I agree that there is always a risk of developers unwittingly exposing security holes and we can't protect them from the endless ways in which they might achieve that. But if we could prevent this at the framework level from ever occurring then shouldn't we consider doing so? I have no intention (currently at least) of working on this, but if somebody wanted to would we not allow them to do so? Perhaps the benefits of being able to pass in a userLogin record from a remote service call outweigh the risks, I don't know.
Regards Scott On 1/07/2010, at 9:27 PM, David E Jones wrote: > > This is kind of along the lines of how do we ensure that all code is secure. > Along with that service which would be a big security whole, what about a > service that gets all credit card numbers from the database and emails them > to whatever email address is passed in? > > There is probably no limit to the variations of code that would be considered > serious security breaches. If you can run code on the server, again... the > deal is blown. I guess that's why so many security issues involve some way of > either accessing the database directly, or getting code to run on the server. > > Some stuff you can avoid or at least discover with tar pits, honey pots, and > all variety of sticky things, but for every sticky thing there is a work > around if enough is known. They're still a good idea, but in many ways once > an attacker can run code on the server or get into the db then it's gonna be > a bad day for a bunch of people. > > -David > > > On Jul 1, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Scott Gray wrote: > >> Not necessarily direct access to the database but perhaps access to a >> service that is capable of returning another user's UserLogin record. >> >> I'm not sure if any services like that exist currently, my feeling is that >> it is very unlikely since there are few good reasons to return a UserLogin >> record of anyone other than the caller. So the question becomes should we >> hope that no one ever creates a service like that or should we attempt to >> deal with this potential scenario in the service engine somehow? >> >> Regards >> Scott >> >> On 1/07/2010, at 8:52 PM, David E Jones wrote: >> >>> >>> Do you mean like getting a UserLogin record from the database? If they have >>> access to the database then I don't know what can be done about security. >>> It seems like from that point the deal is blown... >>> >>> -David >>> >>> >>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:39 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>> >>>>> Take a look at the service engine code. You'll see that even if you pass >>>>> in the userLogin GenericValue object the username/password are verified, >>>>> it isn't just accepted as pre-authenticated or something. >>>> >>>> Your response only appears to cover the scenario of a malicious user >>>> attempting to generate a fake UserLogin record on their own. If the >>>> UserLogin record came from the database (or is manufactured with a correct >>>> userLoginId and encrypted password) then authentication will succeed. >>>> After looking at the code in ServiceDispatcher.checkAuth(...) it looks to >>>> me like if an RMI user can somehow get hold of someone else's UserLogin >>>> record then they should be able to successfully impersonate that user. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Scott >>>> >>>> On 1/07/2010, at 8:23 PM, David E Jones wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I believe I addressed that in my original response. >>>>> >>>>> -David >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 2:21 AM, Scott Gray wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think Muhammed's point is that once a user has authenticated using >>>>>> their own username/password, it is possible that they could retrieve >>>>>> another user's UserLogin record and then use it to execute services >>>>>> without needing to know that user's password. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Scott >>>>>> >>>>>> HotWax Media >>>>>> http://www.hotwaxmedia.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 1/07/2010, at 7:58 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In your example you needed 1st to know the login/pwd couple. So I can't >>>>>>> see the problem here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Jacques >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Muhammed Aamir" <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> All service where auth="true" take at least three IN (or INOUT) >>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>> by deffault 1) login.username 2) login.password and 3) loginUser. >>>>>>>>>> No. 1 and 2 definitely make sense. However 3 might be a security >>>>>>>>>> threat (or >>>>>>>>>> my understanding is wrong). Any user (calling service remotely) can >>>>>>>>>> pass >>>>>>>>>> loginUser GV (which he some how got hold of, may be by invoking >>>>>>>>>> getRelated >>>>>>>>>> sort of method on some other GV) which might not belong to her. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 1, 2010, at 1:42, David E Jones <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All service where auth="true" take at least three IN (or INOUT) >>>>>>>>>>> parameters >>>>>>>>>>> by deffault 1) login.username 2) login.password and 3) loginUser. >>>>>>>>>>> No. 1 and 2 definitely make sense. However 3 might be a security >>>>>>>>>>> threat (or >>>>>>>>>>> my understanding is wrong). Any user (calling service remotely) can >>>>>>>>>>> pass >>>>>>>>>>> loginUser GV (which he some how got hold of, may be by invoking >>>>>>>>>>> getRelated >>>>>>>>>>> sort of method on some other GV) which might not belong to her. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
