I have an https site that needs data from an API that is only available in http.
To get around the mixed content warning, I changed it so the JS requests a path on the server, which then makes the http request and returns the data.
Is this bad? If it is bad, why?
My understanding of what you're doing :
You are providing a HTTPS url on your server which is essentially acting as a proxy, making a backend connection between your server and the API provider over HTTP.
If my understanding of what you're doing is correct, then what you're doing is better than just serving everything over HTTP...
You are providing security between the client and your server. Most security threats that would take advantage of a plain HTTP connection are in the local environment of the client - such as on a shared local network. Dodgy wifi in a cafe. School lans. etc.
The connection between your server and the API provider is unencrypted but apparently they only provide that unencrypted anyway. This is really the best you can do unless your API provider starts providing an HTTPS interface.
It's more secure than doing nothing and should eliminate the browser errors.
If there is a real need for security (PCI compliance, HIPAA etc) however, you should stop using that API. However it seems unlikely considering the circumstantial evidence in your question.
Related
I am recentlly finding a solution of Web Security, As far as i known the HTTPS will bring more security web, but i found another Security solution of JOSE(JWT&JWE) so i want to known, i use it in the future, can i just use HTTP only but without HTTPS ?
Kris.
Thanks
Your question is legit to me and I am sorry to see that you received downvotes.
As far as i known the HTTPS will bring more security web, but i found another Security solution of JOSE(JWT&JWE)
I think there is a confusion between the both technologies.
JWE is just a format that represents content using JSON based data structures and that provides integrity protection and encryption whereas HTTPS is a secured layer for the HTTP communication protocol.
JWE is not a replacement to the HTTPS protocol.
The use of one technology, the other one or both of them only depends on your application context. HTTPS may not be absolutely necessary in some contexts and the secured communication provided by other means.
You mentioned that you want to find a solution for a security application. A secured connection should be always used in that context.
You absolutely need HTTPS even if you are using JWTs and JWEs. HTTPS allows your client to verify that they are talking to the server they are expecting to talk to. It also protects the content of the communication, including the JWT/JWE tokens that you are using. Without HTTPS, anybody who can listen to the communication between your client and your server can impersonate your clients.
JWTs in particular can carry information about your user. You may not need to forward it to the authorization server that granted the token (if you are using an asymmetric signing key) and still have enough information about the identity and permissions of your user to grant or deny them access to the resources that you are protecting.
Our web application has a button that is supposed to send data to a server on the local network that in turn prints something on a printer.
So far it was easy: The button triggered an AJAX POST request to http://printerserver/print.php with a token, that page connected to the web application to verify the token and get the data to print and then printed.
However, we are now delivering our web application via HTTPs (and I would rather not go back to HTTP for this) and newer versions of Chrome and Firefox don't make the request to the HTTP address anymore, they don't even send the request to check CORS headers.
Now, what is a modern alternative to the cross-protocol XHR? Do Websockets suffer from the same problem? (A Google search did not make clear what is the current state here.) Can I use TCP Sockets already? I would rather not switch to GET requests either, because the action is not idempotent and it might have practical implications with preloading and caching.
I can change the application on the printerserver in any way (so I could replace it with NodeJS or something) but I cannot change the users' browsers (to trust a self-signed certificate for printerserver for example).
You could store the print requests on the webserver in a queue and make the printserver periodically poll for requests to print.
If that isn't possible I would setup a tunnel or VPN between the webserver and printserver networks. That way you can make the print request from the webserver on the server-side instead of the client. If you use curl, there are flags to ignore invalid SSL certificates etc. (I still suspect it's nicer to introduce a queue anyway, so the print requests aren't blocking).
If the webserver can make an ssh connection to something on the network where the printserver is on, you could do something like: ssh params user#host some curl command here.
Third option I can think of, if printserver can bind to for example a subdomain of the webserver domain, like: print.somedomain.com, you may be able to make it trusted by the somedomain.com certificate, IIRC you have to create a CSR (Certificate Signing Request) from the printserver certificate, and sign it with the somedomain.com certificate. Perhaps it doesn't even need to be a subdomain for this per se, but maybe that's a requirement for the browser to do it client-side.
The easiest way is to add a route to the webapp that does nothing more than relay the request to the print server. So make your AJAX POST request to https://myapp.com/print, and the server-side code powering that makes a request to http://printerserver/print.php, with the exact same POST content it received itself. As #dnozay said, this is commonly called a reverse proxy. Yes, to do that you'll have to reconfigure your printserver to accept (authenticated) requests from the webserver.
Alternatively, you could switch the printserver to https and directly call it from the client.
Note that an insecure (http) web-socket connection on a secure (https) page probably won't work either. And for good reason: generally it's a bad idea to mislead people by making insecure connections from what appears to them to be a secure page.
The server hosting the https webapp can reverse proxy the print server,
but since the printer is local to the user, this may not work.
The print server should have the correct CORS headers
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
or:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: https://www.example.com
However there are pitfalls with using the wildcard.
From what I understand from the question, printserver is not accessible from the web application so the reverse proxy solution won't work here.
You are restricted from making requests from the browser to the printserver by cross-origin-policy.
If wish to communicate with the printserver from an HTTPS page you will need the printserver to expose print.php as HTTPS too.
You could create a DNS A record as a subdomain of your web application that resolves to the internal address of your printserver.
With those steps in place you should be able to update your printserver page to respond with permissive CORS headers which the browser should then respect. I don't think the browser will even issue CORS requests across different protocol schemes (HTTPS vs HTTP) or to internal domains, without a TLD.
I have been working my way though setting up HTTPS using AWS. I have been attempting this with a self-signed certificate and am finding the process a bit problematic.
One question that has come up along the way is this business of server-side HTTPS. The client that I am working with requests that when a user hits the server the URL change to HTTPS. I am wondering if "Server-Side HTTPS" means that the protocol is transparent to the end-user?
Will they still see HTTP int the browser?
Thanks.
Don't know if this is an exact answer to your question, but rather perhaps a piece of advice. When using ELB, I have found it MUCH easier to install the SSL cert on the ELB and use SSL offload to forward requests from port 443 on ELB to port 80 on the EC2 instances.
The pros of this:
There is only one place where you need to install the cert rather than having to install across a number of instances (or update AMI and relaunch instances), making cert updates much easier to perform.
You get better performance on your web servers as they don't have to deal with SSL encryption.
Some cons:
The communication is not encrypted end-to-end so there is the technical (albeit unlikely) chance that the communication could be intercepted between ELB and servers. If you are dealing with something like PCI compliance this might matter to you.
If you needed to directly access one of the instances over HTTPS that would not be possible.
You may need to make sure your application is aware of the https-related headers (i.e. x-forwarded-proto) that the ELB injects into the request if your application needs to check whether the request is over HTTPS.
There is no reason that this configuration would disallow you from redirecting incoming requests over HTTP to HTTPS. You might however need to look the x-forwarded-proto header to do any web-server or application level redirects to HTTPS. The end user would not have any way of knowing that their HTTPS wrapper for their request was being offloaded at the ELB.
I want a bit of clarity on whether HTTPS is stateful or stateless? This is with regards to a RESTful API I built. We were initially using HTTP. Since HTTP essentially works over TCP/IP which is stateless hence HTTP is stateless, but when I switched to HTTPS my API became stateful. I wanted to know whether my conclusion that HTTPS is stateful. is correct or not?
I created my API using a middleware tool called webMethods.
Thanks
TLS/SSL is stateful. The web server and the client (browser) cache the session including the cryptographic keys to improve performance and do not perform key exchange for every request.
HTTP 1 is not stateful. HTTP/2 however defines many stateful components, but the "application layer" still remains stateless.
TL;DR: The transport pipe (TLS) is stateful, original HTTP is not.
Additional note: Cookies and other stateful mechanisms are later additions defined in separate RFC's. They are not part of the original HTTP/1.0 specification, although other stateful mechanisms like caching and HTTP auth are defined HTTP 1.1 RFC and RFC 2617. HTTP 1 is said to be stateless although in practice we use standardized stateful mechanisms. HTTP/2 defines stateful components in its standard and is therefore stateful. A particular HTTP/2 application can use a subset of HTTP/2 features to maintain statelessness.
Theory aside, in practice you use HTTP statefully in your everyday life.
The S in HTTPS is concerned with the transport, not the protocol. The semantics of the HTTP protocol remain the same for HTTPS. As the article about HTTPS on Wikipedia states,
Strictly speaking, HTTPS is not a separate protocol, but refers to use of ordinary HTTP over an encrypted SSL/TLS connection.
And the HTTP protocol is stateless by design, not because it is used most frequently over TCP/IP (nothing stops you to use HTTP over UDP for example).
HTTPS is HTTP over a secure connection.
HTTP is a higher level than a connection.
When connecting to a web server, your connection is (maybe always?) of type TCP/IP. So, in case you are visiting a website via HTTPS, your TCP/IP connection is encrypted.
The data the server and/or client send has not been encrypted by the server and/or client. It is just sent, as it is usually via HTTP, but this time using a connection via TCP/IP that is secured via encryption.
If data were vehicles, and the connexion the highway, then:
- using HTTP would be like the vehicles going on the highway, and everyone can see them;
- using HTTPS would be like the same, but the vehicles go through a tunnel or anything that prevents people not on the highway from seeing them. You can determine there is trafic, but you cannot identify the vehicles, except on both ends of the tunnel.
I believe this is an image close to what happens behind the scene. But I'm no expert. I just hope it helps.
HTTP and HTTPS both are stateless protocols. The S in HTTPS stands for Secure and it refers to use of ordinary HTTP over an encrypted SSL/TLS connection.
Use of JWT tokens or the traditional way of establishing sessions using cookies help us to overcome the problem of HTTP being a stateless protocol, as it enables the server to authenticate the identity of the client, so that you don't need to login every time you click a link to navigate on the web-page.
So For example, when you log in to the website of your bank, it only asks you to enter your login details once. Once you are signed in, you don't need to re-enter them when you navigate to the account settings page, this is because the bank site is able to authenticate your identity using JWT tokens.
JWT tokens are only used on HTTPS and not in HTTP, because the connection is encrypted in HTTPS, so it cannot be intercepted by anyone.
Thus, HTTP and HTTPS both are stateless protocols, but JWT Tokens provides a workaround for it.
I believe HTTPS is a stateful protocol as it contains Session identifier field.This generated by server initially to identify a session with the chosen client.
Is the data secure if posted programmatically (not through a browser) to an https endpoint?
My understanding is browser encrypts data and sends it to https endpoint. How can a Ruby or Node.js or any other program do the same?
Yes. If you connect to an https endpoint with curl, wget, or whatever library, the transfer is secure from the source of the connection to the destination. That source could be a server (your webserver) or the client browser.
However, if it's done in client side JS or other browser scripting language, you have to make sure the initial request from client to your site is secure as well if first passing secure data to the client for it to pass to the destination https server.
I checked node.js request library as well as Ruby HTTParty libraries. Both these support SSL encryption based on proper options (port: 443 etc.). In general if we use any well supported library that enables HTTP gets and posts, we should be covered in terms of transmitting data securely to the https endpoint.
I think I understand what you mean and that question has been answered. However, I would just point out that HTTPS does not make your data secure, only the connection and even that is only encrypted from eavesdropping which is not really secure.
There is, of course, lots more to think about and do to make your data secure end-to-end.