Ah, I see what you mean about sending things in plaintext over SSL.
You're right, that would be a lot simpler.
That said, I think I can handle the API keys with one model plus less
than a dozen lines of verification code, so it's not a huge burden. I
just don't have a whole lot of experience devising security schemes,
so wanted to make sure the concept was fundamentally sound. ;-)
Thanks for all your help!
On May 25, 10:26 am, Alex Robbins <alexander.j.robb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yeah, I understand that the data doesn't need to be encrypted. I just
> agree with you that SSL would be ideal.
>
> If you had SSL, then I don't think you'd need to work as hard with the
> public/private key hashing stuff. If all the transmitted data was
> encrypted (SSL) you could just send a clear-text password in the post
> data. No hashing, no public/private key, just easy.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 9:17 AM, ringemup <ringe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > By app-level solution you mean some sort of custom encryption /
> > decryption scheme for the data dictionaries?
>
> > I'm still not convinced the data needs encryption -- I mean, it
> > wouldn't hurt and in an ideal world I'd just push everything over SSL,
> > but the worst thing that happens if someone gets hold of the data
> > we're exchanging is a customer who has to call support because their
> > activation key registers as already in-use, not any sort of identity
> > theft or loss of financial credentials.
>
> > Mostly with this I'm just trying to make sure that I can prevent
> > unauthorized users from using the API to make themselves free
> > activation keys.
>
> > On May 25, 10:02 am, Alex Robbins <alexander.j.robb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> It might be worth a try to see if the self-signed cert gets you into
> >> trouble or not. Some url libraries might complain about it, but I
> >> don't think that the behavior is universal. As I think about it, I
> >> think it is normally browsers that whine about self-signed certs.
> >> Maybe the other server wouldn't even mention it? Anyway, it'd be a lot
> >> easier to setup an ssl cert than roll your own app level solution.
>
> >> Good luck!
> >> Alex
>
> >> On May 24, 10:57 am, ringemup <ringe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Not a bad idea, actually, but the other site is on shared hosting, so
> >> > I don't expect the host to be willing to add a self-signed cert as
> >> > trusted.
>
> >> > On May 24, 10:07 am, Alex Robbins <alexander.j.robb...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> > > Just a thought, but if you are the only person using the url, you
> >> > > could make your own self-signed security cert. It would be free and
> >> > > protect your data. It won't show up as trusted to users, but your
> >> > > other server can be set to accept it. (Assuming the lack of ssl is a
> >> > > budget issue, that wouldn't fix a technical issue.)
>
> >> > > Alex
>
> >> > > On May 23, 10:10 am, ringemup <ringe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > Hi folks --
>
> >> > > > I'm putting together a simple API to allow a separately-hosted but
> >> > > > trusted site to perform a very limited set of actions on my site.
> >> > > > I'm
> >> > > > wondering whether the design I've come up with is reasonably secure:
>
> >> > > > - Other site gets an API key, which is actually in two parts, public
> >> > > > key and private key, each of which is a uuid generated by Python's
> >> > > > uuid module.
>
> >> > > > - The API key object in the DB references a User object, whose
> >> > > > permissions determine what actions the API key owner may take
>
> >> > > > - Other site submits a POST request to a special URL on my site.
> >> > > > POST
> >> > > > request contains 3 vars: public_key, data (as JSON), hash.
>
> >> > > > - Hash is a SHA1 of the data concatenated with the private key
>
> >> > > > - I use the public key to search the database for the API key and
> >> > > > permissions.
>
> >> > > > - I generate the SHA1 of the data concatenated with the private key
> >> > > > from the DB, and check it against the submitted hash; only if they
> >> > > > match do I decode the data dict and take the actions specified within
>
> >> > > > - I then return an HTTP response containing a JSON object of the
> >> > > > format:
>
> >> > > > {
> >> > > > return_data: [object containing success / failure codes,
> >> > > > messages,
> >> > > > any other data],
> >> > > > hash: [SHA1 of return_data concatenated with private key]
>
> >> > > > }
>
> >> > > > - All data will be transmitted in the clear (no SSL currently
> >> > > > available -- *sigh*), but there will be no sensitive data in the
> >> > > > incoming data dict. return_data may contain values that aren't meant
> >> > > > to be broadcasted, but aren't really sensitive (along the lines of
> >> > > > activation keys for a game)
>
> >> > > > Do you see any major potential flaws in this plan?
>
> >> > > > Thanks!
>
> >> > > > --
> >> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > > > Groups "Django users" group.
> >> > > > To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > > > django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > > For more options, visit this group
> >> > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
>
> >> > > --
> >> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > > Groups "Django users" group.
> >> > > To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > > django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > > For more options, visit this group
> >> > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
>
> >> > --
> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> >> > Groups "Django users" group.
> >> > To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> > django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> > For more options, visit this group
> >> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> >> "Django users" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group
> >> athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Django users" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group
> > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django users" group.
> To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group
> athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-us...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.
