I require a form that people can only fill out once, and I also need to know and validate who that person is.
Google Forms requires a Google Account to enforce that the form can only be filled out once. But the account is not recorded in the answers.
In the responses settings, you can ask for an E-Mail address, to which the filled out form can be sent, but that email can be different from your Google Account. So a malicious user could enter the E-Mail from a different person, and I have no means of detecting that.
Am I missing something? This seems like a super obvious flaw to me, but then … it's there for years and nobody seems to care.
Related
I have a list of people with all their personal information (name, first name, date of birth, email, etc.). I created an account for each of these people in my database. I'm using Firebase.
Since I already have all my user's info, I don't want them to type it again when signing up to my website.
So I created a system using a custom token for authentication. I send them as a parameter of an URL to every one of my users.
When the user clicks on the link for the first time: he gets redirected to the signup page with all the fields pre-filled (name, date of birth, email, etc) except for the password. He types the password he wants and gets signed up.
When the user clicks on the link every other time: he gets redirected to the login page. A simple email + password interface with the email field already pre-filled. He types his password and gets logged in.
This is working great BUT I'm wondering: is this bad practice to do so?
Is this insecure to let anyone who gets the email create an account in the name of my user? Should I assume that someone, other than my user, may have total access to my user email account? Should I be prepared for this eventuality?
Since I already have all my user's info, I don't want them to type it again when signing up to my website.
If you already have the user's information, and you are allowed to process it, then it's a good practice to not let the user do something that it's already done.
is this bad practice to do so?
Not at all. That seems to me like a practice that is present almost everywhere. If you want to edit the profile data, you always have the existing data already pre-filled. The user has just to verify it or change it if needed.
Is this insecure to let anyone who gets the email create an account in the name of my user?
That sounds not like the best option if someone else can use that URL and create an account on behalf of the user. Most likely you should consider letting the user create the account only if it can validate the data through an SMS, or any other service that is specific to that user in particular.
Should I assume that someone, other than my user, may have total access to my user email account? Should I be prepared for this eventuality?
Yes indeed. You should always prepare for that. Never trust the users. There's not a perfect world out there.
I want to design a user registration page in asp.net, When user enter his mobile number he will get a verification code to the entered mobile, After entering that code in the verification code textbox in registration page, if it is matched then he will be as a registered user or else the he cannot move to the process.
How can I do this, I have googled about this issue I had not understand much about it. how can I do this in the INDIAN mobile networks?
First off you need some kind of SMS API to send the text, such as Twilio. After this, you can generate some random number that will be sent to the user in the message, this same number you will store somewhere, maybe a database, along with the username or email address. When the user comes back with the number, you get the record by username or by the number, and compare it against the username or the number, and there you have it.
Take a look at this CodeProject article. It includes options for both Worldwide and India only services.
Or else, explore some SMS gateway services and choose whatever suits you. Basic idea would be similar to what is presented in the article.
When a customer signs up for a site, we want to let them know whether a username/email is available for use.
We have a httphandler that serves the purpose of feeding a jquery script that showsthe customer whether or not their desired username/email is available.
The question is:
The service can clearly be seen being called when you view the request in fiddler.
It shows /emlhandler.asmx?name=xxxxxxxxxxx#yyy.com
From the handler, a simple 0 or 1 is returned to indicate whether or not the name/address is available.
My concern is that this seems like a major security issue that would be very easy for an inexperienced person to exploit to discover all the users on the site.
So friends, how do you protect your site info and still allow the ajax callback to provide a great user experience?
Thanks.
Heath
You are being slightly paranoid here. Every site that allows user registration has to do something similar. One thing you can reasonably do is add a slight delay (maybe 2 or 3 seconds) to the handler's processing in order to reduce the likelihood or ease of a brute-force attack. Frankly, I don't think anyone would bother.
Another option is just to ignore repeated emails and send a verification email before a user's registration actually becomes active. If a new user attempts to use an existing email, the original email owner receives the verification and can cancel or ignore it. But I don't recommend this.
I'd say the vast majority of the sites I've used will just immediately say "this email address is already registered... did you forget your password?" Just knowing an email address is already in use on a given site does not in itself represent a security breach.
One possible solution would be to only enable POST requests for that method.
And since you cannot invoke services from JavaScript from another domain (XSS - Cross-site Scripting) without your authorization, then you would be protected.
However this technique would prevent malicious users from calling your web service to discover user names but this wouldn't prevent the user to automate a process to simulate user entering data in a text box to force a call to the service, in that case, perhaps you could allow just a number of requests per user in an X amount of time.
You could keep track of the number of attempts using the Session object from your web service
Another approac would be to add a re Captcha to your site, however this would decrease the level of responsiveness if you used to allow your users to capture a user name and as soon as they write you call your service. Implementing would require your users to write the auto-generated captcha in order to submit your data
I'm starting to size up a project where I feel security needs strike a little closer to home. What tools and techniques could I look at to attempt to raise an alarm when a valid login is used, but the owner of the login has given it away or had it stolen. I would prefer ASP.NET, then MVC 3, oriented stuff.
This is not a silver bullet, but perhaps you should consider employing some kind of two-factor authentication. For example: when a user creates an account with you, you require that she provide you with a phone number where she can receive text messages as part of the registration process. Then, when she attempts to log in, you text her a temporary authentication code to be used in combination with her username and password.
This ads an extra layer of security to the system, because an attacker would have to both know her username and password and have physical access to her cell phone in order to compromise her account.
I hope that's helpful.
Seems like you would get a lot of false positives... but you might try checking what IP address the login is coming from. Most people will log in from the same IP address most of the time, so when that changes, it's at least a warning sign. If you want to be very strict about security, you could maintain a whitelist (for each account) and require that they get their IP address added to the whitelist before logging in.
My bank (Chase) does this by checking a secure cookie during my username/password login. If the cookie is missing or corrupted, they require a second form of authentication, which is either a code sent via text to my phone number on file or via email to my email address on file. Once the second form of authentication is complete, they set the secure cookie and then I can login from that browser with only username and password.
Implement your own Membership provider and add field locked to model,
check for user being locked on login and do some actions
It might be useful to think of the factors of the Authentication process, so that you can be sure that you are sufficiently covering things. You can easily get ridiculous with the layers of assurances, but I happen to find that most banks now have a variation on a simple model. All of this is, of course, over SSL
User submits account name. Additionally, you can require a secondary piece of information, last 4 of account number or year part of date of birth.
Optional, but a good idea: present the user with a counter sign, that is something that verifies the identity of the server. The user selects this at registration and should be looking for this every time they attempt to log in. This aids in preventing phishing.
System checks to see if the current system using IP lookup or cookie is associated with the account. If not, presents challenge question along with password input. Otherwise, presents just the password input.
Complicated, but can actually be done in 2 pages and more secure than is usually required.
I've presented this workflow to a few bank clients and they usually remove one or two of the checks for a balance of user friendliness.
With phones with text capabilities being so common, the idea of SMS verification code as mentioned by others is also a good idea, though I haven't implemented this in a system yet, personally.
I'm rewriting a website and going from a home-grown authentication model where users logged in with their account id (numbers) and password, to .NET FormsAuthentication where users will login with a username that they choose (or is available) and a stronger password. There are over 38K existing accounts and I'm trying to decide if the existing users should re-register or if I should write some code to do this on their behalf. I've already ruled out creating the usernames for the users because they won't be able to change their username. Luckily we don't have any users named Brenda Utthead.
If the user re-registers, some may gripe about having to do this step again and it may raise some support calls, but I stay with the standard process that everyone has to do. Or I can allow the user to login with their existing userid and password and then optionally give them a grace period to convert their account. I'm hesitant about the latter because it's special code and a possible threat vector because it bypasses the standard authentication mechanism and allows users to log in using less secure credentials.
This application currently accounts for about 40% of our website traffic and I'm not worried about users not coming back to the website because of the possibility of them having to re-register.
What does everyone think?
If you want your users to come back your best bet is to convert their accounts and send an email explaining the transition.
Do not make them re-register whatever you do.
You'll lose half of your users if you do that.
Give them a service so that they can enter their previous user id and have them provide their email address. Email them at the address provided and have them login with their email address as their new user name.
I am about to do the same thing. I am writing a migration page where the user logs in with his/her existing credentials and behind the scenes, I write out to the asp.net membership tables. Do a check first to make sure they haven't already migrated for all subsequent visits.
Don't make them re-register. A little work on your side is all it takes and you need to keep your customers happy.
After listening to everyone's suggestion, I've decided to modify the login. I look at the username they provide and try to guess that they're an existing user. Then I look them up in the old table and if I find a match take them to a conversion screen. There they can quickly convert their account or skip the whole process and login temporarily. The conversion form has fewer fields to fill out b/c I was able to authenticate them against the old user table so I don't need them to provide as much info.
I'm not thrilled with skipping the conversion but that option is only offered for the first 45 days from go-live.
Either convert them or find a way for both membership models to exist together, and somehow convert each user across at login or something.
Think about how long it took to get the 38k members and ask yourself if those were all wiped out, would those same people go through the hassle of signing up again. If you've got a really strong community you should be ok, the hit would just be a matter of time till you're built up.
The other thing you could do to mitigate the risk would be to send out a email, although spam blockers may filter them you could get to a high percentage of your users and tell them about the new membership stuff. Might get some older people back to the site as well in the process.
The biggest challenge is converting all the data that is associated with the user's accounts. People are going to be really upset if they've built up some sort of reputation that you're going to destroy with a new membership system.
This website is a check your balance type of website. It's not a banking site per se, but it exists as a convenience tool to users. I don't believe it would be realistic for users to cancel their accounts because they are forced to re-register.
I do like some of the ideas I'm reading in the responses though.
I would migrate their information and then on their first login ask them to confirm that their membership info is correct (just to be anal).