. So what I want to do is have something that creates, and consumes a random password. The user could email me, and I could give them some random key the app could recognize, and let them in so they can change their password.
It doesn't have to be anything super secure. Any help is appreciated.
I don't think its a good idea to implement a "backdoor" in your application. THis will create a very bad taste.
If i understood correctly, you want to "unlock" the application, not knowing if the user doing this is in some way authorized. I steal a device, send you an email and you take care i can see the data. Sounds bad...
All (good) safes i know rely on the user to take care of their keys. They want security and they are responsible.
EDIT
You can provide a "security question".
Anything else i tried to construct for an "autonomous" password reset raises sever security questions (what are the authentication/authorization mechanics)
EDIT
How far are you willing to go? Assuring the possession of something (like an SMS or mail account) may reduce the issues and give some impression of security. So you can intercept SMS or mail from a PREDEFINED (application settings) account with lets say the key word "unlock". If not set, this feature is disabled. SMS interception should no be that hard.
Why don't you just build password reset functionality in the app itself? If it's not using a web service, why do you or your server need to be involved at all?
If they don't remember their security passwords, for example, your server could store an md5 hash of their password to match up their mobile device with their record on your server so you can send them a key to reset the app.
Couple of thoughts:
Is there any sort of registration process? If so, at registration time you could randomly generate a second password that you don't tell the user but just keep on file for such contingencies. Or similarly, you could offer users a "password recovery" option -- click this button to generate a backdoor password.
You could have some algorithm that generates a password from the machine id of the device and that works as an alternate password. If you were a big organization with millions of copies of your app out there, or if the information in your app was super secret, this would be a super bad idea, as sooner or later hackers would figure out the algorithm and then they could break into any machine they wanted to. But if you're a small target, it's likely no one would work hard enough to crack it.
Do you necessarily know anything about your users? Like could you generate a password from their credit card number or their address or some such? Of course this makes you vulnerable to any hacker who could discover whatever information about a potential target.
Anything like this you do you are going to create a big potential security hole: What if someone steals someone else's device, then emails you and says they lost their password? How do you know it's the rightful owner of the data? If anybody can call or email and say, Hey, I lost my password, please let me in the back door, then you have no security any more.
Related
I wonder if I might ask for opinions on a simple authentication system I'm thinking about for a pet web site project where the overriding requirement is that the system should have no way to tell who the user is, i.e. have no way of identifying or contacting them.
The system does need to distinguish between these anonymous users of course, and prevent users pretending to be other users.
Perhaps in a strict sense it's not an authentication system at all, more like a distinguishing system.
A simple solution would be to assign a Guid to new users, which gets stored in a cookie/local storage/whatever and used to distinguish them.
Then give the user the facility to copy the Guid, and/or generate a URL that they can bookmark or otherwise store locally, which re-supplies the Guid to the site and stores it as a cookie again - to be used if the cookie is deleted or they want to authenticate from another machine - by using the generated URL or pasting the copied Guid into a 'login' page on the site.
This means there can be no 'I forgot my password' facility; if the user loses their credentials, they are forever lost, that's accepted.
Additionally, if the credentials are stolen, or the user's cookies are compromised, then the credential is stolen forever, there is no way for the real user to lock out the thief, that's also accepted.
Clearly the user would need to make damn sure they store this URL/Guid somewhere safe, that's accepted.
As an aside, there could be a feature that allows the user to regenerate the Guid, which might be used if they accidentally broadcast their Guid somehow, but that also means if somebody steals their Guid and uses the regenerate feature before the 'real' user realises, the real user will be locked out forever - maybe best it's unchangeable so at least if the Guid is compromised, the thief cannot lock out the real user - but this is an aside.
Given the requirement for complete anonymity / non-contactability, and accepting that losing the Guid is like losing a dollar bill, you lose it forever, it seems a reasonable and pleasantly simple solution.
This is essentially the same as having a user/password combination with no email address or other contact details, but more secure than user: sally123, password: mydogsname1968 or whatever just by virtue of it being a Guid, not something the user can remember or easily scribble on a post-it note and stick to a monitor.
It also has the advantage that a user who uses the same machine all the time (and doesn't delete cookies) never has to login or think about credentials at all.
The Guid could actually be two Guids stuck together or three of them interleaved byte by byte, whatever - a unique auto-generated chunk of data that reflects how unnecessarily paranoid the developer is feeling.
Can anyone tell me why this wouldn't be a good solution, given the anonymity/non-contactability requirements and the drawbacks accepted above, or perhaps suggest a better solution.
If it makes any difference to anything, it'll be a Net Core 5 / Blazor Web Assembly / MongoDb application, it's a pet project so doesn't have to pass muster with any client requirements or existing systems etc.
Thanks for any advice/help.
My co-workers are using a commercial program that encodes and stores login passwords on some database.
Now, I'm developing another program to achieve some other tasks, but I want my co-workers to authenticate to this program with their same username and passwords to avoid confusion.
The problem is, I don't have (and probably never will) any source code to determine which encryption algorithm they've used.
I ran some tests and observed that same passwords always produces same hashcodes with 24 characters in length. For example;
1 XeVTgalUq/gJxHtsMjMH5Q==
123456 0Q8UhOcqClGBxpqzooeFXQ==
Is there any way to determine which algorithm they've used ?
Thanks in advance,
Nope. That is the point of encryption / hashing-- it is supposed to be opaque so that it should not be easy to reverse engineer. The only thing you can do is try a few well-known hash algorithms like SHA-1 and see if the hash values match the other program. But, there's no way to know if the other program added in any "salt" or is hashing together multiple things, e.g. username + password or some other scheme. So you are probably out of luck on that front.
One idea you could try with your new program: if the user has never logged in before, allow them to log in the first time with ANY password. Tell the users that they should use the same password they did with the other program. Then, when they log in, capture that value and hash it using your own hashing scheme, then store that for future logins. So ultimately you would get the result you're aiming for (that users can use their same passwords), without having to reverse engineer the encryption scheme of the other program.
Now, clearly the drawback with this approach is that it is not secure at all for the first login. Someone could hijack another user's account if they logged in as that user before the real user had a chance to log in for the first time (and thereby lock in his password). So this is only an option if there is no sensitive data pre-loaded in the new program that could be compromised. Also you would need the ability for an administrator to reset a users' password so that if this kind of thing did happen, you could correct it easily when the real user reports that they can't log in.
What algorithm should I use for encrypting and embedding a password for an application?
It obviously is not bullet proof, but it should be good enough to thwart someone scanning the database with a hex editor, or make it hard for someone who has the skills to use a debugger to trace the code to work out, either by scanning for the encrypted password, or using a debugger to run through the decryption code.
Object Pascal would be nice.
Major Edit
I think I did not explain myself well enough. The password needs to be decrypted back into its original form and applied. The application itself uses a local SQL database and a local webserver, and the password is fixed and can't be changed by the end users. It is to ensure that changes to be made only from within the app itself. The user passwords are only to allow access to the app itself, rather than the database
/vfclists
If you want an easy solution just stick with a good hashing algorithm like MD5 and store just the hash inside your application. Then whenever the user inserts the password you will calculate the hash of the password and check if it's equal to the one stored.
Of course this approach is a simple solution that doesn't allow you to retrieve the password if it's lost but it should work quite fine if you just need some protection..
EDIT: I mentioned MD5 that was fair good but not anymore, of course you can choose any other stronger function like SHA-2 (512/384) that is more robust. I just wanted to explain an approach more than using a specific hashing algorithm.
SHA should be ok for you, best with salt.
I don't know Object Pascal very well, but probably this will help you:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/op-crypt/
When an application has to do password checking only, it is best to save a hash. An hash can not be decrypted, but it can be checked whether the password the user enters has the same hash.
If you want to save the password so that it can be recovered, it is best to encrypt it first, using some crypto library.
I would suggest SHA1, its one way encryption, i've used it before and by far no one has decrypted it!
If you need more information on sha1 visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Hash_Algorithm and http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/sha.html.
PS: If you're using php you can simply encrypt with SHA1 using the sha1(); function!
I suspect that what you're aiming for is not storing passwords in the application, but trying to prevent the application itself from being run without the password, as a form of DRM. If that's the case, and you're looking to stymie people with debuggers, I think you're well into the realm of needing either a hardware dongle, or a network-based lock. Off the top of my head, I know SafeNet carry products that do this (and I've had some exposure to them in the past, they seem decent), but I don't know how well they compare to the rest of the market.
If you want as much real security as is possible in the scenario you're describing, you should require that when the system is installed an "administrator" enters the database password and his own administrator password; the application should then store a salted hash of the administrator's password, and it should store the database password encrypted with a differently-salted hash of the administrator's password. The database password (or information sufficient to reconstruct it) will be kept in memory while the program is running, but absent the administrator password there would be no way to retrieve when the program isn't running, even with full knowledge of the system.
If it's necessary to allow multiple users to access the database, an "add user" button could allow the addition of a user account. When the user types his password, use it to store hashed/encrypted data as with the administrator.
Any user with a debugger would be able to leverage his knowledge of a valid user account and password into knowledge of the database password, but someone who didn't have knowledge of a valid account password wouldn't be able to do anything.
If I am interpreting your question right, then you want to basically distribute your application to users, allow them to run it, and have the application update your database. At the same time, you want to prevent that person from being able to log in to the database and use it themselves directly.
If your program can be decompiled (like java, but I don't know about other languages like C, C++), then the person who has your application will be able to see the source code. Once they have that, there will most certainly be some way they can discover the user name and password. Even if your source code has stored the password using a reversible encryption algorithm, the person who holds your source code will be able to write similar code as yours to reverse the encryption and discover the password.
Even if your application cannot be decompiled, the user may be able to capture the network packets it sends to the database and determine the password from that. I don't know if you can communicate with the database over SSL.
Instead, I believe you need to split your application into client and server applications. You can write a restful web application, or use a messaging service (like JMS for example), and write a client application that uses it.
In that case, you may or may not want to have user accounts that are managed by your server side application. Let me be clear here, I am not talking about database accounts, but accounts that your application manages, and whose details happen to be stored in the database. If you do create user accounts, you can follow the pattern in my original answer shown below.
============== Hashing Approach, my original answer ============
As others have already mentioned, it's best to add salt to the password and use a digest algorithm before you store the password in your database. However, I think a little more detail is in order.
Using SHA1 or SHA2 with a salt value may be pretty strong, but there are even stronger methods. I highly recommend that you read this section of the spring security manual. I don't think you are using spring or java, but that section covers the concepts involved very well. Allow me to paraphrase:
Use at least an 8 byte salt value, up to 16 bytes would be great. The salt value should be different for every account, if it is the same then a cracker will only need to produce one rainbow table! It should be randomly generated. The documentation doesn't say this, but I also recommend using a secure random number generator, don't use a random number seed that produces a consistent sequence of numbers.
You should hash the password multiple times because it will cause brute force password hacking attempts to take increasingly more time. Indeed, you may want a slow password encoding algorithm instead of a fast one.
Store the raw salt value in the database along with the password, you can even store it in the same field/column. This is required so passwords can be verified in the future.
The BCryptPasswordEncoder is a good example of this.
===============
One alternative approach that may or may not solve your problem is to create a database account that has limited privileges. For example, you could create a database account that can only select, update, insert, and delete on specific tables in your database. You may not find this acceptable, because you may not want to let people do those operations directly, while you may want to let the application do those operations. It depends on your specific situation.
I want to to implement password recovery in my web application.
I'd like to avoid using secret questions.
I could just send the password by e-mail but I think it would be risky.
Maybe I could generate a new temporary random password and send it by e-mail but I think it is as risky as the above point.
Can I send a url by e-mail for example http://example.com/token=xxxx
where xxxx is a random token associated with the user. So when the user navigates to that url he/she can reset the password.
When I was in the Air Force the security rule we had was: When setting or resetting passwords, do not send the user id and the password in the same email. That way, if someone is intercepting emails snooping for passwords, he has to successfully intercept BOTH emails, and be able to connect them, to breach security.
I've seen a lot of sites that use the "go to this URL to reset your password". Maybe I'm missing something -- I don't claim to be a security expert -- but I don't see how that is any more secure than just inventing a new, temporary password and sending it. If a hacker intercepts the email, why can't he go to that link and see the new password as well as the legitimate user could? It looks to me like extra hassle for the user with no security gain.
By the way, congratulations on NOT using security questions. The logic of this device escapes me. Since the dawn of computer security we have been telling people, "DON'T make a password that is information about yourself that a hacker could discover or guess, like the name of your high school, or your favorite color. A hacker might be able to look up the name of your high school, or even if they don't know you or know anything about you, if you still live near where you went to school they might get it by tryinging local schools until they hit it. There are a small number of likely favorite colors so a hacker could guess that. Etc. Instead, a password should be a meaningless combination of letters, digits, and punctuation." But now we also tell them, "But! If you have a difficult time remembering that meaningless combination of letters, digits, and punctuation, no problem! Take some information about yourself that you can easily remember -- like the name of your high school, or your favorite color -- and you can use that as the answer to a 'security question', that is, as an alternative password."
Indeed, security questions make it even easier for the hacker than if you just chose a bad password to begin with. At least if you just used a piece of personal information for your password, a hacker wouldn't necessarily know what piece of personal information you used. Did you use the name of your dog? Your birth date? Your favorite ice cream flavor? He'd have to try all of them. But with security questions, we tell the hacker exactly what piece of personal information you used as a password!
Instead of using security questions, why don't we just say, "In case you forget your password, it is displayed on the bottom of the screen. If you're trying to hack in to someone else's account, you are absolutely forbidden from scrolling down." It would be only slightly less secure.
Lest you wonder, when sites ask me for the city where I was born or the manufacturer of my first car, I do not give an actual answer tot he question. I give a meaningless password.
</rant>
First off, do not store a plain-text copy of the user's password, or even an encrypted version. You want to only ever keep a hashed copy of the user's password.
As for recover solutions, I find that the recovery link to change the user's password is the best solution in my experience. It will probably be a bit more convenient for the user, while being largely the same from a security point of view as sending a new random password to be changed after next login. I'd still recommend having the recovery url expire after a reasonable short period of time, as well as only being usable a single time.
Hard to say what you should do, as pretty much any solution to this problem will weaken security. Unless maybe you want to investigate sending an SMS, callback verification, one-time password generators, or other such schemes that take password recovery to a different medium.
However, what you should not do:
Send the password - because after all, as has already been mentioned, you don't have it.
Generate a new temporary password - not only is this as insecure as sending the password, it also leads to the possibility of a denial of service attack. I can go to the site, pretend to be you, request a new password and then (if you haven't checked your email) you can't log in, don't know why and have to request a new new password ...
The token is probably the way to go. Receiving it notifies a forgotten password request, but doesn't take any action unless you confirm. You would also make it a one-time token with a relatively short expiry time to limit risk.
Of course, a lot depends on the application. Obviously protecting financial and other sensitive information is more critical than preventing your account being hacked on mytwitteringfacetube.com, because while it's inconvenient, if someone wants to steal someone's identity on a social network site, they can just open their own account and masquerade with stolen information anyway.
Obviously, you can't send the original password by email, because you're not storing it (right?!). Sending a temporary password (that must be changed, because it only works for one login), and a link to reset the password are equivalent from a security point of view.
I don't unnderstand the attitude towards the secret question method. It's not like I am going to make my password "BlueHouse" and then make my security question "What are your two favorite things?" and the answer "Blue and Houses". The security question is not the magic key to get the actual password. It's usually a way to get a new password sent to the email address on file. I don't know how else you guys do it, but it sounds like you do one of two things.
1) The user clicks a "I forgot my password" button and the new password is sent to the user.
2) The user clicks a "I forgot my password" button and then has to answer a security question before getting the new password emailed to the address on file.
Seems to me that option number 2 is more secure.
Why is sending a token any more secure than sending the password? If an email account has been hacked, it's been hacked. It doesn't matter if there is a link to reset the password, a token, or a new password. Don't forget, most sites don't say "The new password has been sent to the following email address for you to hack into". A hacker would need to guess the email address that needs to be hacked.
I agree with Andy. Aren't security questions normally independent of the password? (mine are) Meaning they have a question and an answer and aren't related to the password. It seems like this is used to prevent spurious password reset requests and actually does have a use.
Imagine - someone could go to a site's "forgot password" utility and enter a zillion email addresses - or just one person they want to annoy. If the password is reset at that point, the people belonging to those email addresses would have to then notice in their email the password reset and login to the site with the reset password next time they went there. With the security question, this isn't as easy for someone to do.
I see Amazon sends a link to the given email. They also require you to enter a captcha to prevent DOS attacks. Because it's a link, I imagine that means they did not reset the password immediately and it would be reset once the user clicks the link. With the scenario above, the user would just see the email and note that "no I didn't do that" and go about their business not having to change their password needlessly. A security question might have prevented the attempt at the beginning and the legit user from getting the email in the first place.
Here's a whitepaper on it:
http://appsecnotes.blogspot.com/2010/09/latest-forgot-password-best-practices.html
This one actually recommends secret questions as a major part of the authentication process. And sending an authentication code via email and requesting it is just an add-on layer you can optionally include.
It really comes down to how much security you want to have. One the one end of the extreme is a password reset process that involves contacting and certifying that you are who you claim to be, e.g. via id, because your mailbox could be compromised as well. Actually, as people tend to use the same password everywhere this is very likely. On the other end there is the standard approach that involves just sending out an email with a random new password.
"Secret" questions and answers are just another form of username and passwords with the fatal flaw that they are usually incredibly easy to guess, so good that you don't want to use them.
To your point about the token, I don't think it makes a big difference in overall security. Whether you send out a token that allows a user to change the password or whether you send out a random password right away doesn't make a big difference.
Just make sure the token is only usable once and preferably only in a limited time span, e.g. +24h after requesting it.
And, as pointed out by previous answers, NEVER EVER store plain passwords. Hash them. Preferably add salt.
Here's how I resolved it:
I added retrieve_token and retrieve_expiration fields to my 'users' table.
The user requests a password reset by providing their email and filling out captcha. A random hashed value is generated for their retrieve_token field - i.e. md5($user_id.time()), while retrieve_expiration will be set to a datetime that expires in next 45 minutes. Email is sent out to the user with a link:
https://example.com/reset-password?retrieve_token=912ec803b2ce49e4a541068d495ab570
SSL should be mandatory when authentication is required. You can also add a table for logging reset requests that stores email and the IP address. It helps track down possible brute attacks and you can block attacker's IP if necessary.
You could implement security question for requesting password reset, but I feel captcha would be enough to discourage anyone from repeating the request multiple times.
#Jay. The reason why you go to a URL to reset your password instead of just sending someone a new temporary password is more than just security. Without something like a URL with a token, a person could reset another persons password. There is no need to gain access to the email. If someone had a bone to pick with someone, they could just keep initiating a new password reset. Then the poor target has to logon and change the password again and again.
By sending a token, the user's password does not change until they login with it and confirm it. The spam of reset emails can be ignored. Tokens are just as easy (if not easier) to generate as a new password by using a GUID, it's not really extra hassle for the developer.
Also, because the GUID is unique (a generated password might not be), a token can be tied to a username. If the incorrect username is given on the URL, then the token can be cancelled (i.e. when a different person initiates it and someone intercepts it.. assuming that the username isn't the same as the email).
#Jay. The proper use of security questions is to initiate a password reset email, not for actually resetting the password. Without a mechanism such as a security question, one could initiate a password reset. Althought seemingly beign, sending a reset email could be sent to an email that might no longer belong to the original owner. This is not rare. For example, when employees leave a company, often those mails are forwarded to another employee. A security question, adds a low level of obfucation to that scenario. It also reduces issues where one person keeps initiating a password reset on the wrong account causing some poor sod to get unintentionally spammed. Security question are really not meant to be truely secure, they are just meant to reduce scenarios such as those. Anyone using a security question to actually reset the password is doing it wrong.
Regarding security question/answer. As a user of websites I personally don't use them (I enter garbage in them). But they are certainly not useless or meaningless as some say here.
Consider this situation:
A user of your site has left his desk to go to lunch and didn't lock his workstation. A nefarious user can now visit the page for recovering/resetting password and enter the user's username. The system will then email the recovered/reset password without prompting for the security answer.
Here's an example of how someone did it with Node.js, basically generate a random token, an expiry time, send out the link with the token attached, have a reset/:token route that ensures a user exists with that token (which is also not expired) and, if so, redirect to a reset password page.
http://sahatyalkabov.com/how-to-implement-password-reset-in-nodejs/
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.