I have a website that uses asynchronous http requests (ajax, to use the common misnomer) for performing login and registration. The authentication cookie is set by the asynchronous request and it all works great.
I recently locked down the registration and login actions to require https. Everything appears to work, except that the authentication cookie returned isn't functioning properly and the user doesn't actually get logged in.
In Chrome, in the development tools, under resources, it doesn't show any cookies having been created. If I go to the Chrome settings and view all the cookies, I can see that a cookie has been created. Perhaps it's encrypted and not readable?
So, to summarize:
The initial page is loaded using normal HTTP
The Login action is an asynchronous HTTPS request
The authentication cookie returned by the HTTPS request doesn't seem to be working
How do I get this to work?
A couple things I should note:
This is not a CORS issue.
I am aware of the potential man-in-the-middle attack. This website does not house sensitive data. I'm attempting to do something very similar (if not exactly the same) to what reddit is doing.
I managed to figure this out. Turns out that in the Http response, you need to set the Access-Control-Allow-Credentials header to true. Also, you must set the withCredentials to true on the client-side http request.
Related
We are experiencing an issue with Browser sending Authorization header of initial request for subsequent requests to the same requestURI.
Problem:
We have a webproject which has user specific business logic so we have this login logic where for the initial request, if we don't have a existing session we send a 401 response along with WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm="production site" header to get credentials via the client and the browser issues a rerequest with the Authorization header and we use it to create a sesssion and initiate the login process.
But however, once the browser cache & cookies are cleared the session gets destroyed but we are still getting the old(Got from the initial request) Authorization header sent to that URI.
We susupect it was cache issue but not sure.
Can someone please help us to understand whats happening here and why we are getting the same Authorization header everytime. Thanks in advance.
Basic/Digest authentication usually gets stored separate from the cache and is unrelated to cookies.
The server doesn't have a ton of control over this, but one way to force the browser to clear credentials is to just send a 401 with a new WWW-Authenticate header (even if the credentials you got are correct, you basically need some way to track that the intent was to log out), but this will create a new login dialog that the user will need to dismiss.
I'd recommend not mixing cookies and HTTP Authorization. You don't need sessions because you already know who's making the request.
Generally HTTP Auth in browsers kinda sucks and browser developers have not done a good job creating a good UX for this, which is why almost everyone just renders HTML login forms instead.
I have multiple subdomains in my app. There is a parent domain cookie for user logins/session, and a subdomain cookie for cross site request forgery protection (CSRF). Requests go between subdomains using cross origin resource sharing (CORS), using the login/session cookie for all subdomains.
main.foo.com is where the user logs in. The login/session cookie uses the domain foo.com.
app.foo.com is where a large portion of the app resides. This is the active page when my error occurs.
message.foo.com is used for sending messages between users. It is its own django app, with a csrf cookie using domain message.foo.com for use with its forms. It also uses the login/session cookie from foo.com.
So the user is on app.foo.com/index.php and an ajax POST needs to go to message.foo.com. The browser has made ajax GET requests to message.foo.com, which have set the CSRF cookie. The ajax POST is sent with proper CORS headers.
If I disable CSRF in the Django view using #csrf_exempt decorator, then the missing cookie is ignored and the POST is processed fine. Otherwise, I get the 403 error for CSRF.
The CSRF cookie is sent from Firefox and Chrome in normal mode. When Chrome is Incognito, the CSRF cookie is not sent.
From what I can tell, the difference between the cookies is their domain. The login/session cookie is set to foo.com, so all subdomains use it. The CSRF cookie is set by message.foo.com so it should only be sent back to that domain. But even when the request is going to message.foo.com, Chrome Incognito does not send the cookie. It may not have even accepted the cookie. (It's hard to tell if it didn't accept the cookie or if it's just not sending it back.)
This cookie scenario seems legit. The cookie is being sent back to the subdomain which set it. No other subdomains are trying to read or modify the cookie. The origin sending the request has been authorized with CORS headers.
Why does Chrome not send that cookie? Is this behavior documented somewhere?
Sorry, Stack Overflow. This question isn't actually about what I thought it was.
The problem is that I did something in my Django code which was stopping the CSRF cookie from being sent to the browser. The non-incognito browsers still had the cookie saved, but the incognito one dropped the cookie when it was closed. So when I re-opened the browsers, they still had their old CSRF cookie except the incognito browser.
I discovered this when I renamed the CSRF cookie and all the browsers stopped working. I had seen the cookie in Firebug and the Chrome dev tools, so I thought it was still being sent when it wasn't.
So, the end result is that the cookies work as I expected. All my confusion was due to the cached cookies still being sent. As far as I can tell now, the only difference with Incognito is that it clears out all the cookies when you close the last Incognito window.
Hopefully others will be reminded by this question that the cache could be getting in the way of your debugging. Checking for that early in this process could have saved me a lot of time.
I was trying to understand CORS. As per my understanding, it is a security mechanism implemented in browsers to avoid any AJAX request to domain other than the one open by the user (specified in the URL).
Now, due to this limitation many CORS was implemented to enable websites to do cross origin request. but as per my understanding implementing CORS defy the security purpose of the "Same Origin Policy" (SOP).
CORS is just to provide extra control over which request server wants to serve. Maybe it can avoid spammers.
From Wikipedia:
To initiate a cross-origin request, a browser sends the request with
an Origin HTTP header. The value of this header is the site that
served the page. For example, suppose a page on
http://www.social-network.example attempts to access a user's data
in online-personal-calendar.example. If the user's browser implements
CORS, the following request header would be sent:
Origin: http://www.social-network.example
If online-personal-calendar.example allows the request, it sends an
Access-Control-Allow-Origin header in its response. The value of the
header indicates what origin sites are allowed. For example, a
response to the previous request would contain the following:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: http://www.social-network.example
If the server does not allow the cross-origin request, the browser
will deliver an error to social-network.example page instead of
the online-personal-calendar.example response.
To allow access to all pages, a server can send the following response
header:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *
However, this might not be appropriate for situations in which
security is a concern.
What am I missing here? what is the the intend of CORS to secure the server vs secure the client.
Same-origin policy
What is it?
The same-origin policy is a security measure standardized among browsers. The "origin" mostly refers to a "domain". It prevents different origins from interacting with each other, to prevent attacks such as Cross Site Request Forgery.
How does a CSRF attack work?
Browsers allow websites to store information on a client's computer, in the form of cookies. These cookies have some information attached to them, like the name of the cookie, when it was created, when it will expire, who set the cookie etc. A cookie looks something like this:
Cookie: cookiename=chocolate; Domain=.bakery.example; Path=/ [// ;otherDdata]
So this is a chocolate cookie, which should be accessible from http://bakery.example and all of its subdomains.
This cookie might contain some sensitive data. In this case, that data is... chocolate. Highly sensitive, as you can see.
So the browser stores this cookie. And whenever the user makes a request to a domain on which this cookie is accessible, the cookie would be sent to the server for that domain. Happy server.
This is a good thing. Super cool way for the server to store and retrieve information on and from the client-side.
But the problem is that this allows http://malicious-site.example to send those cookies to http://bakery.example, without the user knowing! For example, consider the following scenario:
# malicious-site.example/attackpage
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open('GET', 'http://bakery.example/order/new?deliveryAddress="address of malicious user"');
xhr.send();
If you visit the malicious site, and the above code executes, and same-origin policy was not there, the malicious user would place an order on behalf of you, and get the order at his place... and you might not like this.
This happened because your browser sent your chocolate cookie to http://bakery.example, which made http://bakery.example think that you are making the request for the new order, knowingly. But you aren't.
This is, in plain words, a CSRF attack. A forged request was made across sites. "Cross Site Request Forgery". And it would not work, thanks to the same-origin policy.
How does Same-origin policy solve this?
It stops the malicious-site.example from making requests to other domains. Simple.
In other words, the browser would not allow any site to make a request to any other site. It would prevent different origins from interacting with each other through such requests, like AJAX.
However, resource loading from other hosts like images, scripts, stylesheets, iframes, form submissions etc. are not subject to this limitation. We need another wall to protect our bakery from malicious site, by using CSRF Tokens.
CSRF Tokens
As stated, malicious site can still do something like this without violating the same-origin policy:
<img src='http://bakery.example/order/new?deliveryAddress="address of malicious user"'/>
And the browser will try to load an image from that URL, resulting in a GET request to that URL sending all the cookies. To stop this from happening, we need some server side protection.
Basically, we attach a random, unique token of suitable entropy to the user's session, store it on the server, and also send it to the client with the form. When the form is submitted, client sends that token along with the request, and server verifies if that token is valid or not.
Now that we have done this, and malicious website sends the request again, it will always fail since there is no feasible way for the malicious website to know the token for user's session.
CORS
When required, the policy can be circumvented, when cross site requests are required. This is known as CORS. Cross Origin Resource Sharing.
This works by having the "domains" tell the browser to chill, and allow such requests. This "telling" thing can be done by passing a header. Something like:
Access-Control-Allow-Origin: //comma separated allowed origins list, or just *
So if http://bakery.example passes this header to the browser, and the page creating the request to http://bakery.example is present in the origin list, then the browser will let the request go, along with the cookies.
There are rules according to which the origin is defined1. For example, different ports for the same domain are not the same origin. So the browser might decline this request if the ports are different. As always, our dear Internet Explorer is the exception to this. IE treats all ports the same way. This is non-standard and no other browser behaves this way. Do not rely on this.
JSONP
JSON with Padding is just a way to circumvent same-origin policy, when CORS is not an option. This is risky and a bad practice. Avoid using this.
What this technique involves is making a request to the other server like following:
<script src="http://badbakery.example/jsonpurl?callback=cake"></script>
Since same-origin policy does not prevent this2 request, the response of this request will be loaded into the page.
This URL would most probably respond with JSON content. But just including that JSON content on the page is not gonna help. It would result in an error, ofcourse. So http://badbakery.example accepts a callback parameter, and modifies the JSON data, sending it wrapped in whatever is passed to the callback parameter.
So instead of returning,
{ user: "vuln", acc: "B4D455" }
which is invalid JavaScript throwing an error, it would return,
cake({user: "vuln", acc:"B4D455"});
which is valid JavaScript, it would get executed, and probably get stored somewhere according to the cake function, so that the rest of the JavaScript on the page can use the data.
This is mostly used by APIs to send data to other domains. Again, this is a bad practice, can be risky, and should be strictly avoided.
Why is JSONP bad?
First of all, it is very much limited. You can't handle any errors if the request fails (at-least not in a sane way). You can't retry the request, etc.
It also requires you to have a cake function in the global scope which is not very good. May the cooks save you if you need to execute multiple JSONP requests with different callbacks. This is solved by temporary functions by various libraries but is still a hackish way of doing something hackish.
Finally, you are inserting random JavaScript code in the DOM. If you aren't 100% sure that the remote service will return safe cakes, you can't rely on this.
References
1. https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-origin_policy#Definition_of_an_origin
2. https://www.w3.org/Security/wiki/Same_Origin_Policy#Details
Other worthy reads
http://scarybeastsecurity.blogspot.dk/2009/12/generic-cross-browser-cross-domain.html
https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3986 (sorry :p)
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Security/Same-origin_policy
https://www.owasp.org/index.php/Cross-Site_Request_Forgery_(CSRF)
The Same Origin Policy (SOP) is the policy browsers implement to prevent vulnerabilities via Cross Site Scripting (XSS). This is mainly for protecting the server, as there are many occasions when a server can be dealing with authentication, cookies, sessions, etc.
The Cross Origin Resource Sharing (CORS) is one of the few techniques for relaxing the SOP. Because SOP is "on" by default, setting CORS at the server-side will allow a request to be sent to the server via an XMLHttpRequest even if the request was sent from a different domain. This becomes useful if your server was intended to serve requests from other domains (e.g. if you are providing an API).
I hope this clears up the distinction between SOP and CORS and the purposes of each.
Can an AJAX response set a cookie? If not, what is my alternative solution? Should I set it with Javascript or something similar?
According to the w3 spec section 4.6.3 for XMLHttpRequest a user agent should honor the Set-Cookie header. So the answer is yes you should be able to.
Quotation:
If the user agent supports HTTP State Management it should persist,
discard and send cookies (as received in the Set-Cookie response
header, and sent in the Cookie header) as applicable.
Yes, you can set cookie in the AJAX request in the server-side code just as you'd do for a normal request since the server cannot differentiate between a normal request or an AJAX request.
AJAX requests are just a special way of requesting to server, the server will need to respond back as in any HTTP request. In the response of the request you can add cookies.
For the record, be advised that all of the above is (still) true only if the AJAX call is made on the same domain. If you're looking into setting cookies on another domain using AJAX, you're opening a totally different can of worms. Reading cross-domain cookies does work, however (or at least the server serves them; whether your client's UA allows your code to access them is, again, a different topic; as of 2014 they do).
Also check that your server isn't setting secure cookies on a non http request. Just found out that my ajax request was getting a php session with "secure" set. Because I was not on https it was not sending back the session cookie and my session was getting reset on each ajax request.
I'm trying to determine the most secure method for an ajax based login form to authenticate and set a client side cookie. I've seen things about XSS attacks such as this:
How do HttpOnly cookies work with AJAX requests?
and
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001167.html
So, I guess my core questions are...
1) Is using pure ajax to set cookies secure, if so, what is the most secure method (httpOnly + SSL + encrypted values, etc.)?
2) Does a pure ajax method involve setting the cookie client side? Is this at all secure?
3) Is setting cookies this way reliable across all major browsers/OSs?
4) Would using a hidden IFrame be any more secure (calling a web page to set the cookies)?
5) If possible, does anybody have code for this (PHP is my backend)?
My goal is to set the cookies and have them available for the next call to the server without navigating away from the page.
I really want to nail down the consensus, most secure way to do this. Eventually, this code is planned to be made Open Source, so please no commercial code (or nothing that wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny)
Thanks,
-Todd
The cookie needs to be generated server-side because the session binds the client to the server, and therefore the token exchange must go from server to client at some stage. It would not really be useful to generate the cookie client-side, because the client is the untrusted remote machine.
It is possible to have the cookie set during an AJAX call. To the server (and the network) an AJAX call is simply an HTTP call, and any HTTP response by the server can set a cookie. So yes, it is possible to initiate a session in response to an AJAX call, and the cookie will be stored by the client as normal.
So, you can use AJAX to do the logging in process in the same was as you could have just relied on a POST from a form on the page. The server will see them the same way, and if the server sets a cookie the browser will store it.
Basically, client-side Javascript never needs to be able to know the value of the cookie (and it is better for security if it doesn't, which can be achieved using the "httponly" cookie extension honored by recent browsers). Note that further HTTP calls from the client to the server, whether they are normal page requests or they are AJAX requests, will include that cookie automatically, even if it's marked httponly and the browser honors that extension. Your script does not need to be 'aware' of the cookie.
You mentioned using HTTPS (HTTP over SSL) - that prevents others from being able to read information in transit or impersonate the server, so it's very handy for preventing plain text transmission of the password or other important information. It can also help guard against network based attacks, though it does not make you immune to everything that CSRF can throw you, and it does not at all protect you against the likes of session fixation or XSS. So I would avoid thinking of HTTPS as a fix-all if you use it: you still need to be vigilant about cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery.
(see 1. I sort of combined them)
Given that the cookie is set by the server in its HTTP response headers, yes it is reliable. However, to make it cross-browser compatible you still need to ensure logging in is possible when AJAX is unavailable. This may require implementing an alternative that is seen only when there is no Javascript or if AJAX isn't available. (Note: now in 2014, you don't need to worry about browser support for AJAX anymore).
It would not change the security. There would be no need for it, except that I have seen hidden iframes used before to 'simulate' AJAX before - ie make asyncronous calls to the server. Basically, however you do it doesn't matter, it's the server setting the cookie, and the client will accept and return the cookie whether it does it by AJAX or not.
For the most part, whether you use AJAX or not does not affect the security all that much as all the real security happens on the server side, and to the server an AJAX call is just like a non-AJAX call: not to be trusted. Therefore you'll need to be aware of issues such as session fixation and login CSRF as well as issues affecting the session as a whole like CSRF and XSS just as much as you would if you were using no AJAX. The issues don't really change when using AJAX except, except, I guess, that you may make more mistakes with a technology if you're less familiar with it or it's more complicated.
Answer updated September 2014