Context: I have an application which communicates with a server of the owner. This application requests certain information from the server by accessing some URL's. I don't know these URL's, except for a few, but once I know them, I can manually visit them in the browser and obtain said information.
Goal: Figuring out the URLs of those requests, i.e., what are the requests being made by the application when I'm using it, so that I can, in the future, make them manually myself.
Progress:
Since the communications are in HTTPS, reading the packets with Wireshark while using the application was unsuccessfull since they are encrypted.
However, I was able to find where in the binary of the application is the URL of the server located. Thus, I can theoretically redirect the requests of the application to any other server. Hence, I thought a good idea to be able to receive the unencrypted requests would be to set up a proxy server, redirect the application to it, and then execute the application and obtain the results.
Problem: I don't know how to implement this idea in practice though, and it is here where I'd appreciate your help. I suppose that, ideally, I would be able to both receive the requests made by the application (and thus read them), as well as redirect them to the server and read the received information.
Related
I am trying to find (or write) a caching proxy tool that accepts all traffic from a specific container in my localhost (using Iptables). What I want to do with this traffic is to save it and cache the response, and later, if I see that a request was already sent to a server, return the cached response to the requesting party (and not sending the request to the server again, because a previous similar request was already sent).
Here's a diagram to demonstrate what I'm trying to do:
I'm not sure exactly how big is the problem I'm trying to deal with here. I want to do it for all traffic, including HTTP, TLS and other TCP based traffic (database connections and such). I tried to check mitmproxy, and it seems to deal pretty good with HTTP and the TLS part, but intercepting raw TCP traffic (for databases etc.) is not possible.
Any advices or resources I can use to accomplish that? (Not necessarily in Python). How complex do you think this problem is? Do you think I can find a generic solution?
Thanks in advance!
I'm starting with Websockets and I have a problem.
I have a sails.js application that uses sockets to update the client side.
On the client side it makes an API call using socket.get("/api/v1/actor...") to bring all the items of the database. When I see what the WebSocket's traffic on the Chrome console:
As you can see, the connection has been established and the API call has been correctly done through the socket.
The problem is, there is no answer from the server, not even an error.
If I make the same API call using ajax, I get response, but it doesn't work using WebSockets.
Any idea what might be producing this behavior?
EDIT: I add here the code here that processes the request and this one here that sends the request, but the problem is that it never execute this code. I think we we are closer to the find the cause, since we think it has to do with a network problem. We figured there is an F5 reverse-proxy which is not properly set up to handle websockets
The answer didn't make any sense now that I've seen the code that's why I've edited it. I only answered because I could't comment on your question and ask you for the code.
Your calling code seems correct and the server side of things the process of response should be handled automatically by the framework, you only need to return some JSON in the controller method.
I instantiated a copy of the server (just changed the adapters to run it locally) and the server replied to the web socket requests (although I only tested the route '/index').
Normally when the problems are caused by a reverse proxy the socket simply refuses to connect and you can't even send data to server. Does the property "socket.socket.connected" returns true?
The best way to test is to write a small node application with socket.io client and test it in the same machine that the application server is running, then you can exclude network problems.
I'm trying to determine how much of a security risk I'm looking at
when I have rubycas itself running over https, but my actual sites
running under http. the reason I'm faced with this issue is that the
sites are deployed on heroku, which means ssl is either really
expensive or really a pain.
In addition to the login details, i also pass user rolls
(authorization) to each site that is then stored in a session.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
The problem with this approach is that neither the sessionid (url or cookie) nor the exchanged data is encrypted. Therefore the data can be read and manipulated both on the way from the server to the user and on the way from the user to the server.
Even a passive attacker that can just sniff the traffic without being able to manipulate it, can create damage: The attacker can just copy the sessionid into his or her own browser. Public wireless connections often use a transparent proxy, so both the attacker and the victim have the same public ip-address, which makes it difficult for the application to tell them apart.
There is a tool called Firesheep that makes this kind of attack extremely easy.
This question tries to look into whether doing HTTPS log in is very important for any website.
Is it true that for many websites, if the login is done through HTTP but not HTTPS, then anybody can pretty much see the userID and password easily along the internet highway (or by looking between a router and the internet connection in an Internet Cafe)?
If so... do popular frameworks actually use HTTPS by default (or at least as an option), such as Rails 2.3.5 or Django, CakePHP, or .Net?
Yes, any machine on the pathway (that the packets pass through) can just examine the contents of the those packets. All it takes is a capturing proxy or a promiscuous mode network card with something like WireShark. Assuming that the passwords aren't encrypted in some other way (at a higher level), they will be visible.
I can't answer the second part of your question since I have no knowledge of those particular products but I would say that the inability to use secure sockets would pretty much make them useless.
Pax is right about passwords that aren't otherwise encrypted being visible.
Still, most sites don't use SSL still, and it does put the users at a certain degree of risk when accessing sites from public wifi.
HTTPS isn't a framework level option, it would be something you'd do when you set up the webserver. If you were to use an apache configuration for instance, you would open it up to a properly configured https, close http and install a certification. The framework wouldn't have a direct influence on that portion of the release.
If the user credentials are submitted via an HTML webform without HTTPS, then it is unsecure, the data is submitted in plain text. However, if the website uses HTTP authentication instead, then the server can send back a 401 reply (or 407 for proxies) to any request that does not provide valid credentials. 401/407 is the server's way to ask for credentials, and the reply provides a list of authentication schemes (Digest, NTLM, Negotiate, etc) that the server supports, which are usually more secure by themselves. The client/browser sends the same request again with the necessariy credentials in one of the schemes, then the server either sends the requested data, or sends another 401/407 reply if the credentials are rejected.
I am writing a little app similar to omegle. I have a http server written in Java and a client which is a html document. The main way of communication is by http requests (long polling).
I've implemented some sort of security by using the https protocol and I have a securityid for every client that connects to the server. When the client connects, the server gives it a securityid which the client must always send back when it wants a request.
I am afraid of the man in the middle attack here, do you have any suggestions how I could protect the app from such an attack.
Note that this app is build for theoretical purposes, it won't be ever used for practical reasons so your solutions don't have to be necessarily practical.
HTTPS does not only do encryption, but also authentication of the server. When a client connects, the server shows it has a valid and trustable certificate for its domain. This certificate can not simply be spoofed or replayed by a man-in-the-middle.
Simply enabling HTTPS is not good enough because the web brings too many complications.
For one thing, make sure you set the secure flag on the cookies, or else they can be stolen.
It's also a good idea to ensure users only access the site via typing https://<yourdomain> in the address bar, this is the only way to ensure an HTTPS session is made with a valid certificate. When you type https://<yourdomain>, the browser will refuse to let you on the site unless the server provides a valid certificate for <yourdomain>.
If you just type <yourdomain> without https:// in front, the browser wont care what happens. This has two implications I can think of off the top of my head:
The attacker redirects to some unicode domain with a similar name (ie: looks the same but has a different binary string and is thus a different domain) and then the attacker provides a valid certificate for that domain (since he owns it), the user probably wouldn't notice this...
The attacker could emulate the server but without HTTPS, he would make his own secured connection to the real server and become a cleartext proxy between you and the server, he can now capture all your traffic and do anything he wants because he owns your session.