How to protect cookies from an attack - asp.net

I want to use cookies for storing userId during the session which lets to avoid unnecessary roundtrips to the data base. This userId is used to access some user specific information. As cookies can be easily edited I'm now conserned with the security issue.
In order to forbid an logged in user to edit their userId and so get access to other users' information I use a pretty straightforward method. I add one more cookie at the userId cookie creation moment which stores a hashed value for it. While hashing I use a hard coded 64 byte key. When retrieving the userId from the cookie it is always checked if it matches with its hashed value.
Here is basically my code:
public static int GetUserId(Page page)
{
int userId;
if (page.Request.Cookies["userId"] != null && page.Request.Cookies["userIdHashed"] != null)
{
string userIdHashed = page.Request.Cookies["userIdHashed"].Value;
string userIdCoockie = page.Request.Cookies["userId"].Value;
string coockie = (userIdCoockie + "945AFF2FD0F1D89B4B1DBEB1B0C5D3B8B5DCE000AAEA331EB0C3F3A68C3865EFA73BC6EBF30C8DF1AD6B9ECB7094DA5B0C1AF36B5BBD096E3D873E9589E3F664").GetHashCode().ToString();
if (userIdHashed == coockie)
{
userId = Int32.Parse(userIdCoockie);
}
else
{
throw new Exception("UserId does not match!");
}
}
else
{
userId = ...//here userId is being retrieved from the data base and than:
page.Response.Cookies["userId"].Value = userId.ToString();
page.Response.Cookies["userId"].HttpOnly = true;
string userIdHashed = (userId.ToString() + "945AFF2FD0F1D89B4B1DBEB1B0C5D3B8B5DCE000AAEA331EB0C3F3A68C3865EFA73BC6EBF30C8DF1AD6B9ECB7094DA5B0C1AF36B5BBD096E3D873E9589E3F664").GetHashCode().ToString();
page.Response.Cookies["userIdHashed"].Value = userIdHashed;
page.Response.Cookies["userIdHashed"].HttpOnly = true;
}
return userId;
}
So my questions are:
Can such an approach be considered
reliable enough in this situation?
If not should I modify it and how or
should I look for something different
(e.g. encryption/decryption via
System.Security.Cryptography as
recommended here)?
And additional question: Does it really make sense to set HttpCookie.HttpOnly = true to prevent javascript from accessing the cookie given that it can also easily be modified by the user?
UPDATE
Great thanks for answers to Kerrek SB and Darin Dimitrov who share the opinion that it does not make sense to try to protect cookies on my own taking into account that there are already built in protected mechanisms of storing of such kind of information between postbacks.
Options suggested are:
Using the ASP.NET cache (but I believe it is generally supposed to
store information which should be shared between users, so I look at
other two options).
Adding a custom string with userId into UserData part of the
FormsAuthenticationTicket.
Using the Session State.
So currently I'm deciding between the latter two.
Changing the FormsAuthenticationTicket is not really straightforward. Additionally it does not work with the Cookieless Forms Authentication (as stated here).
Using the Session State is much easier but it can affect the performance because it stores the values in the server memory. However may be in my case it is not so dramatic because we store only userId of type int.
So for now the last option looks much better for me. However I would greatly appreciate if anybody else could comment and support or criticise any of options discussed.
Thanks in advance!

You seem to be reinventing some wheels here. While this could be acceptable when doing some standard code, when security is involved this almost always leads to catastrophic consequences.
To track actively logged in user I would recommend you using forms authentication (and here's another useful tutorial). It uses authentication cookies to track users. Those cookies are securely encrypted by the framework so that they cannot be modified using the <machineKey> section of the server machine.config file.
Form your code all you need to do to access the currently logged in user name is the following:
public static string GetUserId(HttpContextBase context)
{
if (context == null || !context.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
return null;
}
return context.User.Identity.Name;
}
You really shouldn't be handling all this stuff manually especially when the ASP.NET framework has a built-in mechanism for it.

That's terribly roundabout and obscure. If you already have an active session, why don't you just store this kind of data (which the client never needs to know, mind you) in your server-side session data?
All you should ever need to exchange with the client is the session ID, really.

you can also encrypt the cookies with Secure Socket Layer
HttpCookie cookie = new HttpCookie();
cookie.Secure = true;

Related

Is it alright to put sensitive data into the cache? ASP MVC

I currently implemented some "checkers" for my MVC application.
So far here is what i have,
Authorization(Form)
Authentication (Custom RoleProvider)
Action Filters(to make sure that the user won't put any bogus id numbers or try accessing the other's data by editing the GET url.
I have several questions regarding the best practices for cache on ASP MVC.
Here is my implementation of my login:
[HttpGet]
[ActionName("login")]
public ActionResult login_load()
{
return View();
}
[HttpPost]
[ActionName("login")]
public ActionResult login_post(string uname,string pword)
{
using (EmployeeContext emp = new EmployeeContext())
{
//h student log = new student();
int success = emp.login.Where(x => x.username == uname && x.password == pword).Count();
if (success == 1)
{
int id = (from logs in emp.login
join rol in emp.roles on logs.role equals rol.id
where logs.username == uname
select logs.id).First();
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(uname, false);
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert("id", id);
return RedirectToAction("Details", "Enrollment", new { id = id});
}
return View();
}
}
(I plan on implementing H&S as soon)
Anyway, here are my concerns so far:
For security concerns, would it be fine to store something like id's on cache? or it's better if i use sessions ?
Let's say i successfully logged in, and i add another line of this code :
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert("id", id);
Is it going to edit my previous record or it's going to add another entry?
I have this code from my Custom RoleProvider, HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(cacheKey, roles, null, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(_cacheTimeoutInMinute), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration); and i believe that they are "fired" everytime i ask a controller with a protection of [Authorize(Role="users")]. So does it make a new entry or it edits the previous/existing one?
Should i worry about deleting/clearing my cache as soon as the user decided to log out? my role provider timeout is currently set to 20 minutes
I need the id because aside from the username, it is my unique identifier and i use it to compare on whatever id the user is trying to access.
I am thinking if it would be possible to edit the cache and use it against my application.
Don't worry about storing the ID, you need to go back and refactor to use the inbuilt identity stuff that's in the box for MVC. Looking at your code I can only assume that this system would store passwords in plain text. You will not pass any compliance with a system like this.
Rule of thumb when it comes to "is this secure" is don't write it yourself. Find a proven product and use that.
If for whatever reason the inbuilt identity system that is provided with MVC doesn't work for your requirements, have a look into this: https://github.com/brockallen/BrockAllen.MembershipReboot
FYI:
Identity system is the service that logs people in, out and manages the logged in user. Feel free to head over to this to learn more about the inbuilt system for MVC: http://www.asp.net/identity/overview/getting-started/introduction-to-aspnet-identity
For security concerns, would it be fine to store something like id's on cache? or it's better if i use sessions ?
In this case it doesn't make a lot of difference. However, the cache cannot be distributed across multiple web servers. Session state can by changing the <sessionState> section of the web.config file. So you are building an inherent limitation in scalability into your application by using cache.
Let's say i successfully logged in, and i add another line of this code :
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert("id", id);
Is it going to edit my previous record or it's going to add another entry? I have this code from my Custom RoleProvider, HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(cacheKey, roles, null, DateTime.Now.AddMinutes(_cacheTimeoutInMinute), Cache.NoSlidingExpiration); and i believe that they are "fired" everytime i ask a controller with a protection of [Authorize(Role="users")]. So does it make a new entry or it edits the previous/existing one?
First of all, you have a major flaw in your code. Cache is intended to be shared between all users on the site. So, when you insert a value, such as HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert("id", id);, all of the users will see it. If you are using this value to lookup data later, then the user data will always be for the last user that signed in.
You can fix this by adding adding a value unique to the user to the key.
var key = this.User.Identity.Name + "|Id";
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(key, id);
Note I am using a pipe character as a separator here. This is assuming the user name doesn't allow a pipe character (which you would also need to ensure).
Secondly, using a proper cache pattern means that you will never need to worry about whether "id" exists because you have already made that check. Using the cache typically looks like this.
public static string GetUserID()
{
// Check whether the user is logged in
if (!HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated) {
return 0;
}
// Make a UNIQUE key that can be used for this scenario
var userName = HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name;
var key = userName + "|Id";
// Attempt to get the ID from the cache
var id = HttpRuntime.Cache[key];
// A null value indicates there was no value in the cache
if (id == null)
{
// No ID in the cache, look it up from the database
using (EmployeeContext emp = new EmployeeContext())
{
id = (from user in emp.login
where user.username = userName
select user.id).First();
}
// Store the ID from the database into the cache
HttpRuntime.Cache.Insert(key, id,
// No Dependencies
null,
// No absolute expiration (mimic the behavior of forms authentication)
System.Web.Caching.Cache.NoAbsoluteExpiration,
// Timeout 20 minutes after the last access
// (to mimic the behavior of forms authentication)
new TimeSpan(0, 20, 0),
// Setting to NotRemovable ensures that if the
// application pool restarts, you don't lose your cache
System.Web.Caching.CacheItemPriority.NotRemovable,
// No callback needed here
null);
}
return (string)id
}
Of course, you can improve performance if the value is available at login by inserting it into the cache directly, but you need to ensure you use the same key in that case.
Session is probably a better choice in this scenario, but either way you should make use of this pattern to double check you have a value before returning it to the user.
Should i worry about deleting/clearing my cache as soon as the user decided to log out? my role provider timeout is currently set to 20 minutes
If you use Session state instead of cache this is much easier. Simply call Session.Abandon() when the user logs out.

How do I add impersonation in MVC ASP.NET Identity 2.0

I am wondering how I add user impersonation on mvc identity 2.0, I seen some people using this:
FormsAuthentication.SignOut();
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(user.UserName, false);
This wont work for me it wont even sign out I use :
AuthenticationManager.SignOut()
So how do I go along doing this I have admin panel what lists users, I get the userId or userName, what exactly do I have to do? I have never used Claims so I dont understand it much I wont need to revert back to user they can just logout for now.
Here is the solution for anyone who else is having this issue - :
var user = _db.AspNetUsers.Single(a => a.Id == id);
var impersonatedUser = UserManager.FindByName(user.Email);
var impersonatedIdentity = UserManager.CreateIdentity(impersonatedUser, DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie);
AuthenticationManager.SignOut(DefaultAuthenticationTypes.ApplicationCookie);
AuthenticationManager.SignIn(new AuthenticationProperties { IsPersistent = false }, impersonatedIdentity);
Thanks for this question as it helped me find a number of solutions including yours and #trailmax. After some thought I went about this a different way, as I just needed to change some of the Claims to do the impersonation. I call this semi-impersonation, as it just changes a few things rather than totally change the user.
Like trailmax I have written a blog post on my approach with all the code. Below I have summarised how it works.
I add a session cookie with the impersonation information I needed to change in the current user to allow them to access information belonging to another user. I my case I had a key to some data.
I then use the new MVC's 5 AuthenticationFilter OnAuthentication method to a) look for the impersonation cookie. If it found it then it changed the Claims in the current ClaimsPrincipal, which the filter would then propagate through the application.
Coming out of impersonation mode was achieved by deleting the cookie, which you do by setting its expire date to a date prior to now.
The benefits are much more control over the level of access, but it won't work in all cases. In my article I compare my approach with #trailmax's approach to bring out the benefits of each implementation.

Asp.net, where to store the username of logged in user?

When a user log into my asp.net site I use the following code:
FormsAuthentication.RedirectFromLoginPage(userid, false);
As I often need to use the userid I can then later get the userid by:
string userid = System.Web.HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.Name;
Now I also want to show the logged in username on each page and my questions is therefore where do I place the username best if I need to use it on every page. User.Identity.Name is already taken by the userid so I can't use that one. Another solution would be to get the username from the database on each page, but that seems like a bad solution.
So: Is the best way to use Sessions to store the username?
There are essentially 6 different ways to store information, each with it's own benefits and drawbacks.
Class member variables. These are only good for the life of one page refresh.
HttpContext variables. Like class member variables, only good for one page refresh.
ViewState, these are passed from page to page to keep state, but increase the size of the downloaded data. Also, not good for sensitive information as it can be decoded.
Cookies. Sent on each page request. Also not good for sensitive information, even encrypted.
Session. Not passed to the end user, so good for sensitive information, but it increases the resource usage of the page, so minimizing usage for busy sites is important.
Authentication Cookie User Data - This is like like cookies, but can be decoded with the authentication data and used to create a custom IIdentity provider that implements your desired Identity information, such as Name or other profile information. The size is limited, however.
You can store just about anything in SessionState in asp.net. Just be careful and store the right things in the right places (you can also use ViewState to store variables.
Check this out for how to use SessionState to store and retrieve variables across postbacks.
public string currentUser
{
get { return Session["currentUser"] as string; }
private set { Session["currentUser"] = value; }
}
Using sessions isn't a bad idea but make sure to check for NULL when retrieving the values for when the sessions time out.
Or you could pass the variable through in the URL e.g
/Set
Response.Redirect("Webform2.aspx?Username=" + this.txtUsername.Text);
/Read
this.txtBox1.Text = Request.QueryString["Username"];

Using Session to store authentication?

I'm having a lot of problems with FormsAuthentication and as as potential work around I'm thinking about storing the login in the Session?
Login:
Session["Auth.ClientId"] = clientId;
IsAuthenticated:
Session["Auth.ClientId"] != null;
Logout;
Session["Auth.ClientId"] == null;
I'm not really using most of the bells and whistles of FormsAuthentication anyway. Is this a bad idea?
I would not store any valuable information in the session.
For authentication I would use:
if (HttpContext.Current.User.Identity.IsAuthenticated)
{
// Then u use
// this.User.Identity.Name as my membership_id so i could call this everywhere
}else
{
//Redirect to Login
//gettting my LoginPageAddress
Response.Redirect(ConfigurationSettings.AppSettings["LoginPage"]);
}
Login is something like this:
FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie(membership_ID, false)
Anyway hope this helps
i don't think it's an bad idea, i've seen plenty of sites using session together with a db to store auth data, however there are other ways to get around not using the formsauthentication tables but still be able to use things like roles.
How do I create a custom membership provider for ASP.NET MVC 2?
has good examples of that.

Prevent query string manipulation by adding a hash?

To protect a web application from query string manipulation, I was considering adding a query string parameter to every url which stores a SHA1 hash of all the other query string parameters & values, then validating against the hash on every request.
Does this method provide strong protection against user manipulation of query string values? Are there any other downsides/side-effects to doing this?
I am not particularly concerned about the 'ugly' urls for this private web application. Url's will still be 'bookmarkable' as the hash will always be the same for the same query string arguments.
This is an ASP.NET application.
I'm not sure this provides any sort of security. If a man-in-the-middle attacker wants to change the parameters, all they must do is change the query string and recompute the SHA-1 hash and send that request along to the server.
For example, the URL sent by the browser might be:
http://www.example.com/addUser.html?parameterA=foo&hash=SHA1("parameterA=foo")
If an attacker intercepts this, they can edit it in this way:
http://www.example.com/adduser.html?parameterA=bar&hash=SHA1("parameterA=bar")
Really, this boils down to the fact you can trust the hash only as much as the parameters themselves.
One way you could fix this would be if the user has a password that only they and the server knows, then it would be impossible for the attacker to recompute the hash if they change the parameters. For example:
http://www.example.com/addUser.html?parameterA=foo&hash=SHA1("parameterA=foo"+"theuserpassword")
But don't put the password as one of the parameters in the URL :)
It is important to note that this isn't the state of the art for verifying the integrity of messages passed between two parties. What is used today is a form of the Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC) algorithm, which is pretty well described in HMAC, and definitively in RFC2104 and FIPS Pub 198-1.
My solution to prevent query string manipulation with no hash:
In the global.asax file
protected void Application_AuthenticateRequest(Object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// I take the url referer host. (manipulating the query string this value is null or your local address)
string strRefererHost = Request.UrlReferrer == null ? string.Empty : Request.UrlReferrer.Host;
// This is the host name of your application
string strUrlHost = Request.Url.Host;
// I read the query string parameters
string strQSPars = Request.Url.Query ?? string.Empty;
// If the referer is not the application host (... someone manipulated the qs)...
// and there is a query string parameter (be sure of this otherwise nobody can access the default page of your site
// because this page has always a local referer...)
if (strRefererHost != strUrlHost && strQSPars != string.Empty)
Response.Redirect("~/WrongReferer.aspx"); // your error page
}
You might consider using this little open source library:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/aspnet/Univar.aspx
It uses a unique key for each client computer and comes with many other goodies.
I think is a good idea to add a parameter with a hash of all the other parameters. It prevents radically the querystring manipulation, but you have to think about the problem that means use those URLs in other pages of your application, send those URLs to the public or use them in any printed way. You need to have a very good way to order and to have them at hand speccially if those pages are not dynamically created, or if you just need to add those URLs by hand.
I don't see any other problem about it. Some one may tell you that the hash can be calculated, but you can play with the order of the parameters obtaining different hashes and making very difficult to guess.
One major problem with this is that javascript would have to do client-side SHA calculations just to link to pages, this of course depends on how much you use JS but it shouldn't be unresonable to think that a get argument might include pageNo=1, and to have a 'jump to page' input box, this would be made difficult if you add a hash. You could store in a session (server side) anything that you really don't want manipulated.

Resources