Hey,
I'm wondering about the practices about authentication with regard to passwords.
I'm looking to exclude the HTTPS / SSL cert method, which is obviously the most secure method, but it's not completely within reach right now.
What I'm currently looking at is simply a Javascript SHA2 implementation that hashes the password before it is sent to the server. After reading a recent post (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=205420), it seems that this implementation isn't the best.
What is good practice for user password authentication without SSL? (Feel free to yell at me for not using SSL, but I'm currently not able to implement it.)
No difficulty in implementing SSL, but I'm a student and don't have much money. Granted, this is a temporary solution until I'm able to get some money together for a dedicated IP and SSL cert.
Given the fact that how cheap it is these days to get SSL certificates and static IPs I would take the route of SSL rather than going thru this untested (read: not well tested) route of JavaScript encryption.
As was pointed out by tptacek, this approach is not secure because the javascript can be rewritten in transit. Also consider that javascript-based hashing will be extremely slow and could interfere with the user experience if the browser bogs down. And IE may show an error that performance is slow on your site.
There just is no way around it, the only way to be secure is use SSL to share secrets when you register. From then on you can just transmit an authenticator (stored in a secure cookie) comprised of an expiration timestamp, any identifying user data (like userID), and a non-malleable MAC digest of the expiration and userID. Doesn't protect against replay but it helps to enforce a short expiration for the authenticator. With this approach you'll only need to use SSL for the initial login.
This is the best explanation of web authentication I've encountered on the net [PDF]:
Depending on who you are, you could guard against javascript being rewritten by a man in the middle attack by running, say, a greasemonkey script that figures out when a password should be sent and hashing with the server domain automagically, so long as you can cache it locally. In this way, admins could secure clients against having their passwords stolen without any effort on the part of web-app writers, or users. Even a browser, say, Firefox, could do some version of this.
Really, digest authentication solves the same problem, but hardly anyone uses it.
I know you're just trying to add a layer here, but if you think this through, you'll probably see that GreaseMonkey does not win against content-controlled Javascript for its own site. Firefox has had a hard enough time just keeping content-controlled Javascript from breaking into Chrome.
As a simple example, note the fact that the "when the password should be sent" signal originates from content-controlled JS, which controls the DOM. Note also that with same-origin out of the picture, the content-controlled JS can choose to send the password whenever it wants.
Sure, it's not meant to be foolproof. I only wanted sometime to secure the login for the large number of sites taking passwords with plaintext. Right now it's completely a statistics game -- you can just stand outside someone's wireless network capturing packets. If it's insecure or WEP, you'll be able to recover the key, then grepping through with password=_ will eventually give you a password to use on their favorite sites.
I do think security is a matter of degree. And currently authentication is but a few removed from wide open.
But to reify this a bit, do a little Google research on what the banking industry is dealing with regarding multifactor authentication. Nothing they are trying is working, and they're doing considerably more than Javascript hashing. The schemes being discussed here are being attacked, successfully.
Not every app developer who could use SSL does, which can give away passwords shared with SSL sites.
By the same token, some hackers capable of cracking do so, though they, in some sense of the word, really shouldn't.
We're thinking about security from two different standpoints. If I lock my door, but my glass window has no bars, I'll still say it's more secure than a house with a door open. The issue, for me, is less that someone can, but whether someone will. If I make it harder for someone to mess with me, maybe they won't.
I can't win that argument; it's semantic. Just remember that the majority of the decision you're talking about belongs not you but your users. Don't offer a false sense of security.
No security scheme delivered over Javascript is going to make a difference in a security audit. Your auditor is going to tell your prospective customer that anybody who controls the DNS, routing, the network, ARP, the browser --- or 10 other places --- can rewrite the Javascript in transit.
If you can't do SSL, just do plaintext passwords. It means you're being open with your users about the risk.
Attacks that require an in-flight rewrite of the client side element of the authentication method are several orders of magnitude more difficult than wire sniffing for passwords, which is not an insignificant barrier when we are talking about a 15/30 minute at-the-coffee shop attack window.
Wire sniffing won't work in a properly implemented scheme as the server doesn't trust the client in any way. All it does is accept transactions that contain appropriate authentication tokens that can be independently verified by the server. This means that your attack would need to insert a hook into the JavaScript to push the contents of any password field to a box under the attacker's control.
(Assuming there is a shared secret between server and client (eg, a password set up over SSL) then CHAP can provide authentication without the shared secret ever being available on the wire without it being (salted+hashed). The language used to implement the system makes no difference (provided you have a good source of random numbers available on at least the server, and a strong hash function). Even if you can't do SSL to set up the password this still has value over plain text, as it allows people to set up passwords on trusted connections (corporate LAN, wired ISP) and not expose them on untrusted networks (coffee shop wifi) to the most common form of attack - passive logging.)
"Wire-sniffing passwords" is far more difficult than redirecting traffic. I think you're totally off.
CHAP, by the way, is a bad protocol. It's mutual-auth challenge-response, and there are a bunch of gotchas to implementing it. Even the trivial challenge-response protocols proposed on this message board are better for web auth than CHAP.
(Edit: apart from my tone [heh], I wonder if readers are recoiling from the idea that something they can do on the command line with "tcpdump" is "hard". If you're trying to collect 1000 passwords, which machine do you crack to see 1000 sessions?)
Technically speaking, the first thing any decent security auditor will tell you is that certain security mechanism making or "not making a difference" depends solely on a threat model.
Challenge-response authentication protects against passive attacks (such as sniffing). Rewriting Javascript in transit implies an active attack scenario. In a majority of cases, yes, the active attacks are a part of a threat model, but there are deployment scenarios where they are not.
I'm no expert... but what if just the javascript was served via https? Maybe somebody ought to put an MD5 javascript library on an https server as a public service. Or would js hashing still be vulerable since the man-in-the-middle could change the nonce or something?
If you're going to serve Javascript over SSL, you need a full SSL setup including a valid certificate, etc. If you have that, you may as well just serve the login form itself over HTTPS, redirecting back to HTTP after logging the user in, and forget the Javascript altogether.
He means someone set up a a JS library over HTTPS on a server for _others_ to use. Like you would grab a JS library off of Google's HTTPS servers and use that on your non-SSL pages.
You've basically reimplemented HTTP Digest auth, although not quite as well.
The problem with your implementation is that the server needs to know the cleartext password. With digest auth, the server never has the clear password, (only a digest thereof) although it can use the digest to authenticate to other services with the same digest.
It doesn't really matter though, since passwords are very insecure and users know that. Nobody is going to give your web app an important password. If they do, and it gets compromised, it's their problem, not yours. (For secure authentication, look at how ssh uses public/private keys. Much better. Compromising the server's password database will never yield the private keys and hence is a complete waste of time for an attacker.)
The problem is that most users are not programmers, are not at all interested in computer security... So, no maybe most people here would not use an important password for yc news... But the average user doesn't think about this and knowing this can you really say that it's there fault for not being educated on computer security?
Anyway, since you do the right thing: SSL + bcrypt, good but don't say it's the user problem if the system gets compromised...
huh? whatever you do on the client machine you're still open to a man in the middle attack . hashing passwords simply make it more difficult for eavesdroppers to figure out the original password, and keep people from passing potentially sensitive information across the net in cleartext.
use SSL for things you need to keep secure, like credit card payments. If you can't set that up, outsource stuff to a payment provider like Paypal until you get your house in order. Otherwise be more clear about your security concerns in your write-up, so people know WHAT you are trying to solve instead of HOW you are trying to solve... something.
Also: any security scheme based off a simple hash function is going to require you to store cleartext passwords on the server side, meaning that any SQL injection vulnerability compromises, say, 10,000 user passwords.
Actually, I made a mistake in the diagram. The password will be hashed first, then the sha2(nonce + sha2(password)). Passwords will be stored server-side as sha2(password).
Your method for storing the passwords server-side is actually not very secure. Hashing the passwords without a unique salt is not a secure way to store them.
For one thing, every user with the password of 'secret' will have the same hash in your database. Secondly, if I were to steal all of your password hashes, I would just have to compute sha2 of every 6-8 (or whatever password length you are using) character string. With a 32 character salt, I would have to compute a sha2 of every 38-40 character string, making my job a more time consuming.
The thing with a salt is that - would you include the salt in the Javascript hashing system? like sha2(nonce + sha2(password + hash)) ? If so, then the salt isn't really that useful - you can then just compute sha2 of 6-8 letters + salt.
The only usefulness of the salt is if somebody steals your database and uses a rainbow table to try to get the passwords. If you don't have salts for each users, then a pre-generated rainbow table for sha1 based on common passwords is going to be very efficient at getting the passwords for each account.
If you use salt however, you are protected from the use of pre-generated tables since the attacker has to brute force all the combinations for each user. If you use sha1 or md5 it's still not too secure since sha1 and md5 are fast to calculate and getting faster with this : http://nsa.unaligned.org/hw.php
Of course, the big problem with the javascript way explained here is that you send sha2(nounce + sha2(password+salt))
This means, that anybody who get access to the database can send
sha2(nounce + hash_from_database)
So basically in this case using salt in the database prevent people from getting the password too easily (so it sorts protects the attacker from getting a password associated with an email address that he could try later on paypal), but it doesn't protect the account in any way...
And for those who think that it's unlikely for anybody to get access to the database, it happened to the reddit guys...
Hashing the password on the client with a nonce provided by the server and checking on the server is good for login, but not registration. The server still needs the password (or a hash of the password and a salt) in order to compute the login hash for comparison.
The only truly secure way (that I can think of) is some sort of public-key encryption, either SSL or some JavaScript library.
I'm on my second glass of wine right now, and Erin is glaring at me, but help me understand how the server avoids needing the password plaintext at every login to figure out what the challenge-response needs to be?
You can store a hash of the password in the DB as opposed to the password itself. The only time the actual plaintext password needs to be passed is at registration time, and even then you could add another hash step to get rid of that. What you can't get rid of is having to transmit something that is equivalent to the password at registration time, but you can at login time. The nonce (and a transaction id) let you construct a system that isn't susceptible to replay attacks.
That's very true. Damnit. Not sure how I'm going to fix that.
I've looked into public-key encryption, and unless if I generate a new public and private key for every request to login, replay attacks are still possible.
If you hash the password on the clientside, say, and then use that as the password in your scheme throughout, then you don't need to transmit the password in cleartext, ever.
This is a win because, even though you're sending something password-equivalent over the wire, at least you're not exposing a password that's used on other applications?
Precisely. For all the hackers ignoring it, there stands the simple fact: people reuse passwords over and over again, for bank accounts, email, and everything else. I don't know what the stats are, but I'd bet if you randomly query people in, say, your or family, you'll find quite a few. At least I did.
So while capturing a password over HTTP and replaying it gives access to someone's karma in a site like this, once you actually know the plaintext password you could, for many people, use it to break into otherwise secure sites (even using SSL), like gmail. This has serious reprecussions.
Finding a password over the wire is just like finding password: <something> in a closed drawer. Sure, you don't know what it's for, but were you malicious, you'd be able to try a host of different places.
Can we have it both ways? Transmit a password-equivalent over the wire, without compromising the security of the password database?
How about using a cryptographically strong hash on the client side, transmitting that hash to the server, and then having the server perform another cryptographically strong hash on the hash it receives, and compare that against its database? This way, the server isn't storing the passwords in the clear anywhere, and there is still at least some protection against having users' passwords picked out of the air -- even, I think, during the user's initial registration.
I realize that any client-side code designed to do this can be compromised by a man-in-the-middle attack, forcing the user's password out into the open. This isn't meant to be perfect security, it's just meant to provide one extra layer of protection for the individual user's password(s), without compromising the database as a whole.
It still leaves the problem of password sniffing over an unsecured network, but I think that could be solved by generating a salt on the server for each login request, and then transmitting that salt to the client, where it's used to re-hash the password-equivalent. That would also help protect against something like a DNS compromise, since effectively every user's password changes every time they log in.
There are still plenty of ways to break this scheme, but I think at this point it's Sufficiently Hard (tm) enough to be suitable for an online forum.
...and I imagine that somewhere, tptacek is screaming, "Just use SSL!"
I mean, there are a few standpoints here: if you're running a site, use SSL, if you're a user, don't reuse passwords or use something like PWDHash, or if you're working on a browser or you're an admin, consider a way, like PWDHash, of making it so that a password compromised at one site doesn't compromise any others.
In practical terms, just use HTTPS with rooted certs. It's not expensive for basic usage. And, if you're just doing a for-fun project you can always use self-signed certs.
Stay away from SRP. Browsers don't support it natively, and there are (so far as I can tell) no peer-reviewed libraries for it for the major web stacks. SRP is easy to get wrong.
