I've a application in which there are hundreds of link to execute. Currently to prevent the application from cross site request forgery (CSRF), I've written a filter to generate token with each state change and storing them in cache. The overhead of this approach / design is the cache size which could get overflow in case of multiple used scenario which my application supports too. I am looking for a approach in which same token can be used again instead of generating it repetitively corresponding to each request.
Related
Consider a web application that consists of only HTML and JS for Front end and that communicates with a Web API.
I am trying to protect my application against CSRF attacks and for that I have took reference of this article.
Using the methods in this article, I am able to generate Anti CSRF tokens and pass it to the client. However it depends on first AJAX call that must happen before making regular CRUD operation calls.
With this approach, I need some clarity on few things as well as some alternatives if any. Consider a client visits this web application (which is protected by AJAX based Anti CSRF token), and keeping his session open, he visits a malicious website that contains page that makes the same AJAX calls to get CSRF tokens (assume that attacker is aware of this process), I suppose he can use the headers to make unintended calls thus resulting in an attack.
So how can I protect my application against these?
Please provide more detail regarding this, or if its misleading then help me by providing correct details so that I can tackle it better.
First of all you should use an encrypted communication with the server so the attacker won't be able to read any header data.
If your attacker uses the same calls as you do, he is not be able to guess the anti XSRF token that you use in your calls. A new token is generated for every call to your API. I hope this page helps you with some details:
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)_Prevention_Cheat_Sheet
I think if we use token based authentication, client have to pass authentication token in each request. And if client do not store it in browser cache and store it in localStorage then browser will not send token in call automatically. And if our service receive any request without auth token then it will discard the request.
Does custom application specific, security related HTTP headers violate separation of concerns, is it considered a bad practice? I realize using custom header to control the service would tightly couple the client with the service implementation. Or in this case, to control the security framework behavior. The context where I planned using the custom header is the following:
We are using token based authentication, where token has a fixed lifetime, and new token is issued each time authenticated client calls the web API. SPA client may call the server with AJAX in two contexts
User action (navigation and submit)
Automatic refresh (current view re-fetches data at fixed intervals)
Now, if user leaves the page open, the session never expires, as new token is generated for each automatic fetch. Somehow, we need to differentiate user action from automatic refresh in the server side, and issue new token only for user actions.
I realize Websocket based refresh would be one solution, but we have decided to stick with timed AJAX call due specific matters. Another solution would be to provide token refresh as a separate endpoint, but this would violate the DRY principle from client's perspective, and would be more cumbersome to setup with Spring Security.
Only remaining option is to embed the user/automated information in the request itself, and using a header seems a viable option here. A presence of certain header would prevent the token refresh. Easy to implement with a few lines of code.
I'm only concerned, if this couples the client too much with the service implementation. Technically, it doesn't couple client with the service, but the preceding security filter, thus leaking security concerns in the user interface. Ideally security stuff should be transparent to user interface, so new client could be coded without knowing anything about security (especially when cookies are used).
In the other hand, this solution isn't destructive or mutative. It's an optional feature. By client utilizing it, security is enhanced, but in either case never reduced (from the perspective of server, as it is). Now the question is, what principles using a optional header to enhance security is violating, and is it a valid solution in this context?
In my option the security should be maximized transparently, but I don't see how to not leak security concerns in the client in this situation.
It sounds like you're using your own home-built custom Token Authentication solution here. This is not a good idea.
I'll take a moment to explain WHY you don't want to do what you're proposing, and then what the better option is.
First off -- the problem that you're trying to solve here is that you don't want a user to remain logged into your site forever if they leave a tab open. The reason you need to fix this is because right now, you're assigning a new Access Token on EVERY REQUEST from the user.
The correct solution to handling the above problem is to have two types of token.
An Access Token that has a very short lifetime (let's say: 1 hour), and a Refresh Token that has a longer lifetime (let's say: 24 hours).
The way this should work is that:
When the user first authenticates to your service, the Access and Refresh tokens are generated with their respective timeouts.
These tokens are both set in HTTP cookies that the client-side JS cannot access.
From this point on, every time your user's browser makes a request to your service, you'll parse out the Access token from the cookie, check to see if it's valid, then allow the request.
If the Access token is no longer valid (if it has expired), you'll then parse out the Refresh token from the cookie, and see if that is valid.
If the Refresh token is valid, you'll generate a NEW Access token with another 1 hour lifetime, and override the old Access token cookie with the new on.
If the Refresh token is invalid, you'll simply return a 301 redirect to the login page of your app, forcing the user to manually re-authenticate again.
This flow has a number of benefits:
There is a maximum session length, which is technical (duration of Refresh token + duration of Access token) -- aka: 25 hours in this example.
Access tokens are short lived, which means that if a token is somehow compromised, attackers can't use it for very long to impersonate the user.
What's nice about the above flow is that it is a web authorization standard: OAuth2.
The OAuth2 Password Grant flow does EXACTLY what you're describing. It generates both types of tokens, handles 'refreshing' tokens, handles the entire thing from start to finish in a safe, standards-compliant way.
What I'd highly recommend you do is implement an OAuth2 library on both your server and client, which will take care of these needs for you.
Now -- regarding the tokens, most OAuth2 implementations now-a-days will generate tokens as JSON Web Tokens. These are cryptographically signed tokens that provide a number of security benefits.
Anyhow: I hope this was helpful! I author several popular authentication libraries in Python, Node, and Go -- so this comes from my direct experience working with these protocols over the last several years.
I still cannot understand what is the main purpose of JWT. As for me the only purposes are:
to overcome CSRF
and to ensure better mobile support (because mobile apps in some cases don t support cookies).
Also there is a claim that with JWT you don't have to worry about session storage on the server side. This is not clear to me. How could JWT completely replace session storage on the server side? Does this mean that we put all session data into the JWT, encrypt it and send it to client on every response? But if so, does that mean the token that is issued by server will change depending on the data which we used to store in session? And as i understand the only thing that prevent us from using cookie this way(without session storage on the server side) is the size limit on cookie files - only 4kb.
Also do we still need to use SSL to prevent session hijacking?
Please tell me if my understanding is right or there is some other aspects.
I think there're too many legends about JWT. To understand its essence, we should get back to its original definition.
According to its official site:
JSON Web Token (JWT) is an open standard (RFC 7519) that defines a
compact and self-contained way for securely transmitting information
between parties as a JSON object. This information can be verified and
trusted because it is digitally signed.
So essentially, what JWT offers is just a way to transmit data. No more, no less. And because multi parties are involved, the format MUST be standardized. And once the format is standardized, libraries can be made to facilitate its adoption.
Again from the official site:
When should you use JSON Web Tokens?
There are some scenarios where JSON Web Tokens are useful:
Authentication:
This is the typical scenario for using JWT, once the user is logged in, each subsequent request will include the JWT,
allowing the user to access routes, services, and resources that are
permitted with that token. Single Sign On is a feature that widely
uses JWT nowadays, because of its small overhead and its ability to be
easily used among systems of different domains.
Information Exchange:
JSON Web Tokens are a good way of securely transmitting information between parties, because as they can be
signed, for example using public/private key pairs, you can be sure
that the senders are who they say they are. Additionally, as the
signature is calculated using the header and the payload, you can also
verify that the content hasn't changed.
So, Authentication is merely one of the possible use cases of JWT. Though it is indeed a typical usage of JWT.
As far as authentication is concerned, JWT can be used to replace session+cookie approach because it can save server's memory for storing sessions. But how big the benefit is depends on the user amount and your specific scenario. If there's only a few clients and no cross-domain authentication requirements, I don't think you need to give up the good old session+cookie approach.
Last but not the least, Session is not JUST meant for authentication. It is actually meant to place HTTP requests and responses within a larger context. I am not sure if JWT can replace session for that purpose given JWT's size limit. And IMHO, authentication just happened to be one of the use cases of session since such info must be user-specific. There are many other good scenarios to justify session, such as Shopping Cart.
JWTs in itself are just self-contained tokens and don't provide CSRF protection. The protocol used to deliver the JWT may (or should) provide means to prevent CSRF.
One area where JWTs are notably "better" than cookies is their cross-domain capability. You can read more on the comparison between tokens and cookies here: https://auth0.com/blog/2014/01/07/angularjs-authentication-with-cookies-vs-token/
JWTs can be self-contained so they have all the information that you need in a verifiable container that would enable you to use them without storing them (or a reference to them). But there may be more data that you need in a session so avoiding session storage in general is not a reason in itself for moving to JWTs.
SSL is required for sure to prevent token leakage and session hijacking.
I'm trying to protect an application (php and lots of JS) from CSRF.
I want to use tokens.
A lot of operations are done with AJAX, so I have to pass the token in Javascript.
If I want to generate 1 token per session or per page load it's simple - I generate new token, put it somewhere in a DOM and then find it with Javascript and send to the processing side.
But what if I want to use new token for every operation?
I was thinking about doing an ajax call to regenerate token and then pass the result to processing page.
Does this increase security risk?
I was thinking about luring user to page with script which would ask for token and then use it to make the request but then again cross domain Javascript is forbidden.
Can it be done with flash?
Maybe another approach for protecting ajax calls from CSRF?
Thanks!
There are several techniques, which when used together provide a sufficient CSRF protection.
Unique Token
A single, session-specific token is good enough for most applications. Just make sure that your site doesn't have any XSS vulnerabilities, otherwise any kind of token technique you employ is a waste.
AJAX call to regenerate the token is a bad idea. Who will guard the guards? If the AJAX call itself is vulnerable to CSRF, it kind of defeats the purpose. Multiple tokens with AJAX are in general bad idea. It forces you to serialize your requests i.e. only one AJAX request is allowed at a time. If you are willing to live with that limitation, you can perhaps piggyback token for the second AJAX call in response to the first request.
Personally, I think it is better to re-authenticate the user for critical transactions, and protect the remaining transactions with the session-specific token.
Custom HTTP header
You can add a custom HTTP header to each of your requests, and check its presence on the server side. The actual key/value doesn't need to be secret, the server just needs to ensure it exists in the incoming request.
This approach is good enough to protect CSRF in newer versions of the browsers, however its possible too work-around this if your user has older version for Flash Player.
Checking Referrer
Checking for the Referrer header is also good to protect CSRF in the newer browsers. Its not possible to spoof this header, though it was possible in older versions of Flash. So, while it is not foolproof, it still adds some protection.
Solving Captcha
Forcing the user to solve a captcha is also effective against CSRF. Its inconvenient as hell, but pretty effective. This is perhaps the only CSRF protection that works even if you have XSS vulnerabilities.
Summary
Use a session based token, but re-authenticate for high value transactions
Add a custom http header, and also check for referrer. Both are not foolproof by themselves, but don't hurt
We're currently developing an entirely AJAX based app that will interact with the server via a RESTful API. I've considered potential schemes to protect against XSRF attacks against the API.
User authenticates and receives a
session cookie, which is also
double-submitted with each request.
We implement an OAuth consumer in
Javascript, retrieve a token when
the user logs in, and sign all
requests with that token.
I'm leaning toward the OAuth approach, mainly because I'd like to provide 3rd party access to our API and I'd rather not have to implement two authentication schemes.
Is there any reason why an OAuth consumer would not work in this situation?
Most AJAX libraries will set an additional header "X-Requested-With: XMLHttpRequest", which is difficult to fake in a basic XSRF attack (though possible if combined with XSS). Verifying that this header exists is a good defense-in-depth strategy if you expect all your requests to be AJAX.
Use a two-step request, the first asking for the server an unpredictible token, the second asking for the real action with the token.
As the attacker can't predict the token, and can't read it (same origin policy) he can't give a valid token in the second query.
But be careful to not leak tokens (learn about capturing json using when they affect value to a global variable and so on) and read :
http://www.google.com/search?q=xsrf+defence
The easiest way to prevent XSRF it to check the referer of every RESTful request to make sure the request is coming from the same domain. The session cookie is important for keeping state, but it will not defend against XSRF becuase it will also be sent with a forged request. Its common to see referer based XSRF protection system on embedded network hardware with limited memory requirements, Motorola uses this method on most of their hardware. This isn't the most secure XSRF protection, token based protection is better but both systems can still be bypassed with XSS. The biggest problem with token based XSRF protection is that it takes alot of time to go back and fix every request and you will probably miss a few requests.
Make sure to read up on the same origin policy and to scan your site for xss. You should also read the OWASP Top 10 for 2010 A3-Broken Authentication and Session Management.