I have a React application which has a form input. The user will fill out this form and once finished this data will be sent via POST request to a service (Spring Boot app) which will persist the data. The web app also has a search function and will send query params via GET request to the same Spring Boot app.
I am sanitizing the data when it is received in the Spring Boot application using a Filter.
My question is, since the server side is validating the data and stripping out possible XSS attack code, is it necessary to sanitize data inputted into the form on the React app side too? If so, would I do this just before the API call is made? i.e. have code to strip out dangerous characters before the data is added to POST payload, or as soon as data is read in from input text fields?
I have read numerous posts online and answers here on SO. I understand that it seems most important to validate on the server side since client code can't be trusted. The thing I am not clear on is since the client code is accessible to any possible attacker, can't they just bypass any validation mechanism on the client side making it pointless to add on the client in the first place? The only advantage I can see right now is detecting dangerous input as early as possible.
Thanks
It is useless to do client side sanitisation - is wasting of time and giving false feeling of security for developers.
If you want to do sanitisation of input(arguably it is not necessary, if your clients encode output), you have to do it on the server anyway.
“The only advantage I can see right now is detecting dangerous input
as early as possible.”
The experience hacker will bypass client validation anyway.
You should not put effort to provide naive hacker a feedback as early as possible :)
If you backend uses .Net, see AntiXSS in ASP.Net Core
Its not pointless to do client-side validation - for one, its good UX - you should never allow a user to enter invalid data into input fields otherwise they will be presented with a litany of server-side error messages after submission.
Secondly it can deter casual attackers who may just want to see what happens if they enter ' into the username field... (a sql injection attack). But who otherwise may not be bothered to get out a web proxy and start a full-on attack.
Related
So in an ideal world both client side validation and server side validation can be defined in one place, so the validation only has to be written once and can be reused where ever.
The idea i have to solve this is to do all the validation through an API using ASP.NET Core. When the form data on the client changes it will send an AJAX request with the updated data model, which the API validates and in turn returns any possible errors. The client then shows these errors to the user directly.
This way it still looks like the good old client-side validation, but it actually all happens on the server.
I can already imagine the server load is going to be increased since a lot more API calls will be send, however the question is:
will this server load be manageable in for example a big enterprise application with huge forms and complex validation?
And are there any other big drawbacks of this solution which i have to watch out for?
You are talking about an API not any other type of application with a back-end.
In this world, yes the validation of the payloads is important and needs to happen on the API side. In a way, the validation is the easiest part and less resource consuming since this is the first thing you check and if it doesn't pass then the API returns a 400 BadRequest HTTP code and nothing else happens.
There are systems where the validation, especially business rules validation does not happen on the API side. You could have for example a financial platform and the API is simply the gateway inside that world. In this case, the API acts as a pass-through and doesn't do much itself.
This being said, everything is susceptible to too much traffic, but you should be able to either throw enough resources at it, or have it deployed in the cloud and let it scale based on demand. You can load test APIs as well, to see how well they do under pressure, you must have an idea of how many calls you can expect in a certain period of time.
I wouldn't worry too much about it, I'd say validate what you can client side, so you don't even hit the API if there is no need for it and leave the rest to the API
Contemplating building an Angular 2 front-end to my website. My question is not necessarily related to Angular but I want to provide full context.
Application logic that displays content to user would shift to the client. So on the server side, I would need to expose data via a RESTful JSON feed. What worries me, is that someone can completely bypass my front-end and execute requests to the service with various parameters, effectively scraping my database. I realize some of this is possible by scraping HTML but exposing a service with nicely formatted data is just a no-brainer.
Is there a way to protect the RESTful service from this? In other words, is there a way to ensure such service would only respond to my Angular 2 application call? Authentication certainly isn't a solution here - I don't want to force visitors to authenticate and the scraper could very well authenticate and get access, anyway.
I would recommend JWT Authorization. One such implementation is OAuth. Basically you get a json web token ( JWT ) that has been signed by an authority you trust that tells about the user and what resources they can access on your api.
If the request doesn't include an Authorization token - your API rejects it.
If the token has been tampered with by someone trying to grant themselves privledges after the token is signed by the authorization authority - your API rejects it.
It is a pretty cool piece of kit.
This site has information about OAuth implementations in different languages, hopefully your favorite is listed.
Some light bed time reading.
There is no obvious way to do it that I know of, but a lot of people seem to be looking at Amazon S3 as a model. If you put credentials in your client code, then anyone getting the client code can see them. I might suggest that you could write the server to pass a time limited token back to the browser with the client code. The client code would be required to pass it back to the server for access. This would prevent anyone from writing their own client code, as only client code sent by the server would work, though only for some period of time. The user might occasionally get timeouts, but that depends on how strict you want to make the token timeouts. Of course, even this kind of thing could be hacked by someone making a client request to get a copy of the token to use with their own client API, but at that point you should be proud that someone is trying so hard to use your API! I have not tried to write such a thing, so I don't have any practical experience with the issue. I myself have wondered about it, but also don't have enough experience with this architecture to see what, if anything, others have been doing. What do angularJS forums suggest?
Additional References: Best Practices for securing a REST API / web service
I believe the answer is "No".
You could do some security by obscurity type stuff. Your rest API could expose garbled data and you could have some function that was "hidden" in your code un-garble it. Though obviously this isn't fool proof, but if you expose data on a public site it's out there regardless of server or client rendering.
I'm transitioning towards more responsive front-end web apps and I have a question about model validation. Here's the set-up: the server has a standard REST API for inserting, updating, retrieving, etc. This could be written in Node or Java Spring, it doesn't matter. The front-end is written with something like Angular (or similar).
What I need is to figure out where to put the validation code. Here's the requirements:
All validation code should be written in one place only. Not both client and server. this implies that it should reside on the server, inside the REST API when persisting.
The front-end should be capable of understanding validation errors from the server and associating them to the particular field that caused the error. So if the field "username" is mandatory, the client can place an error next to that field saying "Username is mandatory".
It should be possible to validate correct variable types. So if we were expecting a number or a date and got a string instead, the error would be something like "'Yo' is not a correct date."
The error messages should be localized to the user's language.
Can anyone help me out? I need something simple and robust.
Thanks
When validating your input and it fails you can return a response in appropriate format (guessing you use JSON) to contain the error messages along with a proper HTTP error code.
Just working on a project with a Symfony backend, using FOSRestBundle to provide proper REST API. Using the form component of Symfony whenever there's a problem with the input a well structured JSON response is generated with error messages mapped to the fields or the top level if for example there's unexpected input.
After much research I found a solution using the Meteor.js platform. Since it's a pure javascript solution running on both the server and the client, you can define scripts once and have them run on both the client and the server.
From the official Meteor documentation:
Files outside the client, server and tests subdirectories are loaded on both the client and the server! That's the place for model definitions and other functions.
Wow. Defining models and validation scripts only once is pretty darn cool if you ask me. Also, there's no need to map between JSON and whatever server-side technology. Plus, no ORM mapping to get it in the DB. Nice!
Again, from the docs:
In Meteor, the client and server share the same database API. The same exact application code — like validators and computed properties — can often run in both places. But while code running on the server has direct access to the database, code running on the client does not. This distinction is the basis for Meteor's data security model.
Sounds good to me. Here's the last little gem:
Input validation: Meteor allows your methods and publish functions to take arguments of any JSON type. (In fact, Meteor's wire protocol supports EJSON, an extension of JSON which also supports other common types like dates and binary buffers.) JavaScript's dynamic typing means you don't need to declare precise types of every variable in your app, but it's usually helpful to ensure that the arguments that clients are passing to your methods and publish functions are of the type that you expect.
Anyway, sounds like I've found the a solution to the problem. If anyone else knows of a way to define validation once and have it run on both client and server please post an answer below, I'd love to hear it.
Thanks all.
To be strict, your last gate keeper of validation for any CRUD operations is of course on server-side. I do not know what is your concern that you should handle your validation on one end only(either server or client), but usually doing on both sides is better for both user experience and performance.
Say your username field is a mandatory field. This field can be easily handled in front-end side; before a user click submit and then been sent to the server and then get returned and shows the error code. You can save that round trip with a one liner code in front-end.
Of course, one may argue that from client-side the bad guys may manipulate the data and thus bypassing the front-end validation. That goes to my first point - your final gate keeper in validation should be on your server-side. That's why, data integrity is still the server's job. Make sure whatever that goes into your database is clean, dry and valid.
To answer you question, (biased opinion though) AngularJS is still a pretty awesome framework to let you do front-end validation, as well as providing a good way to do server-side error handling.
I've read quite a few SO threads about authentication and authorization with REST and Angular, but I'm still not feeling like I have a great solution for what I'm hoping to do. For some background, I'm planning to building an app in AngularJS where I want to support:
Limited guest access
Role-based access to the application once authenticated
Authentication via APIs
All of the calls to the REST API will be required to occur over SSL. I'd like to do build the app without breaking RESTful principles, namely not keeping session state stored on the server. Of course, whatever is done vis-a-vis authorization on the client-side has to be reinforced on the server side. Since we need to pass the entire state with each request, I know I need to pass some sort of token so that the backend server receiving the REST request can both authenticate and authorize the call.
With that said, my main question is around authentication - what are the best practices here? It seems there are lots of different approaches discussed, here's just a few that I've found:
http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/12/principles-for-standardized-rest-authentication.html
http://frederiknakstad.com/2013/01/21/authentication-in-single-page-applications-with-angular-js/
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/RESTAuthentication.html
There was a similar question asked (AngularJS best practice application authentication), but unless I'm misunderstanding the answer, it seems to imply that a server session should be used, which is breaking RESTful principles.
My main concern with the Amazon AWS and the George Reese article is it seems to assume that the consumer is a program, rather than an end user. A shared secret can be issued to a programmer in advance, who can then use it to encode calls here. This isn't the case here - I need to call the REST API from the app on behalf of the user.
Would this approach be enough? Let's say I have a session resource:
POST /api/session
Create a new session for a user
To create a session, you need to POST a JSON object containing the "username" and "password".
{
"email" : "austen#example.com",
"password" : "password"
}
Curl Example
curl -v -X POST --data '{"username":"austen#example.com","password":"password"}' "https://app.example.com/api/session" --header "Content-Type:application/json"
Response
HTTP/1.1 201 Created {
"session": {
"id":"520138ccfa4634be08000000",
"expires":"2014-03-20T17:56:28+0000"
}
}
Status Codes
201 - Created, new session established
400 - Bad Request, the JSON object is not valid or required information is missing
401 - Unauthorized, Check email/password combo
403 - Access Denied, disabled account or license invalid
I'm leaving out the HATEOAS details for clarity. On the backend, there would be a new, limited duration session key created and associated with the user. On subsequent requests, I could pass this as part of the HTTP headers:
Authorization: MyScheme 520138ccfa4634be08000000
Then the backend servers would be responsible for digesting this out of the request, finding the associated user and enforcing authorization rules for the request. It should probably update the expiration for the session as well.
If all this is happening over SSL, am I leaving the door open to any kind of attacks that I should be protecting against? You could try to guess session keys and place them in the header, so I suppose I could additionally append a user GUID to the session key to further prevent brute force attacks.
It's been a few years since I've actively programmed and I'm just getting back into the swing here. Apologies if I'm being obtuse or unnecessarily reinventing the wheel, just hoping to run my ideas by the community here based on my reading thus far and see if they pass the litmus test.
When someone asks about REST authentication, I defer to the Amazon Web Services and basically suggest "do that". Why? Because, from a "wisdom of the crowds" point of view, AWS solves the problem, is heavily used, heavily analyzed, and vetted by people that know and care far more than most about what makes a secure request than most. And security is a good place to "not reinvent the wheel". In terms of "shoulders to stand on", you can do worse than AWS.
Now, AWS does not use a token technique, rather it uses a secure hash based on shared secrets and the payload. It is arguably a more complicated implementation (with all of its normalization processes, etc.).
But it works.
The downside is that it requires your application to retain the persons shared secret (i.e. the password), and it also requires the server to have access to that a plain text version of the password. That typically means that the password is stored encrypted, and it then decrypted as appropriate. And that invite yet more complexity of key management and other things on the server side vs secure hashing technique.
The biggest issue, of course, with any token passing technique is Man in the Middle attacks, and replay attacks. SSL mitigates these mostly, naturally.
Of course, you should also consider the OAuth family, which have their own issues, notably with interoperability, but if that's not a primary goal, then the techniques are certainly valid.
For you application, the token lease is not a big deal. Your application will still need to operate within the time frame of the lease, or be able to renew it. In order to do that it will need to either retain the user credential or re-prompt them for it. Just treat the token as a first class resource, like anything else. If practical, try and associate some other information with the request and bundle it in to the token (browser signature, IP address), just to enforce some locality.
You are still open to (potential) replay problems, where the same request can be sent twice. With a typical hash implementation, a timestamp is part of the signature which can bracket the life span of the request. That's solved differently in this case. For example, each request can be sent with a serial ID or a GUID and you can record that the request has already been played to prevent it from happening again. Different techniques for that.
Here is an incredible article about authentication and login services built with angular.
https://medium.com/opinionated-angularjs/7bbf0346acec
This SO question do a good job of summing up my understanding of REST
Do sessions really violate RESTfulness?
If you store a token in a session you are still creating state on the server side (this is an issue since that session is typically only stored on the one server, this can be mitigated with sticky sessions or other solutions).
I'd like to know what your reasoning is for creating a RESTful service though because perhaps this isn't really a large concern.
If you send a token in the body along with every request (since everything is encrypted with SSL this is okay) then you can have any number of servers (load balanced) servicing the request without any previously knowledge of state.
Long story short I think aiming for RESTful implementations is a good goal but being purely stateless certainly creates an extra layer of complexity when it comes to authentication and verifying authorization.
Thus far I've started building my back-ends with REST in mind, making URIs that make sense and using the correct HTTP verbs, but still use a token in a session for the simplicity of authentication (when not using multiple servers).
I read through the links you posted, the AngularJS one seems to focus just on the client and doesn't seem to explicitly address the server in that article, he does link to another one (I'm not a Node user so forgive me if my interpretation is wrong here) but it appears the server is relying on the client to tell it what level of authorization it has which is clearly not a good idea.
I have the following tiny dilemma: I have a backbone app, which is almost entirely route based, i.e. if I do to nameoftheapp/photos/1/edit I should go to the edit page for a given photo. The problem is, since my view logic happens almost 100% on the client side (I use a thin service-based server for storage and validation) how do I avoid issues of the sort of an unauthorized user reaching that page? Of course, I can make the router do the check if the user is authorized, but this already leads to duplication of efforts in terms of validation. Of course, I cannot leave the server side without validation, because then the API would be exposed to access of any sort.
I don't see any other way for now. Unless someone comes up with a clever idea, I guess I will have to duplicate validation both client and server-side.
The fundamental rule should be "never trust the client". Never deliver to the client what they're not allowed to have.
So, if the user goes to nameoftheapp/photos/1/edit, presumably you try to fetch the image from the server.
The server should respond with a HTTP 401 response (unauthorized).
Your view should have an error handler for this and inform the user they're not authorized for that - in whatever way you're interested in - an error message on the edit view, or a "history.back()" to return to the previous "page".
So, you don't really have to duplicate the validation logic - you simply need your views to be able to respond meaningfully to the validation responses from the server.
You might say, "That isn't efficient - you end up making more API calls", but those unauthorized calls are not going to be a normal occurrence of a user using the app in any regular fashion, they're going to be the result of probing, and I can find out all the API calls anyway by watching the network tab and hit the API directly using whatever tools I want. So, there really will be no more API traffic then if you DID have validation in the client.
I encountered the same issue a while ago, and it seems the best practice is to use server-side validation. My suggestion... Use a templating engine like Underscore, which is a dependency of Backbone, design the templates, and for those routes that only authenticated users or those with rights to do so, can access... you ask the server for the missing data (usually small pieces of json data) based on some CSRF token, or session_id, or both, (or any other server-side validation method you choose), and you render the template... otherwise you render a predefined error with the same template... Logic is simple enough...