I am writing a custom pam module where authentication is controlled only from particular ip addresses
I am not able to get the ip address of the client making a connection.
Is there any example ?
I am using this function in my code
....
err = pam_get_item(pamh, PAM_RHOST, (const void **) &pHost);
.....
But I get phost as always null
First off:
where authentication is controlled only from particular ip addresses
It's a bad idea to base this off IP addresses, as they can be ridiculously easily forged. Simply don't do that.
Secondly:
As man pam_get_item will tell you
The requesting hostname (the hostname of the machine from which the PAM_RUSER entity is requesting service). That is PAM_RUSER#PAM_RHOST does identify the requesting user. In some applications, PAM_RHOST may be NULL. In such situations, it is unclear where the authentication request is originating from.
That will be the case in many applications nowaday.
You might simply be confusing PAM requests origins (which shouldn't ever be trusted -- those are the people trying to get auth, so trusting them before you trust them is plain making your own auth mechanism useless) and the "authenticator" working in the background.
If you need host-based validation, there's already a mature, albeit a little complex to set up, but still widely deployed solution: Kerberos has exactly that purpose, authenticating hosts, so that further authentications can take host authenticity into consideration. Don't reinvent the wheel, especially in security contexts.
Related
I am implementing a Web proxy (in C), with the end goal of implementing some simple caching and adblocking. Currently, the proxy supports normal HTTP sites, and also supports HTTPS sites by implementing tunneling with HTTP CONNECT. The proxy works great running from localhost and configured with my browser.
Despite all of this, I'll never be able to implement my desired features as long as the proxy can not decrypt HTTPS traffic. The essence of my question is: what general steps do I need to take to be able to decrypt this traffic and implement what I would like? I've been researching this, and there seems to be a good amount of information on existing proxies that are capable of this, such as Squid.
Currently, my server uses select() and keeps all client ids in an fd_set. When a CONNECT request is made, it makes a TCP connection to the specified host, and places the file descriptor of both the client and the host into the fd_set. It also places the tuple of fd's into a list, and the list is scanned whenever more data is ready from select() to see if data is coming from an existing tunnel. The data is then read and forwarded blindly. I am struggling to see how to intercept this data at all, due to the nature of the CONNECT verb requiring opening a simple TCP socket to the desired host, and then "staying out of it" while the client and host set up their own SSL sockets. I am simply asking for the right direction for how I can go about using the proxy as a MITM attacker in order to read and manipulate the data coming in.
As a brief aside, this project is solely for my own use, so no security or advanced functionality is needed. I just need it to work for one browser, and I am happy to get any warnings from the browser if certificate-spoofing is the best approach.
proxy can not decrypt HTTPS traffic
You are trying to mount a man-in-the-middle attack. SSL is designed to prevent that. But - there is a weak point - a list of trusted certificate authorities.
I am simply asking for the right direction for how I can go about using the proxy as a MITM attacker in order to read and manipulate the data coming in.
You can get inspiration from Fiddler. The Fiddler has its own CA certificate (certification authority) and once you add this CA certificate as trusted, then Fiddler generates server certificates for each connection you use on the fly.
It comes with serious security consideration, your browser will trust any site. I've even seen using the Fiddler core inside a malware, so be careful
Ok so recently I have been in need of creating a application with WebRTC for video voice etc.
So after looking into some libraries I found SimpleWebRTC to be pretty handly looking:
https://github.com/andyet/SimpleWebRTC
So what I am interested in is how do I implement a STUN/TURN server? (Would be great if someone could explain the differences in plain English!) And also is there a authentication mechanism. At the moment my app contacts my database and logins in user etc, but the stun and turn server would be private and not in any way involved in the authentication procedure.
So basically:
What is the best way to implement STUN/TURN
Is there any authentication mechanism?
Note, this is for a hybrid app so I will be using JavaScript/AngularJS for this. The main reason why I chose SimpleWebRTC.
Thank you!
I suggest you use an existing STUN or TURN server like coturn.
STUN servers are very lightweight and often left without authentication. A STUN server basically tells a client what its IP address appears to be, which is necessary to make peer connections across NAT (network address translation) boundaries.
TURN servers are very resource intensive because they relay media; all of the media for a call can go through the TURN server, so it's important to secure TURN. You use TURN servers in situations where UDP may be blocked, or for particular kinds of NATs that cause problems.
The authentication for coturn's TURN server can take one of two forms:
Simple (username, password) pair
TURN REST API. This uses a secret between the TURN server and another entity. The entity issues tokens with expiration times, and the TURN server verifies the token has not expired and was issued with knowledge of the shared secret. This is passed by the TURN client as a username, password pair in a format described in the documentation.
Good morning,
I was going through the Postgresql configuration files, and recently noticed that there is an ssl option. I was wondering when this is required.
Say if you have an app server and a database server - not running inside a private network. If a user tries to log in, if SSL is not enabled will the app server transmit the user's password in cleartext to the database when looking up if it is a valid username/password?
What is standard practice here? Should I be setting up my DB to use SSL?
If that is the case, is there any difference in the connection settings in config/database.yml in my Rails app?
Thanks!
Like for other protocols, using SSL/TLS for PostgreSQL allows you to secure the connection between the client and the server. Whether you need it depends on your network environment.
Without SSL/TLS the traffic between the client and the server will be visible by an eavesdropper: all the queries and responses, and possibly the password depending on how you've configured your pg_hba.conf (whether the client is using md5 or a plaintext password).
As far as I'm aware, it's the server that requests MD5 or plaintext password authentication, so an active Man-In-The-Middle attacker could certainly downgrade that and get your password anyway, when not using SSL/TLS.
A well-configured SSL/TLS connection should allow you to prevent eavesdropping and MITM attacks, against both passwords and data.
You can require SSL to be used on the server side using sslhost in pg_hba.conf, but that's only part of the problem. Ultimately, just like for web servers, it's up to the client to verify that SSL is used at all, and that it's used with the right server.
Table 31-1 in the libpq documentation summarises the levels of protection you get.
Essentially:
if you think you have a reason to use SSL, disable, allow and prefer are useless (don't take "No" or "Maybe" if you want security).
require is barely useful, since it doesn't verify the identity of the remote server at all.
verify-ca doesn't verify the host name, which makes it vulnerable to MITM attacks.
The one you'll want if security matters to you is verify-full.
These SSL mode names are set by libpq. Other clients might not use the same (e.g. pure Ruby implementation or JDBC).
As far as I can see, ruby-pg relies on libpq. Unfortunately, it only lists "disable|allow|prefer|require" for its sslmode. Perhaps verify-full might work too if it's passed directly. However, there would also need a way to configure the CA certificates.
Considering data other than the password. If you use or not i pretty much a security posture issue. How safe do you need your system to be? If the connection is just over your private network then you anyone on that network can listien in. If that is acceptable that dont use SSL, I not enable it. If the connection is ove r internet SSL should be enable.
As #Wooble says. You should never send the password as cleartext in the first place you have a problem. The stanard solution in this case is to store a hash in the database and only send the hash for validation.
Here is som link about the rails part
I'm doing https web requests in silverlight using "WebRequest"/"WebResponse" framework classes.
Problem is: I do a request to an url like: https://12.34.56.78
I receive back a versign signed certificate which has as subject a domain name like: www.mydomain.com.
Hence this results in a remote certificate mismatch error.
First question: Can I somehow accept the invalid certificate, and get the WebBresponse content ? (even if it involves using other libraries, I'm open to it)
Additional details: (for those interested on why I need this scenario)
I'm trying to give a client access to a silverlight app deployed on a test server.
Client accesses the silverlight app at: www.mydomain.com/app
Then I do some rest requests to: https://xx.mydomain.com
Problem is I don't want to do requests on https://xx.mydomain.com, since that is on our productive server. For this reason I use https://12.34.56.78 instead of https://xx.mydomain.com.
Client has some firewalls/proxies and if I simply change his hosts file and map https://xx.mydomain.com to 12.34.56.78, web requests don't resolve to the mapped IP.
I say this because on his network webrequests fail if I try that, on my network I can use the hosts changing without problems.
UPDATE: Fixed the problem by deploying test releases to an alternative: https://yy.domain.com and allowing the user to configure for test purposes, the base url to which I do requests to be: https://yy.domain.com.
Using an certificate that contained the IP in the subject or an alternative subject would've probably worked too, but would have cost some money to be issued by a certified provider and would not be so good because IP's might change.
After doing more research looks like Microsoft won't add this feature too soon, unless there's a scenario for non-testing/debugging uses.
See: http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/368047/add-system-net-servicepointmanager-servercertificatevalidationcallback-property
Ok,
I have developed this WinForms client, which interacts with a server (ASPX Application) by means of WCF calls. I would now like to deploy the server to my shared webhost, but I'm kinda new to WCF and especially the security possibilities behind it.
The goal is to kind of secure the WCF service, so that not everybody that knows or finds out the endpoint address can call it. Rather, only my WinForms client must be able to call the WCF service.
I do not need authentication on a user basis, so no authentication is required from the user of the client. But I want only instances of this WinForms client to be able to interact with the service. The information passed between server and client is not very sensitive, so it's not really required to secure it, but it's a plus if it can easily be done.
Is this possible with a Shared Host (IIS) environment (no HTTPS at disposal) ? What bindings and options should I use ? I suppose wsHttpBinding, but how would I setup the security options ?
Using .NET 4.0
Thanks
From what I understand, you have an internet-facing service which you want to limit to only your client app to be able to call - correct? Or do you envision other clients (like PHP, Ruby etc.) also wanting to call into your service at some point?
To secure your message, you have two options in WCF - message or transport security. Over the internet, with an unknown number of hops between your client and your service, transport security doesn't work - you're left with message security (encrypting the message as it travels across the 'net). For this to work, you typically add a digital certificate to your service (only server-side) that the client can discover and use to encrypt the messages with. Only your service will be able to decrypt them - so you're safe on that end.
The next point is: who can call your service? If you want to be totally open to anyone, then yes, you need wsHttpBinding (or the RESTful variant - webHttpBinding). If you want to allow non-.NET clients, you're typically limited to no authentication (anyone can call), or username/password schemes which you will validate on the server side against a database of valid users.
If you only want to allow your own .NET client in, then you can do several things:
disable metadata on your service; with this, you would "hide" your endpoints and the services they provide - someone using a "metadata scanner" (if that exists) wouldn't be able to just stumble across your service and find out what methods it provides etc. This however also makes it impossible for another developer outside your organization to do an Add Service Reference to your service.
you could define and use a custom binary http binding - only other clients with this setup could even call your service. The binary http binding would bring some speed improvements, too. See this blog post on how to do this.
you need to somehow identify those callers that are allowed in - one possible method would be to put an extra header into your WCF messages that you then check for on the server side. This would simply make sure that a casual hacker who discovers your service and figures out the binary http binding would still be rejected (at least for some time). See this blog post here on how to implement such a message inspector extension for WCF.
the ultimate step would be to install a digital certificate on the client machine along with your service. You would then set up your client side proxy to authenticate with the service using that certificate. Only client machine that have that certificate could then call into your service.
It really depends on how far you want to go - WCF gives you a lot of options, but you need to decide how much effort you want to put into that .
The first thing you need to ask your self is: "What can someone do to your WCF service if they connected their own customized client?" Look at all of the functionality that is being exposed via WCF and assume that it could be accessed at will. You have absolutely no control over the client, and you will never have this ability.
HTTPS is beautiful, its a damn shame that your forced to be vulnerable to OWASP A9: Insufficient Transport Layer Protection. If it where up to me, I would move to a different host that cared about security. If you are throwing usernames and passwords over the network, then your putting your users in danger.
One of the biggest problems I have seen with a WCF service is that they had a "executeQuery()" function that was exposed. The developer allowing the client to build queries to be executed by the server. This approach is fundamentally flawed as you are just handing your database over to an attacker. This type of vulnerability isn't SQL Injection, it falls under CWE-602: Client-Side Enforcement of Server-Side Security.
Along the same lines as CWE-602 is OWASP A4: Insecure Direct Object References. Could an attacker fool your WCF service into thinking its another user by providing a different user id? Are you trusting the client to tell the truth?
The next classification of vulnerabilities that you must take into consideration is OWASP A1: Injection, other wise known as "Taint and Sink". For instance if you are exposing a function where one of its parameters is being used in a CreateProcess() which is invoking cmd.exe. This parameter could be controlled by the attacker, and there for this variable is "tainted", the call to CreateProcess() is a "sink". There are many types of vulnerabilities along these lines, including but not limited to; SQL Injection, LDAP Injection, XPATH Injection. These types of vulnerabilities affect all web applications.