I employ the Google maps API on my otherwise SSL-secured site. I invariably therefore get one of these terrible "mixed content" warnings pop up from my web app. This is annoying. I understand that this issue can be fixed when upon moving the app into production I sign up to a premier account with Google. Hurrah. I am just perplexed: the threat from Google to the integrity of my site remains the same whether I pull down their content over HTTP or HTTPS. What's the point, in other words, of browsers putting up this warning?
Thanks.
The threat from Google may remain the same, but when you're loading the Google content over http, it's not just threats from Google you need to worry about; you also need to worry about man-in-the-middle attacks, in which someone pretends to be Google and injects malicious content into your page. With the number of people who use untrusted or insecure wireless networks, it's not too hard to launch a man in the middle attack these days.
Also, https is supposed to protect information going in both directions. If there is content on the page not protected via https, but the user sees the https in the address and lock icon, they may believe that information they enter is secure from eavesdroppers, when in fact some of the information is transmitted in the clear.
the threat from Google to the integrity of my site remains the same whether I pull down their content over HTTP or HTTPS
I think you're using the wrong threat model here. The threat is not that google might act maliciously and send the wrong data to your users. Indeed, SSL would not protect against that.
The actual threat is that a man in the middle (between your users and google) could eavesdrop on the unprotected data to determine what your users are up to, or even modify the unprotected content in order to trick them.
It's the duty of the browser to somehow inform the user that such attacks are possible. Otherwise the user will incorrectly think that everything is secure because he entered an "https" address.
The reason this message exists is that any HTTPS connection is served via SSL, so the browser knows that the data coming in on it is indeed the exact data sent from the server.
This is not the case for any components that have been deliverd via HTTP - these can change components that have been delivered via SSL, so the guarantee that the HTTPS data is correct cannot be maintained.
That's why the warning comes up.
Related
If I set up a simple web server online (eg nginx), and generate a very large random string (such that it is unguessable), and host that endpoint on my domain, eg
example.com/<very-large-random-string>
would I be safe in say, hosting a webapp at that endpoint with no authentication to store my personal information (like a scratch-pad or notes kind of thing)?
I know google docs does this, is there anything special one has to do (again, eg for nginx) to prevent someone from getting a list of all available pages?
I guess I'm asking is there any way for a malicious actor to find out about the existence of such a page, preferably irrespective of what web-server I used.
I'd be pretty alarmed if my online bank started using this system, but it should give you a basic level of security. Bear in mind that this is security through obscurity, which is rather frowned upon and will immediately turn into no security whatsoever the moment someone discovers the hidden URL.
To prevent this from happening, you will need to take a few precautions:
Install an SSL certificate on your server, and always access the url via https, never via http (otherwise the URL path will be sent in plain view and visible to everyone along the way).
Make sure your secure document contains no outgoing links. This includes not only hyperlinks (<a href="...">) but also embedded images, stylesheets, scripts, media files and so on. Otherwise the URL will be leaked to other domains via the Referer request headers.*1
(A bit of a no-brainer, but) make sure there are also no inbound links to this page. Although they aren't so common now, web hosts used to generate automatic "web stats" pages showing the traffic to each web domain. Some content management systems generate a site map automatically. This would be just as bad.
Disable directory browsing on your server. In other words, make sure that someone who visits the directory level above your hidden directory isn't presented with a list of subdirectories.
Bear in mind that the URL will always be visible in your address bar and browser history, and possibly in other places like your browser's cookie jar. Your browser will probably provide the rest of the URL by auto-complete when someone types the domain into your address bar.
*1: Actually, your browser will only send a Referer header when you access other https pages, but still...
I was using Fiddler see on-the-field how web sites use cookies in their login systems. Although I have some HTTP knowledge, I'm just just learning about cookies and how they are used within sites.
Initially I assumed that when submitting the form I'd see no cookies sent, and that the response would contain some cookie info that would then be saved by the browser.
In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. It is the request that's sending in info, and the server returns nothing.
When fiddling about the issue, I noticed that even with a browser cleaned of cookies, the client seems to always be sending a RequestVerificationToken to the server, even when just looking around withot being signed in.
Why is this so?
Thanks
Cookies are set by the server with the Set-Cookie HTTP response header, and they can also be set through JavaScript.
A cookie has a path. If the path of a cookie matches the path of the document that is being requested, then the browser will include all such cookies in the Cookie HTTP request header.
You must make sure to be careful when setting or modifying cookies in order to avoid XSS attacks against your users. As such, it might be useful to include a hidden and unique secret within your login forms, and use such secret prior to setting any cookies. Alternatively, you can simply check that HTTP Referer header matches your site. Otherwise, a malicious site can copy your form fields, and create a login form to your site on their site, and do form.submit(), effectively logging out your user, or performing a brute-force attack on your site through unsuspecting users that happen to be visiting the malicious web-site.
The RequestVerificationToken that you mention has nothing to do with HTTP Cookies, it sounds like an implementation detail that some sites written in some specific site-scripting language use to protect their cookie-setting-pages against XSS attacks.
When you hit a page on a website, usually the response(the page that you landed on) contains instructions from the server in the http response to set some cookies.
Websites may use these to track information about your behavior or save your preferences for future or short term.
Website may do so on your first visit to any page or on you visit to a particular page.
The browser would then send all cookies that have been set with subsequent request to that domain.
Think about it, HTTP is stateless. You landed on Home Page and clicked set by background to blue. Then you went to a gallery page. The next request goes to your server but the server does not have any idea about your background color preference.
Now if the request contained a cookie telling the server about your preference, the website would serve you your right preference.
Now this is one way. Another way is a session. Think of cookies as information stored on client side. But what if server needs to store some temporary info about you on server side. Info that is maybe too sensitive to be exposed in cookies, which are local and easily intercepted.
Now you would ask, but HTTP is stateless. Correct. But Server could keep info about you in a map, whose is the session id. this session id is set on the client side as a cookie or resent with every request in parameters. Now server is only getting the key but can lookup information about you, like whether you are logged in successfully, what is your role in the system etc.
Wow, that a lot of text, but I hope it helped. If not feel free to ask more.
I am successfully able to authenticate Facebook and Google accounts using my Oauth2 servlets. I am using state with a timer and a session cookie to try to verify that it is indeed a legitimate Oauth callback.
Is there any benefit if I also examine the HTTP Referer header to ensure that I was redirected from the provider's OAuth page?
If no benefit, could there be a problem if I also examine the HTTP Referer field?
No.
I can simulate any headers I want as a malicious attacker. I can make it look like I'm coming from http://cia.fbi.gov.vpn/uber1337h4x. This is obvious and well known.
Any pages coming from HTTPS do not send a refer header as per RFC2616 sec15:
Clients SHOULD NOT include a Referer header field in a (non-secure) HTTP request if the referring page was transferred with a secure protocol.
Breaks usability as per RFC2616 sec15:
Because the source of a link might be private information or might reveal an otherwise private information source, it is strongly recommended that the user be able to select whether or not the Referer field is sent.
In short, you are not given greater security. Your security is not in inspecting a vastly insecure transport protocol, it's in the OAuth layer. You also break usability.
Don't do it.
The answer is:
No, you shouldn't use it, and there is NO valuable benefit of doing it.
Authorization Servers are very aware of this also. And here was stated.
From the mailing list of OAuth-WG:
Callback URL pages SHOULD redirect to a trusted page immediately after receiving the authorization code in the URL. This prevents the authorization code from remaining in the browser history, or from inadvertently leaking in a referer header.
If you are worry about CSRF, you SHOULD NOT use the HTTP Referer as a technique to verify the origin of an authorization, that's why the parameter state is (which sound you're using).
If you worry about an specific security concern of the oauth2 protocol, there is a full section inside the draft.
If you worry about other Security Considerations, this is the source.
I suggest you give all your effort implementing all the validations around the param: state.
Edit:
After reading the nuances of the question, you are really answered your own question. The use of cookies (probably HTML5 local storage) for both cases, is the best solution we know so far.
The first nuance is about CSRF and one of the possible countermeasures available is Checking the HTTP Referer header, and this was already addressed in the protocol.
The second nuance, I'm not completly sure, but is probably a case of Extension Grant, this is because it sounds that you may work as an "auth proxy requester", same as SAML oauth2 extension.
Don't verify the HTTP referer; the "state" parameter (which it sounds you're using) is the approach OAuth 2.0 defines to defend against cross-site request forgery (CSRF) attacks.
You may want to have a look at the new O'Reilly book Getting Started with OAuth 2.0 by Ryan Boyd. It describes this and related security considerations.
Plain security was not a concern of the question because the state parameter is being used.
The main concerns I had in mind were:
Whether it is the same browser that my app sent to Facebook that's coming back to present a candidate token?
Whether the agent (browser-like agent) or agents are repeatedly doing OAuth requests and presenting me with bad OAuth tokens that cause my app to repeatedly contact Facebook with bad tokens leading to potentially adverse treatment by Facebook.
The only possible solution to the first problem is to also set a cookie in addition to using state. referer would help if most providers weren't using https.
The second problem has a nuance. The mis-behaving agents need not be directly controlled by a malicious entity. They may be normal users browsers redirected via some indirect means (a popular hijacked website, social engineering).
Because of the nuance there is a chance that the referer header may not be forged. However, https precludes any meaningful benefit.
Cookies definitely help in the second case also because if you are setting cookies in a POST no third-party website can cause them to be set and you cannot be flooded with bad OAuth responses due to hacked websites redirecting users en masse to OAuth you.
This is not a clear answer (or question) but hopefully this shows the nuances behind the question.
I was recently looking around at some of the features my current web host offers, and am now wondering about a few things. Even if you can only answer part of this, I appreciate any help you can provide.
I have a domain, mydomian.com, and the host offers shared SSL so I can use HTTPS by using this address https://mydomain.myhost.com. The SSL certificate is good for *.myhost.com.
I don't know a lot about SSL, but I'm assuming this means that the data between site users and ANY domain on myhost.com is encrypted. So was curious if this meant that if someone else on the same host as me somehow intercepted the data from my site would they be able to view it, since they would also have a https://theirdomain.myhost.com address, which uses the same SSL certificate? I may have no idea at all, and this was pretty much a guess.
If HTTPS is used on a login page, but after logging in the other pages are viewed over HTTP, is this a security issue?
Is there any way to show a web form via HTTP for bots like Google, but have real users redirected to the HTTPS version? Would be ideal if this could be done via .htaccess. I currently have some rewrite rules that redirect certain pages to HTTPS, but the rest as HTTP. So if a visitor visits the contact form they get the HTTPS version automatically, but it automatically switches back to HTTP for pages that don't contain forms. So, via htaccess, is there a way to direct real users to the HTTPS version, but have bots directed to the HTTP version? I would like these pages to still be indexed by the search engines, but would like users to see it via HTTPS.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.
I'm going to guess you'll be okay for number one. If your host does it correctly, individual subdomains never get to see the SSL keys. Here's how it would work:
Some guy with a browser sends an encrypted request to your subdomain server.
Your host's master server receives the request and decrypts it.
The master server sends the decrypted request to your subdomain server.
And any HTTPS responses you send back go through that process in reverse. It should be easy to check if they've set things up that way: If you can set up shared SSL without personally handling any key files, you're good. If you actually get your hands on some key files... not good.
For two: If you encrypt the login, you protect the passwords, which is good. But if you switch back to HTTP afterwards, you open yourself up to other attacks. See: Firesheep. There may be others.
And for three. Yes - definitely doable. Check out mod_rewrite. Can't give you an example, as I've never used this particular case, but I can point you to this page - particularly the section entitled "Browser Dependent Content."
Hope that helps!
Every traffic is encrypted, when you use https:// as protocol. (Except for some uncommon circumstances I won't talk about here). An SSL certificate's purpose is to prove the identity of the server, by combining it's public key with an identity. This certificate is only usable with the private key that belongs to the public one. In your case it seems that this certificate as well as the key-pair is provided by your hosting provider. I guess that neither you nor the other customers on the host have access to this private key. That means that only your provider is able to decrypt the traffic. Since that's always the case (he's running the server, so has access to every data), that should be no problem.
In most cases it is a security issue. On every further unencrypted http-request the client has to provide some information of the session to the server. These can be intercepted and used by an attacker. (simply speaking)
The bots should support https, why not redirect them? Anyhow: The important part is not to provide the page containing the form via https. To protect your user's data you should take care that the response is transferred via https.
I would like to create web application with admin/checkout sections being secured. Assuming I have SSL set up for subdomain.mydomain.com I would like to make sure that all that top-secret stuff ;) like checkout pages and admin section is transferred securely. Would it be ok to structure my application as below?
subdomain.mydomain.com
adminSectionFolder
adminPage1.php
adminPage2.php
checkoutPagesFolder
checkoutPage1.php
checkoutPage2.php
checkoutPage3.php
homepage.php
loginPage.php
someOtherPage.php
someNonSecureFolder
nonSecurePage1.php
nonSecurePage2.php
nonSecurePage3.php
imagesFolder
image1.jpg
image2.jpg
image3.jpg
Users would access my web application via http as there is no need for SSL for homepage and similar. Checkout/admin pages would have to be accessed via https though (that I would ensure via .htaccess redirects). I would also like to have login form on every page of the site, including non-secure pages. Now my questions are:
if I have form on non-secure page e.g http://subdomain.mydomain.com/homepage.php and that form sends data to https://subdomain.mydomain.com/loginPage.php, is data being send encrypted as if it were sent from https://subdomain.mydomain.com/homepage.php? I do realize users will not see padlock, but browser still should encrypt it, is it right?
EDIT: my apologies.. above in bold I originally typed http but meant https, my bad
2.If on secure page loginPage.php (or any other accessed via https for that instance) I created session, session ID would be assigned, and in case of my web app. something like username of the logged in user. Would I be able to access these session variable from http://subdomain.mydomain.com/homepage.php to for example display greeting message? If session ID is stored in cookies then it would be trouble I assume, but could someone clarify how it should be done? It seems important to have username and password send over SSL.
3.Related to above question I think.. would it actually make any sense to have login secured via SSL so usenrame/password would be transferred securely, and then session ID being transferred with no SSL? I mean wouldnt it be the same really if someone caught username and password being transferred, or caught session ID? Please let me know if I make sense here cause it feels like I'm missing something important.
EDIT: I came up with idea but again please let me know if that would work. Having above, so assuming that sharing session between http and https is as secure as login in user via plain http (not https), I guess on all non secure pages, like homepage etc. I could check if user is already logged in, and if so from php redirect to https version of same page. So user fills in login form from homepage.php, over ssl details are send to backend so probably https://.../homepage.php. Trying to access http://.../someOtherPage.php script would always check if session is created and if so redirect user to https version of this page so https://.../someOtherPage.php. Would that work?
4.To avoid browser popping message "this page contains non secure items..." my links to css, images and all assets, e.g. in case of http://subdomain.mydomain.com/checkoutPage1.php should be absolute so "/images/image1.jpg" or relative so "../images/image1.jpg"? I guess one of those would have to work :)
wow that's long post, thanks for your patience if you got that far and any answers :) oh yeh and I use php/apache on shared hosting
If the SSL termination is on the webserver itself, then you'll probably need to configure seperate document roots for the secure and non-secure parts - while you could specify that these both reference the same physical directory, you're going to get tied in knots switching between the parts. Similarly if your SSL termination is before the webserver you've got no systematic separation of the secure and non-secure parts.
Its a lot tidier to separate out the secure and non-secure parts into seperate trees - note that if you have non-SSL content on a secure page, the users will get warning messages.
Regards your specific questions
NO - whether data is encrypted depends on where it is GOING TO, not where it is coming from
YES - but only if you DO NOT set the secure_only cookie flag - note that if you follow my recommendations above, you also need to ensure that the cookie path is set to '/'
the page which processes the username and password MUST be secure. If not then you are exposing your clients authentication details (most people use the same password for all the sites they visit) and anyone running a network sniffer or proxy would have access.
Your EDIT left me a bit confused. SSL is computationally expensive and slow - so you want to minimise its use - but you need to balance this with your users perception of security - don't keep switching from SSL to non-SSL, and although its perfectly secure for users to enter their details on a page served up by non-SSL which sends to a SSL page, the users may not understand this distinction.
See the first part of my answer above.
C.