I'm using ASP.Net but my question is a little more general than that. I'm interested in reading about strategies to prevent users from fooling with their HTML form values and links in an attempt to update records that don't belong to them.
For instance, if my application dealt with used cars and had links to add/remove inventory, which included as part of the URL the userid, what can I do to intercept attempts to munge the link and put someone else's ID in there? In this limited instance I can always run a check at the server to ensure that userid XYZ actually has rights to car ABC, but I was curious what other strategies are out there to keep the clever at bay. (Doing a checksum of the page, perhaps? Not sure.)
Thanks for your input.
The following that you are describing is a vulnerability called "Insecure Direct Object References" And it is recognized by A4 in the The OWASP top 10 for 2010.
what can I do to intercept attempts to
munge the link and put someone else's
ID in there?
There are a few ways that this vulnerability can be addressed. The first is to store the User's primary key in a session variable so you don't have to worry about it being manipulated by an attacker. For all future requests, especially ones that update user information like password, make sure to check this session variable.
Here is an example of the security system i am describing:
"update users set password='new_pass_hash' where user_id='"&Session("user_id")&"'";
Edit:
Another approach is a Hashed Message Authentication Code. This approach is much less secure than using Session as it introduces a new attack pattern of brute force instead of avoiding the problem all togather. An hmac allows you to see if a message has been modified by someone who doesn't have the secret key. The hmac value could be calculated as follows on the server side and then stored as a hidden variable.
hmac_value=hash('secret'&user_name&user_id&todays_date)
The idea is that if the user trys to change his username or userid then the hmac_value will not be valid unless the attacker can obtain the 'secret', which can be brute forced. Again you should avoid this security system at all costs. Although sometimes you don't have a choice (You do have a choice in your example vulnerability).
You want to find out how to use a session.
Sessions on tiztag.
If you keep track of the user session you don't need to keep looking at the URL to find out who is making a request/post.
Related
I am developing an HTTP server application (in PHP, it so happens). I am concerned about table IDs appearing in URLs. Is it possible to encrypt URL variables and values to protect my application?
oh ok, so for sensitive information best to use sessions then, are table Ids etc safe to throw in the GET var?
Yes, sensitive information must not leave your server in the first place. Use sessions.
As for "are table ids safe in the URL": I don't know, is there anything bad a user could do knowing a table id? If so, you need to fix that. Usually you need to pass some kind of id around though, whether that's the "native table id" or some other random id you dream up usually doesn't matter. There's nothing inherently insecure about showing the id of a record in the URL, that by itself means absolutely nothing. It's how your app uses this id that may or may not open up security holes.
Additionally think about whether a user can easily guess other ids he's not supposed to know and whether that means anything bad for your security.
Security isn't a one-off thing, you need to think about it in every single line of code you write.
Sounds like you want to pass sensitive information as a GET param.
Don't do that - use $_SESSION if you can.
However, if you want your params encoded (i.e. => +) use urlencode().
$a = 'how are you?';
echo urlencode($a); // how+are+you%3F
You can encrypt what you pass before you transmit, or you can run the entire communication over an encrypted channel (https or ssh for instance).
Your GET variables are called whatever you choose to call them, and assigned whatever values you choose to give them. So, yes: they can certainly be encrypted or, if you'd rather, simply obscured. If you're planning to encrypt variables, then PHP has quite a few options available.
For the above, I'd recommend using something like urlencode.
In general I'd suggest using POST instead of GET, assuming you're getting your variables from a form element. On the other hand it might be even wiser to use session variables.
Maybe this article can give you more ideas...
http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1nZ6bS/:1PcFQMI0:6oJD.Hd1/www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-php-encrypt/index.html/
Can anybody detail some approach on how to save private data in social websites like facebook, etc. They cant save all the updates and friends list in clear text format because of privacy issues. So how do they actually save it?
Hashing all the data with user password so that only a valid session view it is one possibility. But I think there are some problem with this approach and there must be some better solution.
They can and probably do save it in plain text - it goes into a database on a server somewhere. There aren't really privacy issues there... and even if there were, Facebook has publicly admitted they don't care about privacy.
Most applications do not encrypt data like this in the database. The password will usally be stored in a salted hash, and the application artchitecture is responsible for limiting visibility based on appropriate rights/roles.
Most websites do in fact save updates and friends list in clear text format---that is, they save them in an SQL database. If you are a facebook developer you can access the database using FQL, the Facebook Query Language. Queries are restricted so that you can only look at the data of "friends" or of people running your application, or their friends, or what have you. (The key difference between SQL and FQL is that you must always include a WHERE X=id where the X is a keyed column.)
There are other approaches, however. You can store information in a Bloom filter or in some kind of hash. You might want to read Peter Wayner's book Translucent Databases---he goes into clever approaches for storing data so that you can detect if it is present or missing, but you can't do brute force searches.
This is my first MVC/Linq to SQL Application. I'm using the out of the box SQL Membership with ASP.NET to track users through my system.
As most of you know, the UserId is a guid, great. However, to link other user-created tables in the system, I decided to go with username instead of userid. The reason I did this was because:
Username is unique anyway
It prevents me from having to make an extra call when handling db functions.
So for example: I don't have to do a look up on the userid based on username to create a new story; I simply insert User.Identity.Name into the story table.
Now I did run into some nasty complication, which seems to be related to this. It worked fine on my local machine, but not on the host. I continually got an error that went something like this:
"System.InvalidCastException: Specified cast is not valid. at System.Data.Linq.IdentityManager.StandardIdentityManager.SingleKeyManager"...
This happened whenever an insert on the db occurred on the host. If I understand correctly, this is a bug currently that happens when you link a non integer field (in my case username) to another table of a non integer field (username in aspnet_user). Although the bug reported seems a little bit different, maybe they are similar?
https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=351358
In any case, MS bug or not - is storing the username instead of the userid in my tables a bad idea? If it is, why?
Update
I just wanted to add some more context here. A good point people are bringing up is that this is dangerous if I want to allow users to change their username in the future. Perfectly valid!
However, this application relies heavily on the username. Each user creates one and only one story. They then link to their story by using: mysite/username. Therefore, the application will never allow them to change their username. It would cause a potential nightmare for people who follow the link only to see it no longer exists.
Be careful regarding your comment regarding usernames are unique. The minute Anita Takeabath gets married to Seymour Butts suddenly atakebath wants to be abutts.
Just a thought!
I've used the same approach as you and it works. Do you have a relationship between your application table and the table from the membership db? If so, you may want to remove that relationship.
My only thought would be in order to future proof your application, the userid would offer flexibility in users changing their username, as the userid would remain constant (like SO for instance).
But that is something that has to fit your application requirements. Then again requirements often tend to change wihtout a developers control.
It's bad for the following reasons:
You mentioned avoiding extra database calls. However, by joining tables, there is no "extra" call to database. You can argue that joining is expensive than no joining at all. However, most likely, a store needs more user information than a user login name (note: user names are not unique, user login names are unique). So you need joining anyway for most database operations.
User login names have different length, it doesn't perform well when they are used in joining.
Edit: modified format. I am still learning how to make my post look better:-)
If the reason you're implementing this is for easier access to the User's GUID, I suggest having your FormsAuthentication.SetAuthCookie use the users's GUID as the name property and use User.Identity.Name throughout your application.
Using username as the unique identifier could have bad consequences in the future. Should you want to allow the user change their username in the future, you will have a hard time implementing that.
I'm writing an Asp.Net WebForms app where I am calling an edit page an passing in the data about the record to be edited using query string parameters in the URL.
Like:
http://myapp.path/QuoteItemEdit.aspx?PK=1234&DeviceType=12&Mode=Edit
On a previous page in the app, I have presented the user with a GridView of screened items he can edit based on his account privileges, and I call the edit page with these above parameter list, and the page know what to do. I do NOT do any additional checking on the target page to validate whether the user has access to the passed in PK record value as I planned to rely on the previous page to filter the list down and I would be fine.
However, it is clear the user can now type in a URL to a different PK and get access to edit that record. (Or, he may have access to Mode=View, but not Mode=Edit or Mode=Delete. Basically, I was hoping to avoid validating the record and access rights on the target page.
I have also tested the same workflow using Session variables to store PK, DeviceType, and Mode before calling the target page, and then reading them from Session in the target page. So there are no query string paramaters involved. This would take control away from the user.
So, I'm looking for feedback on these two approaches so that I choose an accepted/standard way of dealing with this, as it seems like a very common app design pattern for CRUD apps.
Agreed, you'll want to validate permissions on the target page, it's the only way to be absolutely sure. When it comes to security, redundancy isn't a bad thing. Secure your database as if you don't trust the business layer, secure your business layer as if you don't trust the UI, and secure the UI as well.
You should always validate before the real execution of the action, especially if passing the parameters by query string. For the second page that does the execution you might not need as much feedback for the user since you do not have to be nice to the user if he tries to cirumvent your security, so error handling should be a lot easier.
Passing the variables per session is acceptable but imho you should still validate the values.
We always use querystrings so records can be bookmarked easily, however always validate in both places, if you write you access control code nicely it should just be a case of re-using the existing code...
I believe the common practice is to do what you're avoiding: On the original page, you need to check to see what the user should have capabilities to do, and display their options appropriately. Then on the actual work page, you need to check the user again to verify they are allowed to be there, with access to that specific task.
From a usability standpoint, this is what the user would want (keeps it simple, allows them to bookmark certain pages, etc), and security on both pages is the only way to do this.
If you really don't want to check access rights on the target page:
You could hash the PK with the UserID and then add the hash value to the query string.
string hash = hashFunction(PK.toString() + UserID.toString());
Then you have to make sure the hash in the queryString equals the hash value calculated before loading the page.
Assuming this is an internal organization Web application.
Session variables can be manipulated as well, although not as easily. Whatever authentication you're using throughout your site, you should definitely use on your target page as well. Otherwise, you'll be open to exposing data you may not want as you have found out.
You could do the following to make your URLs a bit more secure:
-Use Guids for Primary Keys so users cant guess other record ID's
-The Mode couls be implicit: Guid = Edit, no Guid = New
and..
-Server-side validation is the only way to go.
I have a list of books obtained from the database. When a user selects a book, I'd like it to retrieve the information for that book and display it on screen. However, I'd like to keep the ID of the book hidden from the client-side, so what would be the best way to transfer the ID of the selected book? I think my brain has melted, so I'm probably missing something obvious. Sessions seem to be the only way to not have any ID information transferred, but I'm not sure how to implement a system where an item is selected (from whichever control type is most suited) and the ID of the item is somehow picked up by the server and the relevant information retrieved. (Using ASP.NET + SQL Server).
Thanks for any advice
Do you really want to hide the database id from the user, as in a scenario where the user has some alternate access to the database and you want him to search for the book the hard way?
Usually the requirement is not to keep the ID secret, but to prevent the user from figuring out IDs of other items (eg. to enforce a certain funnel of navigation to reach an item) or from sharing the ID with other users. So for example is ok to have an URL http://example.com/books/0867316672289 where the 0867316672289 will render the same book to the same visitor, but the user cannot poke around the value, so 0867316672288 or 0867316672290 will land 404s. It may also be required that another user entering 0867316672289 gets also a 404.
Keeping the ID truly 'secret' (ie. storing it in session and having the session state keep track of 'current book') adds little value over the scheme described above and only complicates things.
One solution is to encrypt the IDs using a site secret key. From a int ID you get a 16 bytes encrypted block (eg if AES block size is used) that can be reverted back by the site into the original ID on subsequent visits. Visitors cannot guess other IDs due to the sheer size of the solution space (16 bytes). If you want also to make the pseudo-ids sticky to an user you can make the encryption key user specific (eg. derived from user id) or add extra information into the pseudo-id (eg. encrypt also the user-id and check it in your request handler).
Is exposing the IDs a risk? (SO question)
How about using a "pseudo id" for each book? I am assuming you need something on the client side to tell the server which book the client chose.
Generate a Guid for each book to use as the web side "pseudo id", that should keep the real id fairly secure.
I am not sure I understand your question, because the answer seems too obvious: just don't send the entity's id to the client. Use it on the server side to compose the ASP.NET page, but don't include the id itself on the output page that is sent to the client.
Does this make sense? :-)