> > - the "cookie standard" has progressed quickly and > >supports all of the > >things that regular authentication should have supported a > >long time ago: > > > > - passing a "server key" to be added to the digest, > >which can then > >be expired on the server > > - setting expiration times > > An issue with IE is the fact that passwords with forms are still stored. Can be overcome/forbidden with HTML code. The big problem with http + Basic auth is the static authentication information is sent cleartext. Easy replay. I've outlined a application-based solution in Bugtraq. Basically: - login to https://server/login/path - get at least two cookies: insecure "ticket" contains server-generated unique value that can be used to lookup user info when requesting protected pages secure ticket "check", only to login server, only to login path [if you serve https content, an "httpsticket" as well] - central repository matches "ticket" to user, various stateful info - at logout, the server marks the ticket as invalid; no replay - periodically, content server can redirect user back to https://server/login/path/verify?sendbackto=http://content/foo.html - /login/path/verify checks for presence of both "ticket" and "check"; a net-sniffing bandit will lack "check"; at that point the "ticket" is marked in the repository as 'tainted'; when the good user requests another document, that user is warned about the taint, required to log in again The login system can be any system you prefer. user/pass, hardware token, client certificate, whatever. The key is - attackers can't see the authentication data - they can't replay the insecure cookie, not for long, anyway > Next, what if an adversary finds a way to use his cookie (obtaining it > using spoofing or a man-in-the-middle attack (proxies are suitable for > this)), the adversary can use that cookie on the victim's behalf. See above. As for webmail, I've also suggested ways to protect authentication tickets from hostile email scripting by using one-time tickets for documents containing untrusted code, e.g. mail reading frames. > The next version of HTTP should have better security functions than > currently provides. The current standard doesn't satisfy the requirements > of many servers, today. This is the place to make suggestions... ...IMO, with a little creativity the current infrastructure suffices; or, at least it can't be significantly improved upon. -PeterReceived on Saturday, 6 January 2001 22:34:01 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 24 September 2003 06:33:41 EDT