I want find a platform/language agnostic solution to ensuring the origin of a FORM POST is from an expected source. I.e. Page1.aspx posting to Page2.php within the same web site.
Specifically what I am attempting to do here is to prevent request forgery.
Use a hidden field in your form, which contains a token your app generated. Store the token in the user session. When the form is submitted, your app will check that the value of the hidden field is identical to the value stored in the user session.
If it is identical, then you know the submitted form comes from where it is expected to come.
Old Thread, but might still be useful.
If you do not have session info set (best option) then you can include a hidden field with an encrypted timestamp then compare it (after de-crypt) to the current time on the process end to make sure it is relatively close and thus as recent as you deem necessary.
You could include into the form a hidden field which would be the SHA1Hash("some-secret" + Remote_IP + PerSessionSecret).
The PerSessionSecret is something you autogenerate in the beginning of the session. "some-secret" is a global secret value - which will help a little bit in case the randomly generated PerSessionSecret turns out not to be very random enough.
Then do the same calculation upon the form submission and you know it's most probably submitted from the same client that it was sent to. (Of course, if you have multiple clients behind the single address, like a proxy or a NAT, you can not distinguish between them reliably).
Related
The background first:
I have an application where a logged-in user(employee) X can see a list of all other users (employees). If the logged-in user X is a manager (their designation), then they can also edit certain attributes of the users they manage. For example, the location, designation, and the department of the user being edited. It should be noted X can edit only those employees who report to him/her, which means there are users which X is not allowed to edit.
When X clicks on a user to edit it, they navigate to a page like http:myapp.com/dashboard/editUser/<ID_OF_THE_USER_BEING_EDITED>
Obviously, X can get smart and manually edit the URL and put in the id of a user they are NOT allowed to edit, so before loading the edit form I need to check whether X has the authorization to edit user Y.
if X is authorized to do so, then that page displays a form (with the current attributes of the users pre-filled in the appropriate fields) to edit the user. Else, I display an 'Access Denied' kind of message.
Right now I have created a very badly named temporary endpoint (/api/v1/maybe_edit_user/?jwt=<TOKEN>&userId=<USER_BEING_EDITED>).
This grotesque-looking endpoint does 2 things:
It extracts the currently logged-in user from the token, and checks whether it has the required access level to edit the user (passed through the GET parameter userId)
If yes, then it returns the current attributes (name, email, location, designation, and other stuff) in the response, which is then pre-filled in appropriate fields when the form is displayed.
Once X submits the form, a PUT request is sent to another endpoint (/api/v1/users/<USER_ID_OF_Y> PUT) and the user Y is updated.
While this works, I don't find it attractive. I am trying to learn to write better, cleaner, and more organized code that is compliant with the standards.
The best practices for REST suggest that all endpoints should be nouns. My endpoint, on the other hand, is not even a simple verb. It's a god-forsaken phrase at the very minimum.
So, the questions here are:
How should I name my endpoint.
Should I use a single endpoint to check for permission, AND fetching the attributes of the user being edited, like I am doing right now? Or should I break them into 2 separate endpoints?
The fact that there is an access control list is an unrelated concern; ignore it.
Resource identifier identify resources. Resources are generalizations of documents.
You want an identifier that is consistent with the production rules of RFC 3986, and it is often convenient (but not required) to choose spellings that enable leverage of URI Templates (RFC 6570), but otherwise the machines don't care.
That means you can choose a spelling that makes things easier for humans; you get to choose which humans get priority here.
it returns the current attributes (name, email, location, designation, and other stuff) in the response
That's your hint as to what the document is; some sort of digest of Bob's... profile? employee record? dossier? that is apparently optimized for use in this specific kind of form.
So the identifier could be as simple as
/this-specific-kind-of-form/source-data/Bob
and a request might look like
GET /this-specific-kind-of-form/source-data/Bob HTTP/1.1
Authorization: Bearer <token>
The implementation looks largely like your sketch - verify the token, compare the claims to those that are required, and return either the resource or some flavor of Client Error (4xx).
The best practices for REST suggest that all endpoints should be nouns.
Don't read too much into that.
Notice that all of the following resource identifiers work:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/get
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/post
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/put
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patch
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/delete
You can click on any of those links, and your browser will create the correct HTTP request, and the server will do the expected thing.
I am kind of new to ASP.NET.
I wonder is there any way to restrict user can only enter from a specify page?
Like, I have a Page A to let them enter some information, then when submit, I will use Response.Redirect to Page B. But I don't want the user can go into Page B directly from URL....
If I use Session, then if the user didn't close the browser to end the session, the another user can just go into Page B directly...
Because the computer that access to these pages is using by the public, so I want to see if there is anyway to make sure they only do one way process? Can't go back to previous or jump to another page.
Thanks in Advance.
If you control the other page, start a session and set a session variable to a value that can be reversed that only your server could (or should) create, much like serial keys. For example 72150166 because the sum of every second number equals the sum of every other number (7 + 1 + 0 + 6 = 2 + 5 + 1 + 6) but you could choose an algorithm as complex or as simple as you want. When the user navigates to the second page, check the session variable. This is not invincible security, but it is better than checking the referrer (especially since some browsers do not set it) and I imagine security based on coming from a certain page doesn't have to be that strict.
Edit: You should also add it to a database and link it with the particular user's IP so someone else can't use the same key.
You can use Request.UrlReferrer property in the Page Load of PageB to see which page is the request coming from. If the request is not coming from PageA then redirect the user to PageA.
Check this link for more information: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.web.httprequest.urlreferrer.aspx
Note: UrlReferrer is dependent on a request header and someone can set the header to mimic the request coming from PageA.
You could have the page that redirects send some sort of specifically generated hash/key in the query string that expires quickly and/or once viewed. This should be a lot more solid on the security side.
You will still need some way to store this key or value producing the hash so you can validate it on the receiving end- I would think your DB.
I am looking for some best practices when is comes to creating EditMoels and updating data in an ASP.NET MVC app. Lets say I have a Url like so /Post/Edit?Id=25
I am ensuring the user has permissions to edit the specific post by Id on the Get request and the same for my Post in the controller. I am using the ValidateAntiForgeryToken.
Questions: Should I include the Id property in my EditModel? If so, Should I encrypt it?
The problem is I can use FireBug to edit the Id hiddedinput and edit a different post as long as I have permission to do so. This is not horrible, but seems wrong.
Any help would be great!
There are several ways to prevent this.
The first - don't send sensitive data to the client at all. Keep the post id in session variables, so the user can never edit it. This may or may not be an option depending on your architecture.
The next approach is to convert the direct reference to an indirect one. For example, instead of sending postids = {23452, 57232, 91031} to the client to render a drop-down list, you should send an opaque list {1,2,3}. The server alone knows that 1 means 23452, 2 means 57232 and so on. This way, the user can't modify any parameter you don't want him to.
The last approach is including some kind of hash value that adds as an integrity check. For example, suppose you have 3 hidden fields in a html page - {userId=13223, postId=923, role=author}. You first sort the field names and then concatenate the values to get a string like postId=923&userId=13223&role=author. Then, append a server secret to this string, and hash (SHA-1 or MD5) the entire string. For eg. SHA-1('postId=923&userId=13223&role=author&MySuperSecretKey'). Finally add this hashed value as a hidden parameter. You may also want to add another hidden field called ProtectedParameters=userId,postId,role.
When the next request is made, redo the entire process. If the hash differs, balk the process.
Security wise, I have listed the options in decreasing order. At the same time, its probably in the increasing order of convenience. You have to pick the right mix for your application.
I don't think you should worry with that, if the user does what you said, i suppose that you'll know who edited what, so if he edits the wrong post, doing as you said, you can always remove his edition rights...
If you can't thrist your users, don't let them edit anything...
We use Captcha control in a registration form that we make full client validation for all fields in JavaScript ( JQuery ) beside server validation ..
I tried a lot of ways but all will write the Captcha value in JavaScript that can be accessed by anyone :(
I search if is there any way that allow me validate Captcha value in client side using JQuery in secure way or it can't be done ?
It cannot be done.
Javascript is client-side, as you know, and any code client-side has to be treated as potentially compromised as you don't have control over it.
At best, you could resort to sending up a salted hash of the value along with the salt, but even that in itself could be used to test guess values before actually submitting it.
Everything else relies on calls to the server.
As per comment request, here's the general idea:
Firstly, on the server, calculate a random string to be used as the salt. This should be roughly unique every request. The purpose of this string is to prevent rainbow table attacks.
Now, saving this string separately, but also create another string that is the concatenation of random string and the Captcha answer. Of this new combined string you generate the hash (for example, SHA-1) of it.
using System.Web.Security;
...
string hashVal = FormsAuthentication.HashPasswordForStoringInConfigFile(combined, "SHA1");
Both the random string and the hash value need to be placed in the page for the javascript to be able to read.
On the client side, when a user answers the Captcha, take the random string and concatenate it with the answer (getting the idea here?). Taking this string, you can use something like the SHA-1 JQuery plugin to hash it and compare it with the pre-computed hash you sent up.
hashVal = $.sha1(combinedString)
If it matches, it is (almost) certainly the correct answer. If it doesn't, then it is 100% the wrong answer.
you could use ajax to post the current value to the server, which would respond true or false. that would keep you from doing a real post and also from giving away the catpcha's value in html.
My solution )) Every time when page shows captcha to the user, you can dynamically generate obfuscated JavaScript functions(i think the best way 5 or 10).
For example, one function(or 3)) ) can set cookies with pregenerated hash(server returns it)(from real value of the captcha), other functions must realize server side algorithm to check value which user's typed. I can say that it works for 100%, because it is very hard to parse dynamically javascript + we set user cookies on client side(It is very hard for Bots's to find out where and how you set and check cookies), by using JavaScript.
Should we guard against unanticipated user input from dropdown lists? Is it plausible to expect a user to somehow modify a dropdown list to contain values that weren't originally included?
How can they do this and how can we stop it?
Absolutely check for that.
Do something like this pseudo code on the receiving end:
if { posted_value is_element_of($array_of_your_choices) }
//processing code
else {
//prompt them for good input
}
So for example: Your dropdown list is of Primary Colors they'd like their house painted. You'd have (in PHP)
$colors = array('red', 'blue', 'yellow');
if in_array($_POST['color'], $colors)
{ //process this code! dispatch the painters; }
else {echo "sorry, that's not a real color";}
Edit: This is certainly possible. If your values are being submitted via a GET request, then the user can simply enter www.example.com/?price=0 to get a free house. If it's a POST request, it may seem a little more difficult, but it's really not:
curl_setopt($ch, CURLOPT_POSTFIELDS,"price=0");
People could just use cURL to directly manipulate a POST request, in addition to a trivially large number of other clients.
A user can simply hand-write a HTTP request which has has filled in malicious data. For GET requests, for example, you may have a "State" dropdown that lists Alabama, Arkansas, etc. He may put http://example.com?state=evilstuff just simply into the browser url bar.
This is easily prevented since you already know exactly what is in the dropdown list. Simply checking to see if the input is in that list or not should be sufficient to prevent against injection-like attacks. If he puts in something other than a valid state name, throw an error.
This can only be done by modifying the HTTP response. So,
yes, it can be done and you need to safeguard against it (i.e. check if this can be a security threat and, if yes, validate the input), but
no, you don't need to bring a "nice" error message, since this cannot happen to a normal user "by accident".
When I'm bored, I edit drop-down lists in web sites just for fun. Mostly it just breaks the site, but at least once I could have gotten free or drastically reduced prices on tickets just by playing with the site's hidden fields. (Alas it was for a company I worked for, so I had to instead report the bug.)
Yes, a malicious user can submit data to your server without ever using your form, and could submit data that's not normally included in your dropdown list. This is a trivial form of attack that's often exploited in the real world.
Always check for valid input!
Some of the other answers are absolutely correct, you MUST validate on the server-side ANY data coming from the user side.
At work, we use tools such as the Firefix plug-in Tamper Data to manipulate and view data thats being posted to the server, after any client-side (javascript) validation has been done. Also, you can even use simple tools such as Firebug to visibly alter drop-down boxes to contain values that weren't put there by the server before submitting it.