A little background: We're currently trying try specify an HTTP API between a couple of vendors so that different products can easily inter operate. We're not writing any "server" software yet, nor any client, but just laying out the basics of the API so that every party can start prototyping and then we can refine it. So the typical use-case for this API would be being used by (thin) HTTP layers inside a given application, not from within the browser.
Communication doesn't really make sense without having session state here, so we were looking into how to track sessions typically.
Thing is, we want to keep the implementation of the API as easy as possible with as little burden as possible on any used HTTP library.
Someone proposed to manage session basically through "URL rewriting", but a little more explicit:
POST .../service/session { ... }
=> reply with 201 Created and session URL location .../service/session/{session-uuid}
subsequent requests use .../service/session/{session-uuid}/whatever
to end the session the client does DELETE .../service/session/{session-uuid}
Looking around the web, initial searches indicate this is somewhat untypical.
Is this a valid approach? Specific drawbacks or pros?
The pros we identified: (please debunk where appropriate)
Simple on the implementation, no cookie or header tracking etc. required
Orthogonal to client authentication mechanism - if authentication is appropriate, we could easily pass the URLs to a second app that could continue to use the session (valid use case in our case)
Should be safe, as we're going https exclusively for this.
Since, PHPSESSID was mentioned, I stumbled upon this other question, where it is mentioned that the "session in URL" approach may be more vulnerable to session fixation attacks.
However, see 2nd bullet above: We plan to implement~specify authentication/authorization orthogonally to this session concept, so passing around the "session" url might even be a feature, so we think we're quite fine with having the session appear in the URL.
Related
Situation
There is a site at examp.le that costs a lot of CPU/RAM to generate and a more lean examp.le/backend that will perform various tasks to read, write and serve user-specific data for authenticated requests. A lot of resources could be saved by utilizing a server side cache on the examp.le site but not on examp.le/backend and just asynchronously grab all user-specific data from the backend once the page arrives at the client. (Total loading time may even be lower, despite the need of an additional request.)
Threat model
CSRF attacks. Assuming (maybe foolishly) that examp.le is reliably safeguarded against XSS code injection, we still need to consider scripts on malicious site exploit.me that cause the victims browser to run a request against examp.le/backend with their authorization cookies included automagically and cause the server to perform some kind of data mutation on behalf of the user.
Solution / problem with that
As far as I understand, the commonly used countermeasure is to include another token in the generated exampl.le page. The server can verify this token is linked to the current user's session and will only accept requests that can provide it. But I assume caching won't work very well if we are baking a random token into every response to examp.le..?
So then...
I see two possible solutions: One would be some sort of "hybrid caching" where each response to examp.le is still programmatically generated but that program is just merging small dynamic parts to some cached output. Wouldn't work with caching systems that work on the higher layers of the server stack, let alone a CDN, but still might have its merits. I don't know if there is a standard ways or libraries to do this, or more specifically if there are solutions for wordpress (which happens to be the culprit in my case).
The other (preferred) solution would be to get an initial anti-CSRF token directly from examp.le/backend. But I'm not quite clear in my understanding about the implications of that. If the script on exploit.me could somehow obtain that token, the whole mechanism would make no sense to begin with. The way I understand it, if we leave exploitable browser bugs and security holes out of the picture and consider only requests coming from a non-obscure browser visiting exploit.me, then the HTTP_ORIGIN header can be absolutely trusted to be tamper proof. Is that correct? But then that begs the question: wouldn't we get mostly the same amount of security in this scenario by only checking authentication cookie and origin header, without throwing tokens back and forth?
I'm sorry if this question feels a bit all over the place, but I'm partly still in the process of getting the whole picture clear ;-)
First of all: Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) and Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) are two different categories of attacks. I assume, you meant to tackle CSRF problem only.
Second of all: it's crucial to understand what CSRF is about. Consider following.
A POST request to exampl.le/backend changes some kind of crucial data
The request to exampl.le/backend is protected by authentication mechanisms, which generate valid session cookies.
I want to attack you. I do it by sending you a link to a page I have forged at cats.com\best_cats_evr.
If you are logged in to exampl.le in one browser tab and you open cats.com\best_cats_evr in another, the code will be executed.
The code on the site cats.com\best_cats_evr will send a POST request to exampl.le/backend. The cookies will be attached, as there is not reason why they should not. You will perform a change on exampl.le/backend without knowing it.
So, having said that, how can we prevent such attacks?
The CSRF case is very well known to the community and it makes little sense for me to write everything down myself. Please check the OWASP CSRF Prevention Cheat Sheet, as it is one of the best pages you can find in this topic.
And yes, checking the origin would help in this scenario. But checking the origin will not help, if I find XSS vulnerability in exampl.le/somewhere_else and use it against you.
What would also help would be not using POST requests (as they can be manipulated without origin checks), but use e.g. PUT where CORS should help... But this quickly turns out to be too much of rocket science for the dev team to handle and sticking to good old anti-CSRF tokens (supported by default in every framework) should help.
The context of this is around the much hyped EU Privacy law which makes it illegal for a site to drop any "non-essential" cookies unless the user has "opted in" to this.
My specific challenge is due to the complexity of the site and the variety of different ways cookies are being dropped - particularly where governed by a CMS that has allowed marketeers to run riot and embed all sorts of content in different places - mostly around 3rd party cookies where there is embedded javascript, img pixels, Iframes e.t.c. (I'm speculating these all allow the dropping of 3rd party cookies having briefly browsed key areas of the site using a FF plugin - I haven't checked the mechanisms of each yet).
So, I've been trying to think whether in ASP.NET there would be a way to globally intercept and block all cookies that get dropped by my site should I need to, and also extend this to check whether they are essential or not, and if not, whether the user has already agreed to having cookies dropped (which would probably consist of a master YES cookie).
There are several things I am unclear about. First - would it be possible to use Response.Filter or Response.Cookies as a pipeline step to strip out any cookies that have already been dropped? Secondly - would it be possible for this to intercept any kind of cookie whatsoever or is it going to be impossible to catch some of the 3rdparty ones if they are executing browser requests from the client to the 3rdparty server directly?
The closest thing I could find that resembles my question is this but that looks like a sitewide solution - not user specific.
A reverse proxy with URL rewriting could probably do this for you. If you spend the time tracking down the resources and implement the heavy hammer of allow/disallow cookies and rewrite 3rd party URLs to go through your reverse proxy. The you can hijack and modify their set-cookie responses. In addition if they set cookies on the client through JavaScript they would be through your server/domain so you would have control over if they are forwarded or not.
This is not a simple solution but it should be possible and could be implemented without changing the application or the user experience.
What is the REST protocol and what does it differ from HTTP protocol ?
REST is a design style for protocols, it was developed by Roy Fielding in his PhD dissertation and formalised the approach behind HTTP/1.0, finding what worked well with it, and then using this more structured understanding of it to influence the design of HTTP/1.1. So, while it was after-the-fact in a lot of ways, REST is the design style behind HTTP.
Fielding's dissertation can be found at http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/top.htm and is very much worth reading, and also very readable. PhD dissertations can be pretty hard-going, but this one is wonderfully well-described and very readable to those of us without a comparable level of Computer Science. It helps that REST itself is pretty simple; it's one of those things that are obvious after someone else has come up with it. (It also for that matter encapsulates a lot of things that older web developers learnt themselves the hard way in one simple style, which made reading it a major "a ha!" moment for many).
Other application-level protocols as well as HTTP can also use REST, but HTTP is the classic example.
Because HTTP uses REST, all uses of HTTP are using a REST system. The description of a web application or service as RESTful or non-RESTful relates to whether it takes advantage of REST or works against it.
The classic example of a RESTful system is a "plain" website without cookies (cookies aren't always counter to REST, but they can be): Client state is changed by the user clicking a link which loads another page, or doing GET form queries which brings results. POST form queries can change both server and client state (the server does something on the basis of the POST, and then sends a hypertext document that describes the new state). URIs describe resources, but the entity (document) describing it may differ according to content-type or language preferred by the user. Finally, it's always been possible for browsers to update the page itself through PUT and DELETE though this has never been very common and if anything is less so now.
The classic example of a non-RESTful system using HTTP is something which treats HTTP as if it was a transport protocol, and with every request sends a POST of data to the same URI which is then acted upon in an RPC-like manner, possibly with the connection itself having shared state.
A RESTful computer-readable (i.e. not a website in a browser, but something used programmatically) system would obtain information about the resources concerned by GETting URI which would then return a document (e.g. in XML, but not necessarily) which would describe the state of the resource, including URIs to related resources (hypermedia therefore), change their state through PUTting entities describing the new state or DELETEing them, and have other actions performed by POSTing.
Key advantages are:
Scalability: The lack of shared state makes for a much more scalable system (demonstrated to me massively when I removed all use of session state from a heavily hit website, while I was expecting it to give a bit of extra performance, even a long-time anti-session advocate like myself was blown-away by the massive gain from removing what had been pretty slim use of sessions, it wasn't even why I had been removing them!)
Simplicity: There are a few different ways in which REST is simpler than more RPC-like models, in particular there are only a few "verbs" that are ever possible, and each type of resource can be reasoned about in reasonable isolation to the others.
Lightweight Entities: More RPC-like models tend to end up with a lot of data in the entities sent both ways just to reflect the RPC-like model. This isn't needed. Indeed, sometimes a simple plain-text document is all that is really needed in a given case, in which case with REST, that's all we would need to send (though this would be an "end-result" case only, since plain-text doesn't link to related resources). Another classic example is a request to obtain an image file, RPC-like models generally have to wrap it in another format, and perhaps encode it in some way to let it sit within the parent format (e.g. if the RPC-like model uses XML, the image will need to be base-64'd or similar to fit into valid XML). A RESTful model would just transmit the file the same as it does to a browser.
Human Readable Results: Not necessarily so, but it is often easy to build a RESTful webservice where the results are relatively easy to read, which aids debugging and development no end. I've even built one where an XSLT meant that the entire thing could be used by humans as a (relatively crude) website, though it wasn't primarily for human-use (essentially, the XSLT served as a client to present it to users, it wasn't even in the spec, just done to make my own development easier!).
Looser binding between server and client: Leads to easier later development or moves in how the system is hosted. Indeed, if you keep to the hypertext model, you can change the entire structure, including moving from single-host to multiple hosts for different services, without changing client code at all.
Caching: For the GET operations where the client obtains information about the state of a resource, standard HTTP caching mechanisms allow both for statements that the resource won't meaningfully change until a certain date at the earliest (no need to query at all until then) or that it hasn't changed since the last query (send a couple hundred bytes of headers saying this rather than several kilobytes of data). The improvement in performance can be immense (big enough to move the performance of something from the point where it is impractical to use to the point where performance is no longer a concern, in some cases).
Availability of toolkits: Because it works at a relatively simple level, if you have a webserver you can build a RESTful system's server and if you have any sort of HTTP client API (XHR in browser javascript, HttpWebRequest in .NET, etc) you can build a RESTful system's client.
Resiliance: In particular, the lack of shared state means that a client can die and come back into use without the server knowing, and even the server can die and come back into use without the client knowing. Obviously communications during that period will fail, but once the server is back online things can just continue as they were. This also really simplifies the use of web-farms for redundancy and performance - each server acts like it's the only server there is, and it doesn't matter that its actually only dealing with a fraction of the requests from a given client.
REST is an approach that leverages the HTTP protocol, and is not an alternative to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_State_Transfer
Data is uniquely referenced by URL and can be acted upon using HTTP operations (GET, PUT, POST, DELETE, etc). A wide variety of mime types are supported for the message/response but XML and JSON are the most common.
For example to read data about a customer you could use an HTTP get operation with the URL http://www.example.com/customers/1. If you want to delete that customer, simply use the HTTP delete operation with the same URL.
The Java code below demonstrates how to make a REST call over the HTTP protocol:
String uri =
"http://www.example.com/customers/1";
URL url = new URL(uri);
HttpURLConnection connection =
(HttpURLConnection) url.openConnection();
connection.setRequestMethod("GET");
connection.setRequestProperty("Accept", "application/xml");
JAXBContext jc = JAXBContext.newInstance(Customer.class);
InputStream xml = connection.getInputStream();
Customer customer =
(Customer) jc.createUnmarshaller().unmarshal(xml);
connection.disconnect();
For a Java (JAX-RS) example see:
http://bdoughan.blogspot.com/2010/08/creating-restful-web-service-part-45.html
REST is not a protocol, it is a generalized architecture for describing a stateless, caching client-server distributed-media platform. A REST architecture can be implemented using a number of different communication protocols, though HTTP is by far the most common.
REST is not a protocol, it is a way of exposing your application, mostly done over HTTP.
for example, you want to expose an api of your application that does getClientById
instead of creating a URL
yourapi.com/getClientById?id=4
you can do
yourapi.com/clients/id/4
since you are using a GET method it means that you want to GET data
You take advantage over the HTTP methods: GET/DELETE/PUT
yourapi.com/clients/id/4 can also deal with delete, if you send a delete method and not GET, meaning that you want to dekete the record
All the answers are good.
I hereby add a detailed description of REST and how it uses HTTP.
REST = Representational State Transfer
REST is a set of rules, that when followed, enable you to build a distributed application that has a specific set of desirable constraints.
It is stateless, which means that ideally no connection should be maintained between the client and server.
It is the responsibility of the client to pass its context to the server and then the server can store this context to process the client's further request. For example, session maintained by server is identified by session identifier passed by the client.
Advantages of Statelessness:
Web Services can treat each method calls separately.
Web Services need not maintain the client's previous interaction.
This in turn simplifies application design.
HTTP is itself a stateless protocol unlike TCP and thus RESTful Web Services work seamlessly with the HTTP protocols.
Disadvantages of Statelessness:
One extra layer in the form of heading needs to be added to every request to preserve the client's state.
For security we may need to add a header info to every request.
HTTP Methods supported by REST:
GET: /string/someotherstring:
It is idempotent(means multiple calls should return the same results every time) and should ideally return the same results every time a call is made
PUT:
Same like GET. Idempotent and is used to update resources.
POST: should contain a url and body
Used for creating resources. Multiple calls should ideally return different results and should create multiple products.
DELETE:
Used to delete resources on the server.
HEAD:
The HEAD method is identical to GET except that the server MUST NOT return a message-body in the response. The meta information contained in the HTTP headers in response to a HEAD request SHOULD be identical to the information sent in response to a GET request.
OPTIONS:
This method allows the client to determine the options and/or requirements associated with a resource, or the capabilities of a server, without implying a resource action or initiating a resource retrieval.
HTTP Responses
Go here for all the responses.
Here are a few important ones:
200 - OK
3XX - Additional information needed from the client and url redirection
400 - Bad request
401 - Unauthorized to access
403 - Forbidden
The request was valid, but the server is refusing action. The user might not have the necessary permissions for a resource, or may need an account of some sort.
404 - Not Found
The requested resource could not be found but may be available in the future. Subsequent requests by the client are permissible.
405 - Method Not Allowed
A request method is not supported for the requested resource; for example, a GET request on a form that requires data to be presented via POST, or a PUT request on a read-only resource.
404 - Request not found
500 - Internal Server Failure
502 - Bad Gateway Error
Is there a "clever" way of stopping direct page calls in ASP.NET? (Page functionality, not the page itself)
By clever, I mean not having to add in hashes between pages to stop AJAX pages being called directly. In a nutshell, this is stopping users from accessing the Ajax pages without it coming from one of your websites pages in a legitimate way. I understand that nothing is impossible to break, I am simply interested in seeing what other interesting methods there are.
If not, is there any way that one could do it without using sessions/cookies?
Have a look at this question: Differentiating Between an AJAX Call / Browser Request
The best answer from the above question is to check for a requested-by or custom header.
Ultimately, your web server is receiving requests (including headers) of what the client sends you - all data that can be spoofed. If a user is determined, then any request can look like an AJAX request.
I can't think of an elegant method to prevent this (there are inelegant and probably non-perfect methods whereby you provide a hash of some sort of request counter between ajax and non-ajax requests).
Can I ask why your application is so sensitive to "ajax" pages being called directly? Could you design around this?
You can check the Request headers to see if the call is initiated by AJAX Usually, you should find that x-requested-with has the value XMLHttpRequest. Or in the case of ASP.NET AJAX, check to see if ScriptMAnager.IsInAsyncPostBack == true. However, I'm not sure about preventing the request in the first place.
Have you looked into header authentication? If you only want your app to be able to make ajax calls to certain pages, you can require authentication for those pages...not sure if that helps you or not?
Basic Access Authentication
or the more secure
Digest Access Authentication
Another option would be to append some sort of identifier to your URL query string in your application before requesting the page, and have some sort of authentication method on the server side.
I don't think there is a way to do it without using a session. Even if you use an Http header, it is trivial for someone to create a request with the exact same headers.
Using session with ASP.NET Ajax requests is easy. You may run into some problems, like session expiration, but you should be able to find a solution.
With sessions you will be able to guarantee that only logged-in users can access the Ajax services. When servicing an Ajax request simply test that there is a valid session associated with it. Of course a logged-in user will be able to access the service directly. There is nothing you can do to avoid this.
If you are concerned that a logged-in user may try to contact the service directly in order to steal data, you can add a time limit to the service. For example do not allow the users to access the service more often than one minute at a time (or whatever rate else is needed for the application to work properly).
See what Google and Amazon are doing for their web services. They allow you to contact them directly (even providing APIs to do this), but they impose limits on how many requests you can make.
I do this in PHP by declaring a variable in a file that's included everywhere, and then check if that variable is set in the ajax call file.
This way, you can't directly call the file ever because that variable will never have been defined.
This is the "non-trivial" way, hence it's not too elegant.
The only real idea I can think of is to keep track of every link. (as in everything does a postback and then a response.redirect). In this way you could keep a static List<> or something of IP addresses(and possible browser ID and such) that say which pages are allowed to be accessed at the moment from that visitor.. along with a time out for them and such to keep them from going straight to a page 3 days from now.
I recommend rethinking your design to be sure that this is really needed though. And also note IPs and such can be spoofed.
Also if you follow this route be sure to read up about when static variables get disposed and such. You wouldn't want one of those annoying "your session has expired" messages when they have been using the site for 10 minutes.
I know that using non-GET methods (POST, PUT, DELETE) to modify server data is The Right Way to do things. I can find multiple resources claiming that GET requests should not change resources on the server.
However, if a client were to come up to me today and say "I don't care what The Right Way to do things is, it's easier for us to use your API if we can just use call URLs and get some XML back - we don't want to have to build HTTP requests and POST/PUT XML," what business-conducive reasons could I give to convince them otherwise?
Are there caching implications? Security issues? I'm kind of looking for more than just "it doesn't make sense semantically" or "it makes things ambiguous."
Edit:
Thanks for the answers so far regarding prefetching. I'm not as concerned with prefetching since is mostly surrounding internal network API use and not visitable HTML pages that would have links that could be prefetched by a browser.
Prefetch: A lot of web browsers will use prefetching. Which means that it will load a page before you click on the link. Anticipating that you will click on that link later.
Bots: There are several bots that scan and index the internet for information. They will only issue GET requests. You don't want to delete something from a GET request for this reason.
Caching: GET HTTP requests should not change state and they should be idempotent. Idempotent means that issuing a request once, or issuing it multiple times gives the same result. I.e. there are no side effects. For this reason GET HTTP requests are tightly tied to caching.
HTTP standard says so: The HTTP standard says what each HTTP method is for. Several programs are built to use the HTTP standard, and they assume that you will use it the way you are supposed to. So you will have undefined behavior from a slew of random programs if you don't follow.
How about Google finding a link to that page with all the GET parameters in the URL and revisiting it every now and then? That could lead to a disaster.
There's a funny article about this on The Daily WTF.
GETs can be forced on a user and result in Cross-site Request Forgery (CSRF). For instance, if you have a logout function at http://example.com/logout.php, which changes the server state of the user, a malicious person could place an image tag on any site that uses the above URL as its source: http://example.com/logout.php. Loading this code would cause the user to get logged out. Not a big deal in the example given, but if that was a command to transfer funds out of an account, it would be a big deal.
Good reasons to do it the right way...
They are industry standard, well documented, and easy to secure. While you fully support making life as easy as possible for the client you don't want to implement something that's easier in the short term, in preference to something that's not quite so easy for them but offers long term benefits.
One of my favourite quotes
Quick and Dirty... long after the
Quick has departed the Dirty remains.
For you this one is a "A stitch in time saves nine" ;)
Security:
CSRF is so much easier in GET requests.
Using POST won't protect you anyway but GET can lead easier exploitation and mass exploitation by using forums and places which accepts image tags.
Depending on what you do in server-side using GET can help attacker to launch DoS (Denial of Service). An attacker can spam thousands of websites with your expensive GET request in an image tag and every single visitor of those websites will carry out this expensive GET request against your web server. Which will cause lots of CPU cycle to you.
I'm aware that some pages are heavy anyway and this is always a risk, but it's bigger risk if you add 10 big records in every single GET request.
Security for one. What happens if a web crawler comes across a delete link, or a user is tricked into clicking a hyperlink? A user should know what they're doing before they actually do it.
I'm kind of looking for more than just "it doesn't make sense semantically" or "it makes things ambiguous."
...
I don't care what The Right Way to do things is, it's easier for us
Tell them to think of the worst API they've ever used. Can they not imagine how that was caused by a quick hack that got extended?
It will be easier (and cheaper) in 2 months if you start with something that makes sense semantically. We call it the "Right Way" because it makes things easier, not because we want to torture you.