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.
Related
I keep running into cases were I want to limit access to data rather than methods.
As an example, I have a users table. An individual user's record should be visible only to themselves, the helpdesk, and the user's manager. However, only the manager can edit the user.
I can restricted view and edit methods by the above roles using the authorization attributes, but then I still need to check and see if the current user has the ability to touch the data he is requesting. This is where the authorization attribute falls short.
I'm currently considering adding an "IsAuthorized" method to all of my models to check and see check if the current user is allowed to perform the current action, but this seems tedious in general, so I wanted to see if anyone else had a centralized way of doing this.
Thanks again!!
(Currently coding everything in ASP.NET C# MVC 4.5.)
I have always seen a lot of hidden fields used in web applications. I have worked with code which is written to use a lot of hidden fields and the data values from the visible fields sent back and forth to them. Though I fail to understand why the hidden fields are used. I can almost always think of ways to resolve the same problem without the use of hidden fields. How do hidden fields help in design?
Can anyone tell me what exactly is the advantage that hidden fields provide? Why are hidden fields used?
Hidden fields is just the easiest way, that is why they are used quite a bit.
Alternatives:
storing data in a session server-side (with sessionid cookie)
storing data in a transaction server-side (with transaction id as the single hidden field)
using URL path instead of hidden field query parameters where applicable
Main concerns:
the value of the hidden field cannot be trusted to not be tampered with from page to page (as opposed to server-side storage)
big data needs to be posted every time, could be a problem, and is not possible for some data (for example uploaded images)
Main advantages:
no sticky sessions that spill between pages and multiple browser windows
no server-side cleanup necessary (for expired data)
accessible to client-side scripts
Suppose you want to edit an object. Now it's helpful to put the ID into a hidden field. Of course, you must never rely on that value (i.e. make sure the user has appropriate rights upon insert/update).
Still, this is a very convenient solution. Showing the ID in a visible field (e.g. read-only text box) is possible, but irritating to the user.
Storing the ID in a session / cookie is prohibitive, because it disallows multiple opened edit windows at the same time and imposes lifetime restrictions (session timeout leads to a broken edit operation, very annoying).
Using the URL is possible, but breaks design rules, i.e. use POST when modifying data. Also, since it is visible to the user it creates uglier URLs.
Most typical use I see/use is for IDs and other things that really don't need to be on the page for any other reason than its needed at some point to be sent back to the server.
-edit, should've included more detail-
say for instance you have some object you want to update -- the UI sends back a collection of values and the server at that point may or may not know "hey this is a customer object" so you fire off a request to the server and say "hey, give me ID 7" and now you have your customer object as the system knows it. The updates are applied, validated, whatever and now your UI gets the completed result.
I guess a good excuse/argument is using linq. Try to update an object in linq without getting it from the DB first. It has no real idea that it's something it can keep track of until you get the full object.
heres one reason, convenient way of passing data between client code (javascript) and server side.
There are many useful scenarios.
One is to "store" some data on a page which should not be entered by a user. For example, store the user ID when generate a page, then this value will be auto-submitted with the form back to the server.
One other scenario is security. Add some hidden token to the page and check its existence on the server. This will help identify whether a form was submitted via the browser or by some bot which just posted to some url on your site.
It keeps things out of the URL (as in the querystring) so it keeps that clean. It also keeps things out of Session that may not necessarily need to be in there.
Other than that, I can't think of too many other benefits.
They are generally used to store state as an interaction progresses. Cookies could be used instead, but some people disable them. Could also use a single hidden field to point at server-side state, but then there are session-stickiness issues.
If you are using hidden field in the form, you are increasing the burden of form by including a new control.
If there is no need to take hidden field, you should't take it because it is not suitable on the bases of security point. using hidden field does not come under the good programming. Because it also affect the performance of application.
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.
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 wish to ensure a user has access to an aspx page by 'Zone'. For example, "Financials" is a Security Zone which some users should not have access to.
The result should not involve patterns such as MVP, MVC, MVVM, etc. I'm looking for something that's light and quick to do.
To make things easier I have a base class which each aspx page derives from. What is the easiest/best way to have each page to be checked versus a security zone given the userID?
Thanks.
I've used this, whether it's the best way is seriously questionable. I have a class I derive from Page, called SecurePage. In that I usually have a cross table in a database that lists objects, such as the page, and groups/users that have access to that page. Running a stored procedure using the UserID and the Object name (Page name in this case, but can be a field, or whatever) it returns whether that user or a group that the user belongs in has access. You can check this during the page init, and if it doesn't match up, then response.redirect them or whatever you want to do.
You basically need to create a little ACL implementation. (Access Control List).
Create a acl_roles table, with all your roles (Admin, Accountant, whatever, guest) and stuff. Then link the id of it with your user table, so each user has a role_id.
Then define a acl_resources table, where you add the "zones" in your app and the minimum role they have to be to access it.
Then at the start of each script simply do check if the current user has enough privileges to be in that zone.
There are more details into this, but that is the basic idea.
Yeah, use forms or Windows authentication. You can easily lock down different parts of your site based on the authenticated user's role. Look into using locations.
Why not just use the security features such as forms authentication built into .NET? It's very easy.