Securosis

Menu

Research

HTTP Authentication: a Primer

reppep December 24, 2006 4 Comments

The HTTP protocol includes encryption features, such as “Basic HTTP Authentication” and “Digest HTTP Authentication”, which are well supported by current browsers. Using either, every time you log your browser into a website with a username & password, the browser stores three pieces of information: the site’s hostname, your username, and your password. From then on, until you quit your browser, every time you visit any page on that site, your browser sends that username & password to the server. This is the same via both HTTP & HTTPS, but doesn’t apply to custom login code, such as forms and cookies; normally the easiest way to recognize Basic or Digest authentication is the separate window that pops up over the web page, prompting for username and password, and possibly “realm”; if it has logos or is inside a web page, it isn’t basic or digest authentication. There are a lot of tricks, including scripting techniques to grab passwords from other sites, or fool a password manager (built into the browser or a separate program) into providing a password with little or no human confirmation, but it’s simply not possible to completely prevent people from sending their passwords for any site to ‘rogue’ pages on the same. In the simplest case, someone could copy the official Site X login page, make a private copy, and store the passwords entered or send them to a remote server. For bonus points, forward the credentials to the real login page, so the user gets logged in successfully and doesn’t notice anything is wrong. For a long and interesting review of the issues, see the Firefox bug for a specific MySpace password capturing attack: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=360493. A shorter page by the original reporter is at http://www.info-svc.com/news/11-21-2006/. Note how difficult it is to solve a specific problem in a specific browser, and keep in mind that many browsers are in use (Firefox, IE6, IE7, Safari, Opera, Lynx, Konqueror, Nokia’s new browser, IE Mobile, the Palm browser, etc.). There will always be attacks that get past many of these browsers – the possibilities are too wide open, and there’s too much human desire for quick and convenient access to the web (otherwise password managers wouldn’t exist, and we’d use a different password for every site). The same issues apply to cookies, although they are more flexible and thus more complicated. Share:

Share:
Read Post

When Community Is Bad: Community and Commerce—Don’t Cross the Streams!

reppep December 24, 2006 1 Comment

Note: For some background on HTTP authentication and username/password caching, see HTTP Authentication: a Primer. I was reading Schneier yesterday, and it reminded me of all those MySpace and similar worms going around. Why are they so bad? How will they get worse in the future? Their biggest problem is that they welcome everyone, making it easy for bad people to establish themselves. The second is that even though the sites themselves are not high-security, they have security implications for other sites, including high-security sites. MySpace is scary because it enables a very large number of people to post content your browser will parse and possibly execute. Further, they’re casual sites, so don’t have the same level of security urgency or corporate paranoia as a bank obviously needs (the reality of bank security is a different matter, but the expectation is higher for Citibank than MySpace). The other concern is that people and their browsers (often on auto-pilot, for both people and browsers) enter login information routinely to access these sites. This makes community sites a rich target for attackers – especially since many people use the same username & password for MySpace and electronic banking (and everything else)! Those people who get hacked on MySpace, and then immediately on their electronic banking sites, are screwed. But at least everybody can say “You should have known better.” It doesn’t help much, but is important to both MySpace and the banks for liability reasons. And it’s true – in 2006 you’re asking for trouble if you use the same password for your bank as a low-security site like MySpace. This isn’t to confuse the victim with the perpetrator, but we have to expect more self-defense than that. We can’t provide all the security everybody needs – they have to help! But site developers must make the assumption that every user has exactly one username and password, which they use everywhere, and make every effort to protect that password (this means not storing accounts in a plaintext MySQL table, not showing passwords to customer service/support staff, and not emailing passwords on request – reset them and email the new random password to the address on file). Crossing the Line So there are high-security sites, and low-security sites, and people can understand that banks are better guarded (physically and electronically) than lots of other places (perhaps not as well as sports & concert venues, though). When this line is erased or faded, risk increases. For example, Apple hosts user web pages through its .Mac online service. Amazon encourages people to post reviews of books and other products. Do these have security implications? Of course (everything does, actually). Scenario: Harry the Hacker gets a free .Mac trial account, posts an evil JavaScript that records username, password, and all cookies, to his new disposable site on Apple’s .Mac servers, and starts collecting data. Community sites often attempt to block JavaScript, but it’s an ongoing struggle. What does Harry get? With a working JavaScript, it’s easy to capture usernames & passwords from all the .Mac subscribers who logged into their own sites or just auto-enter credentials (disclaimer: I don’t know how .Mac uses cookies). Some substantial percentage of these passwords work on banks, as we’ve already discussed. Can Harry grab people’s store.apple.com accounts this way, to order a brand new Mac Pro? Not directly, at least, because store.apple.com and homepage.mac.com are different domain names, so their account information is stored and accessed separately; the same goes for the iTunes Store. Naturally, Apple’s doesn’t give .Mac users posting access to store.apple.com. So Apple’s okay here. Not great, but I don’t see a solution aside from not authenticating to .Mac at all, and that wouldn’t work. Note that the problem is made worse by the fact that Apple pushes people towards using a single “Apple ID” for all Apple services, and further requires 1-click ordering to be enabled for at least iPhoto print orders, which makes .Mac password compromises more severe, by linking them to active credit cards. There’s an ongoing dynamic tension between making the site richer and more capable, and limiting it to prevent ‘mischief’. MySpace is clearly possible partially because it’s so flexible. Every security restriction is necessarily weighed as a potential detractor from ease of use, power, and popularity. What about Amazon? They put user content on the main amazon.com shopping site! But I believe what they allow is much more restricted HTML, and there’s at least some editorial review, so they’re probably okay. I’m sure more problems will appear over time, as people add community functionality to more and more sites, for feedback, documentation, etc. I recently had to think long and hard about sending a financial document to an ISP based on a publicly-editable wiki page (it’s no longer editable, but there’s still plenty of potential for mischief there). It’s a wiki – I didn’t even have a guarantee that the offer on the page was real. I eventually decided the page and fax number were almost certainly legitimate (they were), and the risk was very small, but that doesn’t mean the next such page will be copacetic. People have asked me a couple times to add CMS-type functionality to the website for our 31-student co-operative pre-school, so it’s clear that interactive “community” features are not stuck in a MySpace-type-only ghetto. This is an issue that all web developers must keep in mind as they consider user contributions and interactivity or their sites: What does it do to our existing security model? Do we need to draw a stronger line between official/ecommerce/corporate and public/collaborative/non-binding/untrusted? Note that this isn’t a Web 2.0 issue. Various companies have been mixing employee and customer email domains for years. I believe Netscape used to provide @netscape.com email addresses to subscribers. What a great opportunity for spam! From: update-service@netscape.com Subject: Urgent Netscape Upgrade Please go to update-service.netscrape.com to get an important security patch for your Netscape browser! It’s quaint now, but 5 years ago lots of people used

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

“Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.”

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.