If I have a stored key file used to decrypt the encrypted input coming into my application, and I store that key file as an embedded resource so that it is embedded in the assembly when deploying, how difficult would it be for someone to reverse engineer the application and retrieve the key file?
Also, the application is deployed through ClickOnce "Online only" mode which I imagine would also make it more difficult to reverse engineer? (I'm not exactly sure of the workings of ClickOnce but I wasn't able to find the dll's/assemblies on my local machine after running the application in online only mode...).
Update:
As Ralf essentially answered the main question below in his comment (answer: it's not really safe at all), here's some more information so that you knowledgeable people can possibly suggest a better security model.
The encryption will be used to encrypt the login password for my application, to be used in a SSO setup (the user will first sign on to a different system and then by clicking a link will be able to directly open my application without having to enter in their login details).
The encrypted data will be sent as a base-64 string URL parameter in the link that will launch the my click-once application.
I will also be developing the application that will create the encrypted data for the URL parameter (clarification: not the first application the user will sign in to for the SSO, I will only be creating a small tool to convert the plain text password into an encrypted base64 string).
It's only an internal application so bullet proof security isn't essential and ease of deployment is more important, but it'd be nice to know what the best practices and different options that are available.
Whether in clear text or encrypted, you don't want to store the password. When you get a password, all you should do is pass it to your server app where you compare it against the salted hash of the password you have in the DB. Even if you don't think security is that important, you need to take care with the password because people frequently reuse passwords across different systems. I know they shouldn't but they do.
If you want to implement a single sign on (SSO), create a sign on token on the server side and pass it back to the client, either encrypted or signed (HMAC is a good choice for signing). This is an unforgeable token because you need to know the encryption key or shared secret for the HMAC and that data is only known on your servers. So you have your SSO and all data involving the SSO is managed on servers so there's no data leakage or chance of spoofing.
As long as the aplication can be launched, the files have to be somewhere on the computer. You just have to know where to look. The reverse-engineering may be ugly but it is always possible. The computer has to be able to understand what he is supposed to do so you only have to extraxt the information one is looking for. Therefore the security of your application should never depend on the difficulty of reverse-engineering! I believe that a secure application should be open-source anyways.
You propably need a diffent security model. The important thing here is that you know against what you want to protect the data. If you simply want that you know the data is sent by the server and not somebody else (man in the middle attack) you could use digital signatures instead.
If you do not want anybody to read any data sent between server and client you should use some sort of ssl implementation to create an encrypted channel. Then you only need to watch out that the public key of the server is not altered on the client. This may be done by an certificate of an official CA but unfortunately those are usualy not for free.
Related
Let's say I have a MySQL database into which users can enter some personal data like postal addresses via a php website. The users can NOT log into this site to later verify what they have entered. The enterprise they have entered their data for (voluntarily of course) then can use this data to maybe send the users actual mail (you know, postal services and such) or emails (of course the users agreed beforehand that they want to receive emails). The database serves merely as a store for the data and I want it to be a bit safe. If anyone breaks into the database, retrieving the email address and the actual first and last name (many email addresses contain both anyway) might not do much harm, but knowing where people live could be too much of a giveaway.
The enterprise is accessing the database via a C# front-end that targets stored procedures within the database to do stuff, including searching for users based on their email address.
From what I have gathered through searching I could think of the following procedure to handle the personal data in a more secure way (than saving them as plain text in the database)
before submitting the sensitive information to the stored procedures the plain text gets encrypted with a key while still in php, so all the MySQL server logs see is encrypted data
the front-end uses the same key to make the data humanly readable again when it is displayed to the enterprise's users (They need to access this private information and the user is comfortable with the enterprise doing so, that's the whole point of this scheme)
My line of thinking is: These are not passwords that are stored so I don't need all the password hashing trickery (As I understand it, when securely saving a password in a database, you use a one way algorithm, so you can never reverse engineer the password straight from the database but have to hash every password you want to try and test that against the desired database entry to see if you chose the right password) but can instead go for a simple encrypt/decrypt, because I don't want to brute force every address out of the database.
There are a few rough edges that raise concerns for me:
I need to somehow provide the key I want to encrypt by to php. Usually this is done via a library or external php document, like you provide the database connection information in a separate php file which resides in a folder on the server which is not accessible from the web (The server will say access denied if you try to access it) Is this a good practice and can I be sure that this key-file is really safe?
I need to provide the key to the front-end as well. This should be done separately in a (maybe encrypted?) config file for the front-end. Is it wise to have the key in two places, albeit for two different systems? The key must never change or else part of the data will be lost!
Somehow I have the feeling that if someone knows how to access the database he/she probably figured out where the connection data was and how that was to be accessed. Oh look, here is an encryption key, I wonder what that does. How likely is it that if the database access is breached the encryption key is in the open as well rendering all efforts to give a little extra of privacy to the users void?
If I wanted to add another bit of "extra security" and encrypted the email address as well I would have to encrypt every email address I want to search for from the php or the front-end, right?
Having searching procedures using ´RLIKE´ will break on encrypted fields, won't they? So to retain searching for parts of an email address I cannot encrypt the email entry, right?
I will have to change my database fields to binary to accommodate encrypted data or make them bigger and base64-encode them, won't I?
Is there an encryption/decryption algorithm ready to use in PHP 7.0.7 and C#? (I don't worry that much about C#) One that is reasonably secure while not bloating my tiny texts to massive chunks of binary? I don't know if that is of any consequence, but if I use for example a 256 bit key, that's 32 bytes. If the street part of the address is shorter that 32 characters, will the encryption work? Will there be cumbersome padding involved?
All in all I feel that the security gain is minute compared to the measures I have to take in my php files as well as in the code for the front-end. The perceived security gain might be bigger ("Woha! They are saving our data encrypted! They sure know what they are doing!"). Having strict and restrictive privileges for certain types of users (for example revoke ´SELECT´ commands) should in all be more helpful, shouldn't it?
Edit for #Luke Joshua Park:
Thank you for your detailed answer.
I suppose by API server you mean the webserver my php's reside on? This indeed should be separate from the database server. Both servers are hosted within a university's network but can be accessed from the internet.
I can follow the authentication path to the point where every user from within the enterprise (small-ish project at said university, maybe a bad choice of wording) has a database user with sensibly set grants. But users from outside using the php only send data to be stored in the database (ideally with a common but seperate database-user with grants set accordingly), and never retreive (their own) data. Using authentication would mean they first had to create an account (which is not needed) and how do they authenticate themselves for creating the unwanted account?
It is good that you're asking these questions before implementing a solution, cryptography is difficult to get right and a sound understanding is required before you start.
I'll answer your questions quickly first, but the more important part is what follows.
Not really. See below.
Yes, in most cases, keys should be kept on the device they are created on, wherever possible.
Provided your API server(s) doesn't also have the database on it, relatively unlikely.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. But don't base64 them. Wasted space and processing power for no benefit.
You're asking the wrong questions. An algorithm isn't "for" a language. You just need to pick the right algorithm/block mode/padding depending on your needs.
For the most part the questions you are asking are irrelevant. Believe it or not, your issue is more to do with authentication than it is to do with encryption.
The first thing you need to understand is that a server breach is a server breach. Bad stuff is going to happen regardless of how much cryptography you throw at it. But we can minimize damage where possible.
Your database software should be running on a separate server/instance/whatever from your API server. Encryption/decryption should only take place on your API server. This has the benefit that both your API server and database server would have to be breached in order to decrypt the data (to access the keys). How you store the keys on your API server isn't all that important provided they aren't in your webroot or something silly like that.
Everything past this is authentication. You need a strong authentication system to determine who can send you information and who can retrieve information from you. Communication to and from your API server should obviously be encrypted with TLS at all times. You might consider TLS client authentication as a way to ensure the entity requesting data from you is who they say they are. Usually client authentication can't really be used on the web, but if you're interacting with "enterprises" in a more private way, then client authentication is an excellent choice.
In summary:
Separate your API server from your database server. Encryption keys should only ever be on the API server. See this repository for a collection of encryption examples from PHP to just about any other language.
Use TLS for all ingoing and outgoing communication.
Focus on authentication. TLS Client authentication is a good option.
Ok, I'm asking a rather generic question to a specific problem. I have searched this in more ways than I can count, and nothing seems to work. Let me explain my need and then I'll mention a few of the best solutions I've found and why they don't work in my case.
I have an application that a user launches and uses to set up various configuration values that are saved into an app.config file. This is a WPF application. Specifically, some of this data are HIGHLY sensitive.
This data needs to encrypted and subsequently decrypted by a Windows Service that will be launched by the application once the configuration step is finished. The general solution given for this scenario is to use DPAPI, which has two modes for encryption: User and Local Machine.
If you use User-level encryption, your application will encrypt and decrypt data as much as it desires, as long as the current user that initially encrypts the data is doing the decryption. My problem is that when the service is started, it also restarts on reboots and will specifically be running under a different user account.
The next approach, using DPAPI, is to encrypt the data as the Local Machine. This means that when ANYONE logs into the machine can decrypt the sensitive data. This is a BIG no-no!
What I need is to have a way for a user to specify the data he wants to encrypt and then specify an account (in this case, what will be the service account) and use it for data encryption.
I can't find how to do this. This MSDN article alludes that can be done. (See section 'Web Farm Scenarios'.) The TL;DR on that article is that for ASP.Net applications, you can use the RsaProtectedConfigurationProvider to encrypt your data, and export the keys to be used with a specific web account. This is close to what I want, but in my case I need to create the data in a WPF application and store it to be used in a Windows Server Service.
How can this be done?
You can accomplish something similar to this using something as mundane as EFS, but unlike raw DPAPI, a recovery key might bypass the protection. In either case, a local admin could replace your program with his own and it would have full access to the decrypted data.
As for setting this up, the easiest way to do that would be to interactively log on with the service account and either create the protected data using System.Security.Cryptography.ProtectedData or create a file in a directory marked with the "encrypt" attribute.
Use the account name as the salt for your encryption, decyption should use the logged in account name as the salt to decrypt.
i have a suggestion , you can create User group add required users into that group. And encrypt and decrypt data only if user is part of that group using second method.
I'm working on a couple of projects that need to store user credentials for third-party applications, such as Paypal, Facebook developer creds etc. I've read a few books about different kinds of coding, including ASP.NET, WPF, jQuery, and all have nice examples on how to access the preceding services with own secrets, and also all of them use the exact phrase "in a real project you would store these in an encrypted file". None, however, give an example how to do so.
I have little (read: none) experience in encryption, but based on my understanding, I would need to encrypt a username and a password using some sort of key (salt?) and save them in a file. I would also want to be able to use these credentials on my apps so I would need to store the key (salt?) in my code.
Now my question is: How is it safer to store the decryption key, which is still plain text, in the program code, than the actual credentials?
Wouldn't the malicious user be able to decrypt my password-file as soon as he gets the key?
--EDIT--
I really mean my own credentials I need to store to log in to third party applications, not credentials of my users. For example I need to identify my self and/or my app to Google, so that users can log in to my app using their own Google account.
--EDIT 2--
To clarify, this is what I'm talking about. This screenshot is from asp.net PayPal tutorial:
Any quick pointers on good practises here?
You misunderstood the part about storing encrypted password* + salt: this is done when your system needs to validate someone else's credentials. In this situation storing password hash and the salt is more secure than storing the credentials, encrypted or not, because an attacker would have no way of getting the password back, even if he manages to get his hands on both the hash and the salt.
Storing decryption key in plain text is never a good option, because an attacker would get your users' passwords as soon as he gets access to the key.
There is no good solution to persisting your own credentials, encrypted or not. Your component that talks to 3-rd party services should use developer APIs from these providers. For example, PayPal provides two sets of APIs which you can use to access your account without having to store your password.
If you need to store a small amount of secret information in an encrypted form, use registry APIs to store the data in a key known to your application, and accessible from the user running your server-side component. This secret would be safe, as long as hackers do not hack the password for the account under which your service is running.
* Technically, password is not encrypted, it's hashed, i.e. there is no reliable way to turn the result of conversion back to the original value.
Your suspicions are correct. If the user has access to the key they can just go and decrypt the username and passwords themselves.
The two options you have are
Make it difficult enough to get the password that the reword of getting the password is not worth the effort to find it. This approach is done via things like Code Obfuscateors, I would not recommend this to someone starting out. Its not easy to get it right and it only takes one person who things it is "worth the effort" for it to break.
Don't give the user the information ever. Instead of storing the usernames and passwords in the program have your program call out to a server you own, then that server is what makes the request using the credentials. This approach is the more reliable one and is "unbreakable" (as long as your server is secure) but costs more because you now need to keep a server up and running that can handle the load of your entire userbase.
I have an asp.net application, accessed by people over the internet using web browsers. It runs on a web server and it talks to a backend database.
Some of the users would like to use the application to store some private data. The requirements of this are:
1) Only the user who stored the data should be able to see it.
2) The developers/dbas should not be able to see the data.
3) If the web server and database server were compromised a hacker must not be able to decrypt the data.
So, it's obvious I'm going to have to encrypt this data. If I encrypt it there will be a key somewhere and probably a salt/IV. The question is where do I store the data which is used to perform the decryption? If I store it in the database or the web server then a developer, dba or hacker can access it and decrypt the data.
I think my ideal solution to this would be for the private key to be on the clients machine, that way they are entirely responsible for it. But I'm not sure of how to go about this with an asp.net web application.
I believe I can create a certificate which also stores a private key (PFX). The client companies could use group policy to deploy the certificate to their domain. But it is possible that the ASP.Net application can request the web browser to send the private key to it so that it can perform the decryption? Decrypting on the client would be best but other than creating something in javascript I don't see how this is possible.
Any advice welcome.
Store the key in the mind of the user. Use any password/passphrase based key derivation algorithm you like. The standard is PBKDF2. The optimum choice of algorithm will depend on precisely what your security requirements and threat mode is. Ideally, that decision and the implementation should at least be reviewed by a security expert.
Is it possible that you deploy a ClickOnce application as a part of your solution? The ClickOnce could easily access the cert store on a local machine thus allowing you to perform client-side encryption.
I am looking forward to have the less information as possible on my application resulting in pulling most of the data from a website or server and I would like to hear by advices and recommendations from everyone with experience in the field to help me improve my application.
Currently my authentication consists of:
To start the application the user have to input their username and password (without a valid user and pass the app does not work) and click login.
The credentials will be sent to my login page using HTTPS, the script only accept SSL connection and a personalized User-Agent name.
The login page will verify the credentials and send back a session and some initial data.
The session is reused to gather more data over time or as needed.
Side note: the SSL is 256 bits, the session auto expire after a few minutes
For the above basic authetication and data pulling would you recommend me anything else to implement ?
Should I change anything ?
2nd Layer of protection
Now I would like to implement more security by encrypting all the data sent from/to my application, my question:
What should I use to encrypt and decrypt the data, a pair of private and public keys held on both sides or RIJNDAEL's method ?
What is the proper way or what parts of information should I leave on the client and server or how should I form the knowledge of the common passwords or keys ?
For example if I was using a pair of RSA keys, I would need to leave 1 private key at the client and 1 public key since you cannot decrypt any data with the public key on c# while you can do it on the server and for Rijndael would need to have the IV and the key on both side.
What is the proper way to handle these ?
I will be very glad with practical reading material, comments, examples, suggestions, advices :)
UPDATE:
No one else wants to say anything ? I was hoping to get more input on this question and also tough that this was a fairly used method around ...
Sounds like you've considered the security of the app side of the equation at length. I'd suggest you turn your thinking to the website part of the equation.
When I look at security, I always look at two things:
Transport security--is your data protected while in transit? Sounds like it is, assuming you are using sufficient key length for the SSL cert on the server. Also, you can force the website do client cert validation as part of the SSL handshake. That ensures that no one can spoof the client app and convince your website to share information.
Payload security--should you encrypt the data payload? Is there a chance someone may be able to break into your web server, or better yet, via the DNS poisoning or some other method, convince your app to connect to a malicious server with a valid (for that cn), but different HTTPs certificate? Should you choose to encrypt the payload, you can piggy back the whole thing onto the same certificates you already use. Just make sure that the certs have data encryption bits turned on, and you can use private/public keys from the certs to encrypt the payload. So, if the malicious user replaced the cert, not only do they need to spoof the cn and the chain of trust, but also have the right public key from the app to decrypt the data you are encrypting with your private key and signing with server's public key.
Some other questions to ponder:
You are saying that the session is reused? Does it not expire? If not, you'd want to make it expire.
Can you leverage network security? Can you use a VPN tunnel or IP ACL to limit who can even gain access to the web server?
What about keyloggers? Passwords can be intercepted. The second authentication factor can be something a user has, like a key card or a fingerprint, or an RSA SecurId. If you don't want to go that far, you can present a user with a "site seal"-- an image that they have to recognize as associated with their account. Maybe even present several images and let them choose one that they've chosen during the signup process. You can also make them solve a small puzzle--something that will distinguish a human from a machine (CAPTCHA-type).
All these points minimize info stored on the client side--just a cert or two and a key to go with that cert.
The topic of security is vast, and we can start a whole discussion here on different implementation details. The above is just some points to think about.
Remember, that everything has cost. Security costs usability and CPU cycles. Proper balance is key, but that of course is up to you.
Before you build Fort Knox, make sure someone is going to want to live there :)