Encrypt / Decrypt in asp.net using RsaProtectedConfigurationProvider - asp.net

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.

Related

How to manage passwords in scripts [duplicate]

When a PHP application makes a database connection it of course generally needs to pass a login and password. If I'm using a single, minimum-permission login for my application, then the PHP needs to know that login and password somewhere. What is the best way to secure that password? It seems like just writing it in the PHP code isn't a good idea.
Several people misread this as a question about how to store passwords in a database. That is wrong. It is about how to store the password that lets you get to the database.
The usual solution is to move the password out of source-code into a configuration file. Then leave administration and securing that configuration file up to your system administrators. That way developers do not need to know anything about the production passwords, and there is no record of the password in your source-control.
If you're hosting on someone else's server and don't have access outside your webroot, you can always put your password and/or database connection in a file and then lock the file using a .htaccess:
<files mypasswdfile>
order allow,deny
deny from all
</files>
The most secure way is to not have the information specified in your PHP code at all.
If you're using Apache that means to set the connection details in your httpd.conf or virtual hosts file file. If you do that you can call mysql_connect() with no parameters, which means PHP will never ever output your information.
This is how you specify these values in those files:
php_value mysql.default.user myusername
php_value mysql.default.password mypassword
php_value mysql.default.host server
Then you open your mysql connection like this:
<?php
$db = mysqli_connect();
Or like this:
<?php
$db = mysqli_connect(ini_get("mysql.default.user"),
ini_get("mysql.default.password"),
ini_get("mysql.default.host"));
Store them in a file outside web root.
For extremely secure systems we encrypt the database password in a configuration file (which itself is secured by the system administrator). On application/server startup the application then prompts the system administrator for the decryption key. The database password is then read from the config file, decrypted, and stored in memory for future use. Still not 100% secure since it is stored in memory decrypted, but you have to call it 'secure enough' at some point!
This solution is general, in that it is useful for both open and closed source applications.
Create an OS user for your application. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_privilege
Create a (non-session) OS environment variable for that user, with the password
Run the application as that user
Advantages:
You won't check your passwords into source control by accident, because you can't
You won't accidentally screw up file permissions. Well, you might, but it won't affect this.
Can only be read by root or that user. Root can read all your files and encryption keys anyways.
If you use encryption, how are you storing the key securely?
Works x-platform
Be sure to not pass the envvar to untrusted child processes
This method is suggested by Heroku, who are very successful.
if it is possible to create the database connection in the same file where the credentials are stored. Inline the credentials in the connect statement.
mysql_connect("localhost", "me", "mypass");
Otherwise it is best to unset the credentials after the connect statement, because credentials that are not in memory, can't be read from memory ;)
include("/outside-webroot/db_settings.php");
mysql_connect("localhost", $db_user, $db_pass);
unset ($db_user, $db_pass);
If you are using PostgreSQL, then it looks in ~/.pgpass for passwords automatically. See the manual for more information.
Previously we stored DB user/pass in a configuration file, but have since hit paranoid mode -- adopting a policy of Defence in Depth.
If your application is compromised, the user will have read access to your configuration file and so there is potential for a cracker to read this information. Configuration files can also get caught up in version control, or copied around servers.
We have switched to storing user/pass in environment variables set in the Apache VirtualHost. This configuration is only readable by root -- hopefully your Apache user is not running as root.
The con with this is that now the password is in a Global PHP variable.
To mitigate this risk we have the following precautions:
The password is encrypted. We extend the PDO class to include logic for decrypting the password. If someone reads the code where we establish a connection, it won't be obvious that the connection is being established with an encrypted password and not the password itself.
The encrypted password is moved from the global variables into a private variable The application does this immediately to reduce the window that the value is available in the global space.
phpinfo() is disabled. PHPInfo is an easy target to get an overview of everything, including environment variables.
Your choices are kind of limited as as you say you need the password to access the database. One general approach is to store the username and password in a seperate configuration file rather than the main script. Then be sure to store that outside the main web tree. That was if there is a web configuration problem that leaves your php files being simply displayed as text rather than being executed you haven't exposed the password.
Other than that you are on the right lines with minimal access for the account being used. Add to that
Don't use the combination of username/password for anything else
Configure the database server to only accept connections from the web host for that user (localhost is even better if the DB is on the same machine) That way even if the credentials are exposed they are no use to anyone unless they have other access to the machine.
Obfuscate the password (even ROT13 will do) it won't put up much defense if some does get access to the file, but at least it will prevent casual viewing of it.
Peter
We have solved it in this way:
Use memcache on server, with open connection from other password server.
Save to memcache the password (or even all the password.php file encrypted) plus the decrypt key.
The web site, calls the memcache key holding the password file passphrase and decrypt in memory all the passwords.
The password server send a new encrypted password file every 5 minutes.
If you using encrypted password.php on your project, you put an audit, that check if this file was touched externally - or viewed. When this happens, you automatically can clean the memory, as well as close the server for access.
Put the database password in a file, make it read-only to the user serving the files.
Unless you have some means of only allowing the php server process to access the database, this is pretty much all you can do.
If you're talking about the database password, as opposed to the password coming from a browser, the standard practice seems to be to put the database password in a PHP config file on the server.
You just need to be sure that the php file containing the password has appropriate permissions on it. I.e. it should be readable only by the web server and by your user account.
An additional trick is to use a PHP separate configuration file that looks like that :
<?php exit() ?>
[...]
Plain text data including password
This does not prevent you from setting access rules properly. But in the case your web site is hacked, a "require" or an "include" will just exit the script at the first line so it's even harder to get the data.
Nevertheless, do not ever let configuration files in a directory that can be accessed through the web. You should have a "Web" folder containing your controler code, css, pictures and js. That's all. Anything else goes in offline folders.
Just putting it into a config file somewhere is the way it's usually done. Just make sure you:
disallow database access from any servers outside your network,
take care not to accidentally show the password to users (in an error message, or through PHP files accidentally being served as HTML, etcetera.)
Best way is to not store the password at all!
For instance, if you're on a Windows system, and connecting to SQL Server, you can use Integrated Authentication to connect to the database without a password, using the current process's identity.
If you do need to connect with a password, first encrypt it, using strong encryption (e.g. using AES-256, and then protect the encryption key, or using asymmetric encryption and have the OS protect the cert), and then store it in a configuration file (outside of the web directory) with strong ACLs.
Actually, the best practice is to store your database crendentials in environment variables because :
These credentials are dependant to environment, it means that you won't have the same credentials in dev/prod. Storing them in the same file for all environment is a mistake.
Credentials are not related to business logic which means login and password have nothing to do in your code.
You can set environment variables without creating any business code class file, which means you will never make the mistake of adding the credential files to a commit in Git.
Environments variables are superglobales : you can use them everywhere in your code without including any file.
How to use them ?
Using the $_ENV array :
Setting : $_ENV['MYVAR'] = $myvar
Getting : echo $_ENV["MYVAR"]
Using the php functions :
Setting with the putenv function - putenv("MYVAR=$myvar");
Getting with the getenv function - getenv('MYVAR');
In vhosts files and .htaccess but it's not recommended since its in another file and its not resolving the problem by doing it this way.
You can easily drop a file such as envvars.php with all environment variables inside and execute it (php envvars.php) and delete it. It's a bit old school, but it still work and you don't have any file with your credentials in the server, and no credentials in your code. Since it's a bit laborious, frameworks do it better.
Example with Symfony (ok its not only PHP)
The modern frameworks such as Symfony recommends using environment variables, and store them in a .env not commited file or directly in command lines which means you wether can do :
With CLI : symfony var:set FOO=bar --env-level
With .env or .env.local : FOO="bar"
Documentation :

System.Security.Cryptography.CryptographicException: Not enough storage is available to process this command

Our asp.net app was working fine, then the DBA decided to encrypt the db password in the web.config. Now I'm getting this error:
System.Security.Cryptography.CryptographicException: Not enough storage is available to process this command.
There is only one other article on SO that has this error listed and the user resorted to a refactor instead of identifying a solution.
The weird thing is that we have plenty of space (RAM, HDD, etc). Even more weird, three of the people on my team don't have this problem (with the exact same url). Another guy had it yesterday, but it works today.
I'm worried about when we move this to prod. Especially, if this needs some kind of incremental storage or permissions for EACH user.
Edit: The other error that seems to show up is:
"Failed to decrypt using provider 'RsaProtectedConfigurationProvider'"
It turns out that this is a generic error message that happens whenever the server has trouble decrypting with RSA. Not very helpful, because it is misleading (at worst) and at best, very vague.
For us, the error was only happening for me because our dev servers are load-balanced (which I didn't know till today). The encryption key was generated on one machine (server1) and installed on both servers. When I got load-balanced onto server2, I see this error (so would anyone else on server2).
The solution is to export the private key from server1 and install it onto server2.

ASP app cannot open RSA key container (NTE_BAD_KEYSET error)

Having difficulty making CryptAcquireContext work for a .NET app. I've created the key, but it's throwing error NTE_BAD_KEYSET.
The documentation suggests that the trouble is with permissions, but I'm not quite sure who to give permission to. So far have tried:
SYSTEM
NETWORK
NETWORK SERVICE
ASPNET
Administrators
Cryptographic Operators
No dice.
Any ideas?
This is a machine key.
UPDATE: Gave access to EVERYONE and that seems to have worked. However, it seems like a bad security practice. The question stands: who should actually be getting access?

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

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.

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.

Resources