I've been learning about ways to keep databases for web applications more secure in School and one of the things mentioned was the encryption of data of the user's personal information. Now when I'm looking through examples of web systems I've noticed that it's normally just the password that is hashed, for obvious reasons, but should there be some sort of encryption when it comes storing a user's details such as their address? Is it safe to have these stored in plain text as long as you have measures in place to keep your database secure or should this be encrypted?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask but thought I would be able to get a good answer here
Yes, any Personally Identifiable Information (PII) should be encrypted in transit and at rest because it may be used for identity theft. There are recent instances of hackers getting into systems and stealing data that is then potentially sold on eg the Travelex data breach https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51017852. Encrypting the data makes it valueless even if hackers do get into your network.
This is different to password hashing which is a one way mechanism to allow comparison of provided credentials against stored credentials without ever needing to convert the stored value to plaintext. PII data does normally need to be decrypted by the applications that use it.
Related
I have a quick question based on database security.
I am looking to make a page that will require login details and once granted access will allow the user to change things such as name, address, phone number etc.
As long as the username and password is properly secure the information in the following pages will be safe right?
There is nothing I have to do like encrypting that information because it is behind the wall which is the login area. Or, are there other ways people can access database that I will need to consider?
Also can someone point me in the direction of a good way to do encryption. I have looked at using md5. Is that the best/easiest way to encrypt password and sensitive information.
Thanks
Q: "As long as the username and password is properly secure the information in the following pages will be safe right?
and
Q: "Also can someone point me in the direction of a good way to do encryption. I have looked at using md5. Is that the best/easiest way to encrypt password and sensitive information."
A: No, web security is not that simple. For example, an SQL injection bug will allow somebody to retrieve your whole database, including the "encrypted" [sic] information and non-encrypted information. But the standard way of storing password information is not by using "encryption" but instead some type of hashing (terminology differs from place to place, I'll get to that more in a moment).
As for how to do this properly, the two best sources are:
CrackStation.Net
Thomas Pornin
I'm partial to Thomas Pornin's description, as he is a real cryptographer who understands the issues better than anybody else. He has a number of posts about this on StackOverflow: you can can Google for it (I can't post more than 2 links since I am a new member here). Note also the Pornin points out the terminology abuse that everybody is making on this subject ("encryption", "key derivation function", etc...).
Please, please, don't make the mistake of using MD5!
Q: "Or, are there other ways people can access database that I will need to consider?"
A: An excellent book on this subject is Cryptography in the Database: the last line of defense. Think about: where are you backups stored -- how secure are they? Can system and database administrators always be trusted? What happens if there is some type of vulnerability in your system (such as SQL injection or remote file inclusion) that allows an attacker to get inside information? What about the threat of physical data theft? How about development staff -- do they get access to the database?
So really, it is not an easy question, and it takes a considerable amount of study to get a realistic understanding of the issues. Your company should have a security architect to help analyze your system and develop the right solution for it.
At the most simplistic level if you code something like select <columns> from <table> where <key columns> = <verified name> then yes, only the values matching the login will be displayed. However, the Bad People will look for ways to get data by going around your application, not by using it, up to and including stealing the DB server itself. You need to understand the whole variety of risks you face and make a call on what you're willing to do to address each, and which you are willing to just accept.
The first & accepted answer on this question about passwords management suggests to encrypt the user identifiers in DB.
The good point is that if anyone gets a password, he has to know how to decrypt the user login to get the full login/password pair.
Some disadvantages I see, for example:
you have to decrypt user logins every time you want to display them
if you want to do a 'begins with' search on user login to find users, you cannot simply use LIKE '...%'
ORDER BY on login field may be quite difficult too...
What would you recommend (encrypt user identifiers or not)?
As usual, the answer is "it depends".
In general, I'd say that if an attacker has access to your database, your security situation is so badly compromised that encrypting the passwords will likely do you no favours. This is different to using a one-way hash - it's likely that an attacker who has access to your database also has access to your decryption key, whereas one-way hashes, by definition, are one way.
As you already say, it's likely that you will need regular access to the userIDs (esp. if you use email addresses as user IDs); in that case, again, an attacker who can read your database likely can intercept the unencrypted data.
So, if you work for a bank, the government, or any other place where data security has to be at the very top of the list, this additional protection may just be worth it, especially if you have a strong key management system.
For other uses, I'd consider the additional security too small to merit the additional pain.
Encryption is considered to be a lesser form of secret storage than message digest functions. In fact, storing an encrypted password is a clear violation of CWE-257.
But why not hash the username? When the login the application will have the plain text. Depending on your application, you might not need to display a list of users. this would be an added layer of security, as both hashes have to be broken before the attacker can login.
That being said, if you have a plain text list of every username it will be trivial to perform a dictionary attack against any recovered hash. Further more user names are not created to be difficult to guess, often times users choose goofy names of birds or silly games like chess so that they are easy to remember.
Is there a way to design a database where users' profile data can be protected in case of system intrusion?
For example, private data may be valuable, even though it may not be directly related to financial transactions or passwords. [Phone numbers, email addresses, etc may be resold]
Is there a way to design a member-based website in which personal information is stored and manipulated by an authorized agent of the site. However, in this case the data could become devalued if the database was disconnected from the system.
I realize that most of user privacy and data concerns are mostly focused on the UI and preventing unauthorized users from accessing data that does not concern them. However, my question is how can user information be protected within the backend itself. I also realize that this is a case of loss of access of the data [and you can do anything reactive (technical wise)], but what I'm trying to discover is if something can be done proactively to dampen the blow.
My question is: how can personal data be protected, without taking away from the actual purpose of the data?
I can see a need for encrypting all information, but that would prevent groups from accessing the data related to the user. For example, you could encrypt userss zip codes with a private key, but how would you retain the ability to use the zip code's location information. [Maybe to make a claim to the user "these people may be near you"]
In this hypothetical situation, the attacker is given an exploited database. They can not use the originating system to manipulate the DB.
If you only access the users' information when they are logged in, you can use their password to decrypt data from the database. During this time, you could calculate a one-way hash from the zip code, for example, and store that unecrypted. But if you develop your database during the site's lifetime, you won't be able to update the information for old users who never log in. Maybe that isn't a problem in practice.
I'm going to presume that you're indicating an intruder has gained not only access to the machine, but any MySQL passwords as well.
With that being the case, the only solution I can think of would be to use an encrypted filesystem underneath the database.
Even there, though, you've still lost physical control of the device - so if the intruder has figured out the decryption key for the fs, you're still up the proverbial creek.
Another option would be to split the application so that the web site and database do not share the same system. And, of course, typically running the site with a read-only user is a Good Idea™ :)
Storing data in the database in a hashed or encrypted form is a good start, but you still need to have access to the decryption key, or it's going to be gobbledygook.
Ultimately, of course, the best way to secure the database is to prevent access - which is not a viable solution.
This is an issue that appears in the press periodically if/when a bank or store's customer list is accessed in an unauthorized form - the data is secure only via the interface/application: it's still in cleartext at some point underneath everything else.
Proper access controls are probably the most sensible approach in your example since you're not wanting to give up, e.g., the ability to sort or query against the fields in question.
I am assuming the answer is that storing a password in a WEBSQL database on the client side, unencrypted is not safe, but i thought i would ask anyway, the reason I am asking, is I am trying to add a dropbox uploading tool to a web app, but i need the password in plain text in order to access the user's dropbox account, i surely could come up with some foobar way to hash the passwords client side, and unhash them when needed, but if I will be able to unhash them, anyone will be able to do so as well, does anyone have a work around if this is the case?
There is no such thing as 100% secure or safe. The goal of security is to be safe enough. You determine what is the risk, and what is the level of pain you are willing to go through and find the sweet spot.
If you have to get a plain text back from a cypher you have no choice but to use encryption not hashing. Of course you have to have the key somewhere, whether user entered or stored somewhere so the key is vulnerable.
Since this is on a client computer, it may be vulnerable to phishing attacks, social engineering attacks, trojan/keylogger/virus attacks, physical security risks, etc.
storing clear text is a bad idea, but other than that you have to decide what level of pain the users will suffer through.
PKI tokens are a good option if the cost is worth it. otherwise most languages have many various encryption algorithms that can be used effectively.
No, it's not safe to store plaintext passwords, period.
Assuming your users log into your web app with a password, why not use that password to encrypt their (salted) dropbox password? That's still less than satisfactory from a security standpoint, but it's better than nothing.
Using the words "foobar" and "dropbox" in the same paragraph is a clear signal that you're asking for trouble with a home-grown solution. You're asking your users to trust you with the security of their dropbox data, which means you're accepting an awful lot of liability. You're also asking your users to violate one of the fundamental laws of security: Never trust your security to a third party.
The best advice I can offer is to delegate all security-related tasks to an expert, and have that code audited by another expert.
I am building an application with health information inside. This application will be consumer-facing with is new for me. I would like a method to put privacy concerns completely at ease. As I review methods for securing sensitive data in publicly accessible databases I have frequently come across the notion of database translucency. There is the original book on the subject and an excellent tutorial on the subject from Oriellynet.
My concern is that I have seen very little information regarding this idea on what I would consider very-modern programming sites (like this one). There does not seem to be an article about the idea on wikipedia. No questions on the subject here, and no very recent tutorials or articles on the subject. To be uber-brief, the idea is that certain data is clear to some users of the system, while other users a cryptographically prevented from accessing that data, even if they have administrator access.
I have done substantial work on a prototype database that provides translucent data access. I have run across a considerable problem: To be truly translucent, there can be no mechanism for password recovery. If an administrator can reset a users password, then they can briefly gain access to a users data. To be truly translucent, the user must never loose the password.
Those of us who use strong encryption to protect private data in our daily lives (technorati to be sure) are used to this problem when using these kinds of strong encryption systems. If the word "blowfish" is part of your daily lexicon that is one thing, but a website that is consumer focused? I am concerned that users will not be willing to wrap their mind around the "truly encrypted just for you" notion implicit with true database translucency. I am afraid of the support call that begins with "I lost my password" and ends with me saying "There is nothing that I can do for you".
My question: Should I implement this method in my application? Are there other open source applications that have gone down this route that I can compare database designs with (esp using php/MySQL)? I anyone else pursuing these kind of truly secure, but really inconvenient feature sets? Is there another database security model that is more popular and modern that I have missed? Was database translucency a fad or a legitimate database design method that I should embrace? While I always appreciate discussion I would prefer objective answers that I can leverage in my design.
So, I've been looking at something similar to this recently, and hit upon the same issue. The solution I'm considering implementing is as follows:
Upon registration, create a unique, secure (long) key for the user and use this to encrypt their data.
Encrypt this key with the user's password using e.g. AES and store it in the database.
At this point, you're still in the situation where if the user forgets their password, they've had it.
Create a public/private key pair representing your organisation, and store the public key on the server.
Split the private portion of the key into several components and give each to people (e.g. directors of your company) who have a significant stake (preferably financial) in the continued success of your company. Do this such that any two, or any three people can get together and restore the full private key when required. Encrypt each person's key with their own password.
When a user registers, as well as encrypting their key with their password, encrypt it with the organisational public key and store it somewhere.
Create a password reset form which records a request to reset the password of a user, along with some proof that the user is who they say they are (e.g. challenge/response).
Record these reset requests (optionally encrypted using the public key again) in the database.
Once per hour/day/week/month, get the requisite key-holders together, and use their combined keys to process the accrued reset requests, decrypting the keys of users who successfully proved they are who they say they are.
There are lots of challenges and considerations in this. I've got a few thoughts on most of these, but would be interested in others opinions too:
How to split the key safely between multiple people so that no one person can decrypt the stored keys.
How to minimise the number of keys that would be exposed if the 'master keys' genuinely fell into the wrong hands.
How to make sure that if (heaven forbid) your key-holders lost their keys, then (a) there's no risk of exposure of the data, and (b) there's no risk that suddenly the ability to reset passwords is lost forever.
How to successfully validate that someone really is who they say they are without making this a glaring hole in your whole security approach.
Anything you implement in this area WILL reduce the security of the translucent database approach, without a doubt, but this may be a worthwhile compromise depending on the nature of your data.
Should I implement this method in my application?
Well like other things in life, there is a trade off :) It's probably more secure but harder to built.
Are there other open source applications that have gone down this route that I can compare database designs with (esp using php/MySQL)?
Don't know, I guess the tools are there to do it yourself :)
Is anyone else pursuing these kind of truly secure, but really inconvenient feature sets?
Yes, but it seems like it's still in an immature state, like your problem you describe concerning lost passwords.
Is there another database security model that is more popular and modern that I have missed?
Basically there are two kinds of database connections. One option gives users a real database account, the other is to use single sign-on to the database. Prior to the web coming along, there were proponents of both models in the client/server world, but amongst web developers the single sign-on method is leading.
Was database translucency a fad or a legitimate database design method that I should embrace?
Don't think so, the UNIX password database, for instance, is a great example of a basic translucent database ;)
here something to read link text
Re: translucent databases. You could, I suppose, use fingerprints. What about burn victims, or people who end up losing their fingerprints? Oops. Is it worth that small percentage of users?
Familiarize yourself with HIPAA, especially when it comes to technology.
Remember that no system is truly secure, except Skynet*, and look what happened with that! Humans are in charge. When you work in a medical company, you sign an NDA indicating that you won't release any of the information you learn as part of your duties because it is confidential.
There will be someone to reset people's passwords. That's the way it is, because not everyone is technologically competent, and that's the way it stays for now.
You only have to implement security as well as HIPAA says.
in truth, there is another truly secure system: it is unplugged from both the network and the electricity, and it is turned off.
Slightly different solution, you might want to check out cryptdb:
http://css.csail.mit.edu/cryptdb/