Can iisnode be configured to handle (or ignore) encrypted appSettings? - encryption

We have iisnode setup to handle requests to one sub-directory of our ASP.NET web application. As a security measure we encrypt our appSettings. None of the iisnode-related config is particularly senstive, but other parts of the app store passwords there.
However, iisnode is throwing 500 errors when the appSettings of web.config is encrypted.
I believe I have confirmed that throws the errors whether you reference the appSetting variables or not.
I'm open to moving my configuration to one of the iisnode-specific config files – or even just a js file -- but I need to encrypt appSettings.
So I need iisnode to handle the encrypted appSettings, either by gracefully ignoring it or by reading from it correctly. Is that something that can be configured for, or are should I be looking at patching the iisnode code?

I entered this as a bug in iisnode at the suggestion of Tomasz Janczuk, so I guess the answer to the question is, 'No'.
The workaround I'm pursuing is to use SingleSectionTagHandler for the items that need to be encrypted, so that I can leave appSettings unencrypted.

Related

Is it safe to write connection string in web.config?

Is it safe to write connection string in web.config in an ASP.net application.
The application will be using 2 databases and I think the connection string can be retrieved easily.
Can anyone please suggest a secure place(web.config or other file) for writting the connection string except encrypting it.
Web.config is the right place for this. You can encrypt the connection string if that's a concern for you. Encrypting the connection string in Web.config it's already supported in ASP.NET and it seems that you already know that...
Link for reference.
If your worry is the outside "hackers" stealing your web.config file, then it doesn't make a difference where you store it, since if they have access to the web.config file, they probably have access to any other location where you may store the CS anyways.
If on the other hand you want to protect from an internal threat, then try saving it into a separate file (even a simple text file will do) and give that file special access permissions that only allow you and the application access and noone else. Also, you may be able to do the same thing with web.config itself.

Encrypted Query String

I have used MachineKey.Encode to encrypt a ID that is getting passed as a query string to a page but as expected this is making the URL huge.
Is there a option such as HTTP handlers that could customize the url but still load the required page?
Also I am yet to find out if MachineKey.Encode is using the MachineKey that I have defined in my web.config file to encrypt the data, can anybody confirm this for me with web information that backs this up.
Thanks.
Also I am yet to find out if MachineKey.Encode is using the MachineKey that I have defined in my web.config file to encrypt the data, can anybody confirm this for me with web information that backs this up.
It does indeed use the configured keys. MachineKey calls MachineKeySection.EncryptOrDecryptData to perform the encryption, which uses encryption objects configured from the machine key section. If you want to see for yourself, the interesting calls are EncryptOrDecryptData=>EnsureConfig=>ConfigureEncryptionObject=>SetKeyOnSymAlgorithm

How to keep multiple connectionString passwords safe, separate, and easy to deploy?

I know there are plenty of questions here already about this topic (I've read through as many as I could find), but I haven't yet been able to figure out how best to satisfy my particular criteria. Here are the goals:
The ASP.NET application will run on a few different web servers, including localhost workstations for development. This means encrypting web.config using a machine key is out. Each "type" or environment of web server (dev, test, prod) has its own corresponding database (dev, test, prod). We want to separate these connection strings so that a developer working on the "dev" code is not able to see any "prod" connection string passwords, nor allow these production passwords to ever get deployed to the wrong server or committed to SVN.
The application will should be able to decide which connection string to attempt to use based on the server name (using a switch statement). For example, "localhost" and "dev.example.com" will should know to use the DevDatabaseConnectionString, "test.example.com" will use the TestDatabaseConnectionString, and "www.example.com" will use the ProdDatabaseConnectionString, for example. The reason for this is to limit the chance for any deployment accidents, where the wrong type of web server connects to the wrong database.
Ideally, the exact same executables and web.config should be able to run on any of these environments, without needing to tailor or configure each environment separately every time that we deploy (something that seems like it would be easy to forget/mess up one day during a deployment, which is why we moved away from having just one connectionstring that has to be changed on each target). Deployment is currently accomplished via FTP. Update: Using "build events " and revising our deployment procedures is probably not a bad idea.
We will not have command-line access to the production web server. This means using aspnet_regiis.exe to encrypt the web.config is out. Update: We can do this programmatically so this point is moot.
We would prefer to not have to recompile the application whenever a password changes, so using web.config (or db.config or whatever) seems to make the most sense.
A developer should not be able to get to the production database password. If a developer checks the source code out onto their localhost laptop (which would determine that it should be using the DevDatabaseConnectionString, remember?) and the laptop gets lost or stolen, it should not be possible to get at the other connection strings. Thus, having a single RSA private key to un-encrypt all three passwords cannot be considered. (Contrary to #3 above, it does seem like we'd need to have three separate key files if we went this route; these could be installed once per machine, and should the wrong key file get deployed to the wrong server, the worst that should happen is that the app can't decrypt anything---and not allow the wrong host to access the wrong database!)
UPDATE/ADDENDUM: The app has several separate web-facing components to it: a classic ASMX Web Services project, an ASPX Web Forms app, and a newer MVC app. In order to not go mad having the same connection string configured in each of these separate projects for each separate environment, it would be nice to have this only appear in one place. (Probably in our DAL class library or in a single linked config file.)
I know this is probably a subjective question (asking for a "best" way to do something), but given the criteria I've mentioned, I'm hoping that a single best answer will indeed arise.
Thank you!
Integrated authentication/windows authentication is a good option. No passwords, at least none that need be stored in the web.config. In fact, it's the option I prefer unless admins have explicity taken it away from me.
Personally, for anything that varies by machine (which isn't just connection string) I put in a external reference from the web.config using this technique: http://www.devx.com/vb2themax/Tip/18880
When I throw code over the fence to the production server admin, he gets a new web.config, but doesn't get the external file-- he uses the one he had earlier.
you can have multiple web servers with the same encrypted key. you would do this in machine config just ensure each key is the same.
..
one common practice, is to store first connection string encrypted somewhere on the machine such as registry. after the server connects using that string, it will than retrieve all other connection strings which would be managed in the database (also encrypted). that way connection strings can be dynamically generated based on authorization requirements (requestor, application being used, etc) for example the same tables can be accessed with different rights depending on context and users/groups
i believe this scenario addresses all (or most?) of your points..
(First, Wow, I think 2 or 3 "quick paragraphs" turned out a little longer than I'd thought! Here I go...)
I've come to the conclusion (perhaps you'll disagree with me on this) that the ability to "protect" the web.config whilst on the server (or by using aspnet_iisreg) has only limited benefit, and is perhaps maybe not such a good thing as it may possibly give a false sense of security. My theory is that if someone is able to obtain access to the filesystem in order to read this web.config in the first place, then they also probably have access to create their own simple ASPX file which can "unprotect" it and reveal its secrets to them. But if unauthorized people are trouncing around in your filesystem—well… then you have bigger problems at hand, so my whole concern is now moot! 1
I also realize that there isn’t a foolproof way to securely hide passwords within a DLL either, as they can eventually be disassembled and discovered, perhaps by using something like ILDASM. 2 An additional measure of security obscurity can be obtained by obfuscating and encrypting your binaries, such as by using Dotfuscator, but this isn’t to be considered “secure.” And again, if someone has read access (and likely write access too) to your binaries and filesystem, you’ve again got bigger problems at hand methinks.
To address the concerns I mentioned about not wanting the passwords to live on developer laptops or in SVN: solving this through a separate “.config” file that does not live in SVN is (now!) the blindingly obvious choice. Web.config can live happily in source control, while just the secret parts do not. However---and this is why I’m following up on my own question with such a long response---there are still a few extra steps I’ve taken to try and make this if not any more secure, then at least a little bit more obscure.
Connection strings we want to try to keep secret (those other than the development passwords) won’t ever live as plain text in any files. These are now encrypted first with a secret (symmetric) key---using, of course, the new ridiculous Encryptinator(TM)! utility built just for this purpose---before they get placed in a copy of a “db.config” file. The db.config is then just uploaded only to its respective server. The secret key is compiled directly into the DAL’s dll, which itself would then (ideally!) be further obfuscated and encrypted with something like Dotfuscator. This will hopefully keep out any casual curiosity at the least.
I’m not going to worry much at all about the symmetric "DbKey" living in the DLLs or SVN or on developer laptops. It’s the passwords themselves I’ll keep out. We do still need to have a “db.config” file in the project in order to develop and debug, but it has all fake passwords in it except for development ones. Actual servers have actual copies with just their own proper secrets. The db.config file is typically reverted (using SVN) to a safe state and never stored with real secrets in our subversion repository.
With all this said, I know it’s not a perfect solution (does one exist?), and one that does still require a post-it note with some deployment reminders on it, but it does seem like enough of an extra layer of hassle that might very well keep out all but the most clever and determined attackers. I’ve had to resign myself to "good-enough" security which isn’t perfect, but does let me get back to work after feeling alright about having given it the ol’ "College Try!"
1. Per my comment on June 15 here http://www.dotnetcurry.com/ShowArticle.aspx?ID=185 - let me know if I'm off-base! -and some more good commentary here Encrypting connection strings so other devs can't decrypt, but app still has access here Is encrypting web.config pointless? and here Encrypting web.config using Protected Configuration pointless?
2. Good discussion and food for thought on a different subject but very-related concepts here: Securely store a password in program code? - what really hit home is the Pidgin FAQ linked from the selected answer: If someone has your program, they can get to its secrets.

Encrypt / Decrypt in asp.net using RsaProtectedConfigurationProvider

The encryption worked properly. But now i am getting an error that says "RsaProtectedConfigurationProvider Bad Data" When checked, i came to know that we need to run the command:
aspnet_regiis -pa "NetFrameworkConfigurationKey" "NT AUTHORITY\NETWORK SERVICE"
My question is, if I run this command in my production environment, will it affect any other websites thats hosted in the same server. Since its an update to the machine.config file will ther be any chnace that some other things will be affected?
It won't (should not) because that command does not modify the machine.config file, but an ACL that controls which accounts have access to the key container. You can read more here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yxw286t2.aspx
This is a sentence from the article
"By default, RSA key containers are tightly protected by NTFS access control lists (ACLs) on the server where they are installed. This improves the security of the encrypted information by restricting who can access the encryption key."
As for your specific error, I just worked with web.config file encryption a few days back, and I recall receiving the Bad data error at one point. After a couple of times of repeating the setup steps, I was able to make it work, but I can't confirm which step made it work. My guesses for your case are:
You imported the wrong key file (the exported XML from the original container) into the container on that machine.
The data value on the config was messed with.
The account that is trying to decrypt the config file does not have privileges to that key container. In that case, the command that you ask about is the one to give access to a given account.
You could be referencing a different key container on your configProtectedData section. Hadn't though of this, and I'm not sure if you would get that specific Bad Data error, but it's a thought.
Hope you solved after all. Even though the question is old, I thought the answer might help someone.

Encrypting sections of web.config. Should I?

I am responsible for several ASP.NET web apps running on a local Intranet server. Users outside the company aren't supposed to have access to the server, but I don't like leaving anything to chance if it's not necessary. And only admins should have access to the file system.
Should I encrypt the app settings and connection string sections of web.config? I haven't see this mentioned very often, and I was wondering if it's overkill or not a best-practice. I've got passwords in my connection strings and account info for a service account I use to query AD in the app settings.
BTW: I would encrypt using
Configuration webConfig = WebConfigurationManager.OpenWebConfiguration(System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.ApplicationPath);
ConfigurationSection section = webConfig.Sections["connectionStrings"];
if (section != null && !section.SectionInformation.IsProtected)
{
section.SectionInformation.ProtectSection("DataProtectionConfigurationProvider");
webConfig.Save();
}
Should I encrypt the app settings and connection string sections of web.config?
If the connection strings include passwords: then yes, there is no other reasonable option.
If using integrated security to connect to the database, then the information exposure would be database and server names, which is less of an issue. But might be easier to have a deployment rule of always encrypting, because the simpler rule is easier to follow and audit.
You can also use aspnet_regiis.exe to encrypt sections, rather than writing your own code. Enter aspnet_regiis.exe -? into a PowerShell (or cmd) prompt to see options.
I did something similar for encrypting my web.config file, and I don't regret it. Maintaining it isn't complicated, and it adds yet another layer of defense. Since security is built in layer, there's nothing wrong in doing that.

Resources