Tag Archives: authentication

Bluetooth Vulnerability: BIAS

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/05/bluetooth_vulne_1.html

This is new research on a Bluetooth vulnerability (called BIAS) that allows someone to impersonate a trusted device:

Abstract: Bluetooth (BR/EDR) is a pervasive technology for wireless communication used by billions of devices. The Bluetooth standard includes a legacy authentication procedure and a secure authentication procedure, allowing devices to authenticate to each other using a long term key. Those procedures are used during pairing and secure connection establishment to prevent impersonation attacks. In this paper, we show that the Bluetooth specification contains vulnerabilities enabling to perform impersonation attacks during secure connection establishment. Such vulnerabilities include the lack of mandatory mutual authentication, overly permissive role switching, and an authentication procedure downgrade. We describe each vulnerability in detail, and we exploit them to design, implement, and evaluate master and slave impersonation attacks on both the legacy authentication procedure and the secure authentication procedure. We refer to our attacks as Bluetooth Impersonation AttackS (BIAS).

Our attacks are standard compliant, and are therefore effective against any standard compliant Bluetooth device regardless the Bluetooth version, the security mode (e.g., Secure Connections), the device manufacturer, and the implementation details. Our attacks are stealthy because the Bluetooth standard does not require to notify end users about the outcome of an authentication procedure, or the lack of mutual authentication. To confirm that the BIAS attacks are practical, we successfully conduct them against 31 Bluetooth devices (28 unique Bluetooth chips) from major hardware and software vendors, implementing all the major Bluetooth versions, including Apple, Qualcomm, Intel, Cypress, Broadcom, Samsung, and CSR.

News articles.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

Post Syndicated from Junade Ali original https://blog.cloudflare.com/time-based-one-time-passwords-for-phone-support/

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

As part of Cloudflare’s support offering, we provide phone support to Enterprise customers who are experiencing critical business issues.

For account security, specific account settings and sensitive details are not discussed via phone. From today, we are providing Enterprise customers with the ability to configure phone authentication to allow for greater support to be offered over the phone without need to perform validation through support tickets.

After providing your email address to a Cloudflare Support representative, you can now provide a token generated from the Cloudflare dashboard or via a 2FA app like Google Authenticator. So, a customer is able to prove over the phone that they are who they say they are.

Configuring Phone Authentication

If you are an existing Enterprise customer interested in phone support, please contact your Customer Success Manager for eligibility information and set-up. If you are interested in our Enterprise offering, please get in contact via our Enterprise plan page.

If you already have phone support eligibility, you can generate single-use tokens from the Cloudflare dashboard or configure an authenticator app to do the same remotely.

On the support page, you will see a card called “Emergency Phone Support Hotline – Authentication”. From here you can generate a Single-Use Token for authenticating a single call or configure an Authenticator App to generate tokens from a 2FA app.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

For more detailed instructions, please see the “Emergency Phone” section of the Contacting Cloudflare Support article on the Cloudflare Knowledge Base.

How it Works

A standardised approach for generating TOTPs (Time-Based One-Time Passwords) is described in RFC 6238 – this is the approach that is often used for setting up Two Factor Authentication on websites.

When configuring a TOTP authenticator app, you are usually asked to scan a QR code or input a long alphanumeric string. This is a randomly generated secret that is shared between your local authenticator app and the web service where you are configuring TOTP. After TOTP is configured, this is stored between both the web server and your local device.

TOTP password generation relies on two key inputs; the shared secret and the number of seconds since the Unix epoch (Unix time). The timestamp is integer divided by a validity period (often 30 seconds) and this value is put into a cryptographic hash function alongside the secret to generate an output. The hexadecimal output is then truncated to provide the decimal digits which are shown to the user. The Avalanche Effect means that whenever the inputs that go into the hash function change slightly (e.g. the timestamp increments), a completely different hash output is generated.

This approach is fairly widely used and is available in a number of libraries depending on your preferred programming language. However, as our phone validation functionality offers both authenticator app support and generation of a single-use token from the dashboard (where no shared secret exists) – some deviation was required.

We generate a single use token by creating a hash of an internal user ID combined with a Cloudflare-internal secret, which in turn is used to generate RFC 6238 compliant time-based one-time passwords. Similarly, this service can generate random passwords for any user without needing to store additional secrets. This is then surfaced to the user every 30 seconds via a JavaScript request without exposing the secret used to generate the token.

Time-Based One-Time Passwords for Phone Support

One question you may be asking yourself after all of this is why don’t we simply use the 2FA mechanism which users use to login for phone validation too? Firstly, we don’t want to accustom users to providing their 2FA tokens to anyone else (they should purely be used for logging in). Secondly, as you may have noticed – we recently began supporting WebAuthn keys for logging in, as these are physical tokens used for website authentication they aren’t suited to usage on a mobile device.

To improve user experience during a phone call, we also validate tokens in the previous time step in the event it has expired by the time the user has read it out (indeed, RFC 6238 provides that “at most one time step is allowed as the network delay”). This means a token can be valid for up to one minute.

The APIs powering this service are then wrapped with API gateways that offer audit logging both for customer actions and actions completed by staff members. This provides a clear audit trail for customer authentication.

Future Work

Authentication is a critical component to securing customer support interactions. Authentication tooling must develop alongside support contact channels; from web forms behind logins to using JWT tokens for validating live chat sessions and now TOTP phone authentication. This is complimented by technical support engineers who will manage risk by routing certain issues into traditional support tickets and being able to refer some cases to named customer success managers for approval.

We are constantly advancing our support experience; for example, we plan to further improve our Enterprise Phone Support by giving users the ability to request a callback from a support agent within our dashboard. As always, right here on our blog we’ll keep you up-to-date with improvements in our service.

Emotet Malware Causes Physical Damage

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/04/emotat_malware_.html

Microsoft is reporting that an Emotet malware infection shut down a network by causing computers to overheat and then crash.

The Emotet payload was delivered and executed on the systems of Fabrikam — a fake name Microsoft gave the victim in their case study — five days after the employee’s user credentials were exfiltrated to the attacker’s command and control (C&C) server.

Before this, the threat actors used the stolen credentials to deliver phishing emails to other Fabrikam employees, as well as to their external contacts, with more and more systems getting infected and downloading additional malware payloads.

The malware further spread through the network without raising any red flags by stealing admin account credentials authenticating itself on new systems, later used as stepping stones to compromise other devices.

Within 8 days since that first booby-trapped attachment was opened, Fabrikam’s entire network was brought to its knees despite the IT department’s efforts, with PCs overheating, freezing, and rebooting because of blue screens, and Internet connections slowing down to a crawl because of Emotet devouring all the bandwidth.

The infection mechanism was one employee opening a malicious attachment to a phishing email. I can’t find any information on what kind of attachment.

Use AWS Lambda authorizers with a third-party identity provider to secure Amazon API Gateway REST APIs

Post Syndicated from Bryant Bost original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/use-aws-lambda-authorizers-with-a-third-party-identity-provider-to-secure-amazon-api-gateway-rest-apis/

Note: This post focuses on Amazon API Gateway REST APIs used with OAuth 2.0 and custom AWS Lambda authorizers. API Gateway also offers HTTP APIs, which provide native OAuth 2.0 features. For more information about which is right for your organization, see Choosing Between HTTP APIs and REST APIs.

Amazon API Gateway is a fully managed AWS service that simplifies the process of creating and managing REST APIs at any scale. If you are new to API Gateway, check out Amazon API Gateway Getting Started to get familiar with core concepts and terminology. In this post, I will demonstrate how an organization using a third-party identity provider can use AWS Lambda authorizers to implement a standard token-based authorization scheme for REST APIs that are deployed using API Gateway.

In the context of this post, a third-party identity provider refers to an entity that exists outside of AWS and that creates, manages, and maintains identity information for your organization. This identity provider issues cryptographically signed tokens to users containing information about the user identity and their permissions. In order to use these non-AWS tokens to control access to resources within API Gateway, you will need to define custom authorization code using a Lambda function to “map” token characteristics to API Gateway resources and permissions.

Defining custom authorization code is not the only way to implement authorization in API Gateway and ensure resources can only be accessed by the correct users. In addition to Lambda authorizers, API Gateway offers several “native” options that use existing AWS services to control resource access and do not require any custom code. To learn more about the established practices and authorization mechanisms, see Controlling and Managing Access to a REST API in API Gateway.

Lambda authorizers are a good choice for organizations that use third-party identity providers directly (without federation) to control access to resources in API Gateway, or organizations requiring authorization logic beyond the capabilities offered by “native” authorization mechanisms.

Benefits of using third-party tokens with API Gateway

Using a Lambda authorizer with third-party tokens in API Gateway can provide the following benefits:

  • Integration of third-party identity provider with API Gateway: If your organization has already adopted a third-party identity provider, building a Lambda authorizer allows users to access API Gateway resources by using their third-party credentials without having to configure additional services, such as Amazon Cognito. This can be particularly useful if your organization is using the third-party identity provider for single sign-on (SSO).
  • Minimal impact to client applications: If your organization has an application that is already configured to sign in to a third-party identity provider and issue requests using tokens, then minimal changes will be required to use this solution with API Gateway and a Lambda authorizer. By using credentials from your existing identity provider, you can integrate API Gateway resources into your application in the same manner that non-AWS resources are integrated.
  • Flexibility of authorization logic: Lambda authorizers allow for the additional customization of authorization logic, beyond validation and inspection of tokens.

Solution overview

The following diagram shows the authentication/authorization flow for using third-party tokens in API Gateway:

Figure 1: Example Solution Architecture

Figure 1: Example Solution Architecture

  1. After a successful login, the third-party identity provider issues an access token to a client.
  2. The client issues an HTTP request to API Gateway and includes the access token in the HTTP Authorization header.
  3. The API Gateway resource forwards the token to the Lambda authorizer.
  4. The Lambda authorizer authenticates the token with the third-party identity provider.
  5. The Lambda authorizer executes the authorization logic and creates an identity management policy.
  6. API Gateway evaluates the identity management policy against the API Gateway resource that the user requested and either allows or denies the request. If allowed, API Gateway forwards the user request to the API Gateway resource.

Prerequisites

To build the architecture described in the solution overview, you will need the following:

  • An identity provider: Lambda authorizers can work with any type of identity provider and token format. The post uses a generic OAuth 2.0 identity provider and JSON Web Tokens (JWT).
  • An API Gateway REST API: You will eventually configure this REST API to rely on the Lambda authorizer for access control.
  • A means of retrieving tokens from your identity provider and calling API Gateway resources: This can be a web application, a mobile application, or any application that relies on tokens for accessing API resources.

For the REST API in this example, I use API Gateway with a mock integration. To create this API yourself, you can follow the walkthrough in Create a REST API with a Mock Integration in Amazon API Gateway.

You can use any type of client to retrieve tokens from your identity provider and issue requests to API Gateway, or you can consult the documentation for your identity provider to see if you can retrieve tokens directly and issue requests using a third-party tool such as Postman.

Before you proceed to building the Lambda authorizer, you should be able to retrieve tokens from your identity provider and issue HTTP requests to your API Gateway resource with the token included in the HTTP Authorization header. This post assumes that the identity provider issues OAuth JWT tokens, and the example below shows a raw HTTP request addressed to the mock API Gateway resource with an OAuth JWT access token in the HTTP Authorization header. This request should be sent by the client application that you are using to retrieve your tokens and issue HTTP requests to the mock API Gateway resource.


# Example HTTP Request using a Bearer token\
GET /dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue HTTP/1.1\
Host: rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com\
Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eEpPSF82UDk3...}

Building a Lambda authorizer

When you configure a Lambda authorizer to serve as the authorization source for an API Gateway resource, the Lambda authorizer is invoked by API Gateway before the resource is called. Check out the Lambda Authorizer Authorization Workflow for more details on how API Gateway invokes and exchanges information with Lambda authorizers. The core functionality of the Lambda authorizer is to generate a well-formed identity management policy that dictates the allowed actions of the user, such as which APIs the user can access. The Lambda authorizer will use information in the third-party token to create the identity management policy based on “permissions mapping” documents that you define — I will discuss these permissions mapping documents in greater detail below.

After the Lambda authorizer generates an identity management policy, the policy is returned to API Gateway and API Gateway uses it to evaluate whether the user is allowed to invoke the requested API. You can optionally configure a setting in API Gateway to automatically cache the identity management policy so that subsequent API invocations with the same token do not invoke the Lambda authorizer, but instead use the identity management policy that was generated on the last invocation.

In this post, you will build your Lambda authorizer to receive an OAuth access token and validate its authenticity with the token issuer, then implement custom authorization logic to use the OAuth scopes present in the token to create an identity management policy that dictates which APIs the user is allowed to access. You will also configure API Gateway to cache the identity management policy that is returned by the Lambda authorizer. These patterns provide the following benefits:

  • Leverage third-party identity management services: Validating the token with the third party allows for consolidated management of services such as token verification, token expiration, and token revocation.
  • Cache to improve performance: Caching the token and identity management policy in API Gateway removes the need to call the Lambda authorizer for each invocation. Caching a policy can improve performance; however, this increased performance comes with addition security considerations. These considerations are discussed below.
  • Limit access with OAuth scopes: Using the scopes present in the access token, along with custom authorization logic, to generate an identity management policy and limit resource access is a familiar OAuth practice and serves as a good example of customizable authentication logic. Refer to Defining Scopes for more information on OAuth scopes and how they are typically used to control resource access.

The Lambda authorizer is invoked with the following object as the event parameter when API Gateway is configured to use a Lambda authorizer with the token event payload; refer to Input to an Amazon API Gateway Lambda Authorizer for more information on the types of payloads that are compatible with Lambda authorizers. Since you are using a token-based authorization scheme, you will use the token event payload. This payload contains the methodArn, which is the Amazon Resource Name (ARN) of the API Gateway resource that the request was addressed to. The payload also contains the authorizationToken, which is the third-party token that the user included with the request.


# Lambda Token Event Payload  
{   
 type: 'TOKEN',  
 methodArn: 'arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:2198525...',  
 authorizationToken: 'Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgt...'  
}

Upon receiving this event, your Lambda authorizer will issue an HTTP POST request to your identity provider to validate the token, and use the scopes present in the third-party token with a permissions mapping document to generate and return an identity management policy that contains the allowed actions of the user within API Gateway. Lambda authorizers can be written in any Lambda-supported language. You can explore some starter code templates on GitHub. The example function in this post uses Node.js 10.x.

The Lambda authorizer code in this post uses a static permissions mapping document. This document is represented by apiPermissions. For a complex or highly dynamic permissions document, this document can be decoupled from the Lambda authorizer and exported to Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) or Amazon DynamoDB for simplified management. The static document contains the ARN of the deployed API, the API Gateway stage, the API resource, the HTTP method, and the allowed token scope. The Lambda authorizer then generates an identity management policy by evaluating the scopes present in the third-party token against those present in the document.

The fragment below shows an example permissions mapping. This mapping restricts access by requiring that users issuing HTTP GET requests to the ARN arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2 and the my-resource resource in the DEV API Gateway stage are only allowed if they provide a valid token that contains the email scope.


# Example permissions document  
{  
 "arn": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2",  
 "resource": "my-resource",  
 "stage": "DEV",  
 "httpVerb": "GET",  
 "scope": "email"  
}

The logic to create the identity management policy can be found in the generateIAMPolicy() method of the Lambda function. This method serves as a good general example of the extent of customization possible in Lambda authorizers. While the method in the example relies solely on token scopes, you can also use additional information such as request context, user information, source IP address, user agents, and so on, to generate the returned identity management policy.

Upon invocation, the Lambda authorizer below performs the following procedure:

  1. Receive the token event payload, and isolate the token string (trim “Bearer ” from the token string, if present).
  2. Verify the token with the third-party identity provider.

    Note: This Lambda function does not include this functionality. The method, verifyAccessToken(), will need to be customized based on the identity provider that you are using. This code assumes that the verifyAccessToken() method returns a Promise that resolves to the decoded token in JSON format.

  3. Retrieve the scopes from the decoded token. This code assumes these scopes can be accessed as an array at claims.scp in the decoded token.
  4. Iterate over the scopes present in the token and create identity and access management (IAM) policy statements based on entries in the permissions mapping document that contain the scope in question.
  5. Create a complete, well-formed IAM policy using the generated IAM policy statements. Refer to IAM JSON Policy Elements Reference for more information on programmatically building IAM policies.
  6. Return complete IAM policy to API Gateway.
    
    /*
     * Sample Lambda Authorizer to validate tokens originating from
     * 3rd Party Identity Provider and generate an IAM Policy
     */
    
    const apiPermissions = [
      {
        "arn": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway API ARN
        "resource": "my-resource", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway Resource
        "stage": "dev", // NOTE: Replace with your API Gateway Stage
        "httpVerb": "GET",
        "scope": "email"
      }
    ];
    
    var generatePolicyStatement = function (apiName, apiStage, apiVerb, apiResource, action) {
      'use strict';
      // Generate an IAM policy statement
      var statement = {};
      statement.Action = 'execute-api:Invoke';
      statement.Effect = action;
      var methodArn = apiName + "/" + apiStage + "/" + apiVerb + "/" + apiResource + "/";
      statement.Resource = methodArn;
      return statement;
    };
    
    var generatePolicy = function (principalId, policyStatements) {
      'use strict';
      // Generate a fully formed IAM policy
      var authResponse = {};
      authResponse.principalId = principalId;
      var policyDocument = {};
      policyDocument.Version = '2012-10-17';
      policyDocument.Statement = policyStatements;
      authResponse.policyDocument = policyDocument;
      return authResponse;
    };
    
    var verifyAccessToken = function (accessToken) {
      'use strict';
      /*
      * Verify the access token with your Identity Provider here (check if your 
      * Identity Provider provides an SDK).
      *
      * This example assumes this method returns a Promise that resolves to 
      * the decoded token, you may need to modify your code according to how
      * your token is verified and what your Identity Provider returns.
      */
    };
    
    var generateIAMPolicy = function (scopeClaims) {
      'use strict';
      // Declare empty policy statements array
      var policyStatements = [];
      // Iterate over API Permissions
      for ( var i = 0; i  -1 ) {
          // User token has appropriate scope, add API permission to policy statements
          policyStatements.push(generatePolicyStatement(apiPermissions[i].arn, apiPermissions[i].stage, apiPermissions[i].httpVerb,
                                                        apiPermissions[i].resource, "Allow"));
        }
      }
      // Check if no policy statements are generated, if so, create default deny all policy statement
      if (policyStatements.length === 0) {
        var policyStatement = generatePolicyStatement("*", "*", "*", "*", "Deny");
        policyStatements.push(policyStatement);
      }
      return generatePolicy('user', policyStatements);
    };
    
    exports.handler = async function(event, context) {
      // Declare Policy
      var iamPolicy = null;
      // Capture raw token and trim 'Bearer ' string, if present
      var token = event.authorizationToken.replace("Bearer ", "");
      // Validate token
      await verifyAccessToken(token).then(data => {
        // Retrieve token scopes
        var scopeClaims = data.claims.scp;
        // Generate IAM Policy
        iamPolicy = generateIAMPolicy(scopeClaims);
      })
      .catch(err => {
        console.log(err);
        // Generate default deny all policy statement if there is an error
        var policyStatements = [];
        var policyStatement = generatePolicyStatement("*", "*", "*", "*", "Deny");
        policyStatements.push(policyStatement);
        iamPolicy = generatePolicy('user', policyStatements);
      });
      return iamPolicy;
    };  
    

The following is an example of the identity management policy that is returned from your function.


# Example IAM Policy
{
  "principalId": "user",
  "policyDocument": {
    "Version": "2012-10-17",
    "Statement": [
      {
        "Action": "execute-api:Invoke",
        "Effect": "Allow",
        "Resource": "arn:aws:execute-api:us-east-1:219852565112:rz8w6b1ik2/get/DEV/my-resource/"
      }
    ]
  }
}

It is important to note that the Lambda authorizer above is not considering the method or resource that the user is requesting. This is because you want to generate a complete identity management policy that contains all the API permissions for the user, instead of a policy that only contains allow/deny for the requested resource. By generating a complete policy, this policy can be cached by API Gateway and used if the user invokes a different API while the policy is still in the cache. Caching the policy can reduce API latency from the user perspective, as well as the total amount of Lambda invocations; however, it can also increase vulnerability to Replay Attacks and acceptance of expired/revoked tokens.

Shorter cache lifetimes introduce more latency to API calls (that is, the Lambda authorizer must be called more frequently), while longer cache lifetimes introduce the possibility of a token expiring or being revoked by the identity provider, but still being used to return a valid identity management policy. For example, the following scenario is possible when caching tokens in API Gateway:

  • Identity provider stamps access token with an expiration date of 12:30.
  • User calls API Gateway with access token at 12:29.
  • Lambda authorizer generates identity management policy and API Gateway caches the token/policy pair for 5 minutes.
  • User calls API Gateway with same access token at 12:32.
  • API Gateway evaluates access against policy that exists in the cache, despite original token being expired.

Since tokens are not re-validated by the Lambda authorizer or API Gateway once they are placed in the API Gateway cache, long cache lifetimes may also increase susceptibility to Replay Attacks. Longer cache lifetimes and large identity management policies can increase the performance of your application, but must be evaluated against the trade-off of increased exposure to certain security vulnerabilities.

Deploying the Lambda authorizer

To deploy your Lambda authorizer, you first need to create and deploy a Lambda deployment package containing your function code and dependencies (if applicable). Lambda authorizer functions behave the same as other Lambda functions in terms of deployment and packaging. For more information on packaging and deploying a Lambda function, see AWS Lambda Deployment Packages in Node.js. For this example, you should name your Lambda function myLambdaAuth and use a Node.js 10.x runtime environment.

After the function is created, add the Lambda authorizer to API Gateway.

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier
  2. Under your API name, choose Authorizers, then choose Create New Authorizer.
  3. Under Create Authorizer, do the following:
    1. For Name, enter a name for your Lambda authorizer. In this example, the authorizer is named Lambda-Authorizer-Demo.
    2. For Type, select Lambda
    3. For Lambda Function, select the AWS Region you created your function in, then enter the name of the Lambda function you just created.
    4. Leave Lambda Invoke Role empty.
    5. For Lambda Event Payload choose Token.
    6. For Token Source, enter Authorization.
    7. For Token Validation, enter:
      
      ^(Bearer )[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.([a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+)$
      			

      This represents a regular expression for validating that tokens match JWT format (more below).

    8. For Authorization Caching, select Enabled and enter a time to live (TTL) of 1 second.
  4. Select Save.

 

Figure 2: Create a new Lambda authorizer

Figure 2: Create a new Lambda authorizer

This configuration passes the token event payload mentioned above to your Lambda authorizer, and is necessary since you are using tokens (Token Event Payload) for authentication, rather than request parameters (Request Event Payload). For more information, see Use API Gateway Lambda Authorizers.

In this solution, the token source is the Authorization header of the HTTP request. If you know the expected format of your token, you can include a regular expression in the Token Validation field, which automatically rejects any request that does not match the regular expression. Token validations are not mandatory. This example assumes the token is a JWT.


# Regex matching JWT Bearer Tokens  
^(Bearer )[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.[a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+?\.([a-zA-Z0-9\-_]+)$

Here, you can also configure how long the token/policy pair will be cached in API Gateway. This example enables caching with a TTL of 1 second.

In this solution, you leave the Lambda Invoke Role field empty. This field is used to provide an IAM role that allows API Gateway to execute the Lambda authorizer. If left blank, API Gateway configures a default resource-based policy that allows it to invoke the Lambda authorizer.

The final step is to point your API Gateway resource to your Lambda authorizer. Select the configured API Resource and HTTP method.

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier.
  2. Select the GET method.

    Figure 3: GET Method Execution

    Figure 3: GET Method Execution

  3. Select Method Request.
  4. Under Settings, edit Authorization and select the authorizer you just configured (in this example, Lambda-Authorizer-Demo).

    Figure 4: Select your API authorizer

    Figure 4: Select your API authorizer

Deploy the API to an API Gateway stage that matches the stage configured in the Lambda authorizer permissions document (apiPermissions variable).

  1. Navigate to API Gateway and in the navigation pane, under APIs, select the API you configured earlier.
  2. Select the / resource of your API.
  3. Select Actions, and under API Actions, select Deploy API.
  4. For Deployment stage, select [New Stage] and for the Stage name, enter dev. Leave Stage description and Deployment description blank.
  5. Select Deploy.

    Figure 5: Deploy your API stage

    Figure 5: Deploy your API stage

Testing the results

With the Lambda authorizer configured as your authorization source, you are now able to access the resource only if you provide a valid token that contains the email scope.

The following example shows how to issue an HTTP request with curl to your API Gateway resource using a valid token that contains the email scope passed in the HTTP Authorization header. Here, you are able to authenticate and receive an appropriate response from API Gateway.


# HTTP Request (including valid token with "email" scope)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eE...'  
  
{  
 "statusCode" : 200,  
 "message" : "Hello from API Gateway!"  
}

The following JSON object represents the decoded JWT payload used in the previous example. The JSON object captures the token scopes in scp, and you can see that the token contained the email scope.

Figure 6: JSON object that contains the email scope

Figure 6: JSON object that contains the email scope

If you provide a token that is expired, is invalid, or that does not contain the email scope, then you are not able to access the resource. The following example shows a request to your API Gateway resource with a valid token that does not contain the email scope. In this example, the Lambda authorizer rejects the request.


# HTTP Request (including token without "email" scope)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer eyJraWQiOiJ0ekgtb1Z5eE...'  
  
{  
 "Message" : "User is not authorized to access this resource with an explicit deny"  
}

The following JSON object represents the decoded JWT payload used in the above example; it does not include the email scope.

Figure 7: JSON object that does not contain the email scope

Figure 7: JSON object that does not contain the email scope

If you provide no token, or you provide a token not matching the provided regular expression, then you are immediately rejected by API Gateway without invoking the Lambda authorizer. API Gateway only forwards tokens to the Lambda authorizer that have the HTTP Authorization header and pass the token validation regular expression, if a regular expression was provided. If the request does not pass token validation or does not have an HTTP Authorization header, API Gateway rejects it with a default HTTP 401 response. The following example shows how to issue a request to your API Gateway resource using an invalid token that does match the regular expression you configured on your authorizer. In this example, API Gateway rejects your request automatically without invoking the authorizer.


# HTTP Request (including a token that is not a JWT)  
$ curl -X GET \  
> 'https://rz8w6b1ik2.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dev/my-resource/?myParam=myValue' \  
> -H 'Authorization: Bearer ThisIsNotAJWT'  
  
{  
 "Message" : "Unauthorized"  
}

These examples demonstrate how your Lambda authorizer allows and denies requests based on the token format and the token content.

Conclusion

In this post, you saw how Lambda authorizers can be used with API Gateway to implement a token-based authentication scheme using third-party tokens.

Lambda authorizers can provide a number of benefits:

  • Leverage third-party identity management services directly, without identity federation.
  • Implement custom authorization logic.
  • Cache identity management policies to improve performance of authorization logic (while keeping in mind security implications).
  • Minimally impact existing client applications.

For organizations seeking an alternative to Amazon Cognito User Pools and Amazon Cognito identity pools, Lambda authorizers can provide complete, secure, and flexible authentication and authorization services to resources deployed with Amazon API Gateway. For more information about Lambda authorizers, see API Gateway Lambda Authorizers.

If you have feedback about this post, submit comments in the Comments section below.

Want more AWS Security how-to content, news, and feature announcements? Follow us on Twitter.

Author

Bryant Bost

Bryant Bost is an Application Consultant for AWS Professional Services based out of Washington, DC. As a consultant, he supports customers with architecting, developing, and operating new applications, as well as migrating existing applications to AWS. In addition to web application development, Bryant specializes in serverless and container architectures, and has authored several posts on these topics.

Internet Voting in Puerto Rico

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/03/internet_voting.html

Puerto Rico is considered allowing for Internet voting. I have joined a group of security experts in a letter opposing the bill.

Cybersecurity experts agree that under current technology, no practically proven method exists to securely, verifiably, or privately return voted materials over the internet. That means that votes could be manipulated or deleted on the voter’s computer without the voter’s knowledge, local elections officials cannot verify that the voter’s ballot reflects the voter’s intent, and the voter’s selections could be traceable back to the individual voter. Such a system could violate protections guaranteeing a secret ballot, as outlined in Section 2, Article II of the Puerto Rico Constitution.

The ACLU agrees.

Hacking McDonald’s for Free Food

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/02/hacking_mcdonal.html

This hack was possible because the McDonald’s app didn’t authenticate the server, and just did whatever the server told it to do:

McDonald’s receipts in Germany end with a link to a survey page. Once you take the survey, you receive a coupon code for a free small beverage, redeemable within a month. One day, David happened to be checking out how the website’s coding was structured when he noticed that the information triggering the server to issue a new voucher was always the same. That meant he could build a programme replicating the code, as if someone was taking the survey again and again.

[…]

At the McDonald’s in East Berlin, David began the demonstration by setting up an internet hotspot with his smartphone. Lenny connected with a second phone and a laptop, then turned the laptop into a proxy server connected to both phones. He opened the McDonald’s app and entered a voucher code generated by David’s programme. The next step was ordering the food for a total of €17. The bill on the app was transmitted to the laptop, which set all prices to zero through a programme created by Lenny, and sent the information back to the app. After tapping “Complete and pay 0.00 euros”, we simply received our pick-up number. It had worked.

The flaw was fixed late last year.

Smartphone Election in Washington State

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/01/smartphone_elec.html

This year:

King County voters will be able to use their name and birthdate to log in to a Web portal through the Internet browser on their phones, says Bryan Finney, the CEO of Democracy Live, the Seattle-based voting company providing the technology.

Once voters have completed their ballots, they must verify their submissions and then submit a signature on the touch screen of their device.

Finney says election officials in Washington are adept at signature verification because the state votes entirely by mail. That will be the way people are caught if they log in to the system under false pretenses and try to vote as someone else.

The King County elections office plans to print out the ballots submitted electronically by voters whose signatures match and count the papers alongside the votes submitted through traditional routes.

While advocates say this creates an auditable paper trail, many security experts say that because the ballots cross the Internet before they are printed, any subsequent audits on them would be moot. If a cyberattack occurred, an audit could essentially require double-checking ballots that may already have been altered, says Buell.

Of course it’s not an auditable paper trail. There’s a reason why security experts use the phrase “voter-verifiable paper ballots.” A centralized printout of a received Internet message is not voter verifiable.

Another news article.

SIM Hijacking

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2020/01/sim_hijacking.html

SIM hijacking — or SIM swapping — is an attack where a fraudster contacts your cell phone provider and convinces them to switch your account to a phone that they control. Since your smartphone often serves as a security measure or backup verification system, this allows the fraudster to take over other accounts of yours. Sometimes this involves people inside the phone companies.

Phone companies have added security measures since this attack became popular and public, but a new study (news article) shows that the measures aren’t helping:

We examined the authentication procedures used by five pre-paid wireless carriers when a customer attempted to change their SIM card. These procedures are an important line of defense against attackers who seek to hijack victims’ phone numbers by posing as the victim and calling the carrier to request that service be transferred to a SIM card the attacker possesses. We found that all five carriers used insecure authentication challenges that could be easily subverted by attackers.We also found that attackers generally only needed to target the most vulnerable authentication challenges, because the rest could be bypassed.

It’s a classic security vs. usability trade-off. The phone companies want to provide easy customer service for their legitimate customers, and that system is what’s being exploited by the SIM hijackers. Companies could make the fraud harder, but it would necessarily also make it harder for legitimate customers to modify their accounts.

Fooling Voice Assistants with Lasers

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/11/fooling_voice_a.html

Interesting:

Siri, Alexa, and Google Assistant are vulnerable to attacks that use lasers to inject inaudible­ — and sometimes invisible­ — commands into the devices and surreptitiously cause them to unlock doors, visit websites, and locate, unlock, and start vehicles, researchers report in a research paper published on Monday. Dubbed Light Commands, the attack works against Facebook Portal and a variety of phones.

Shining a low-powered laser into these voice-activated systems allows attackers to inject commands of their choice from as far away as 360 feet (110m). Because voice-controlled systems often don’t require users to authenticate themselves, the attack can frequently be carried out without the need of a password or PIN. Even when the systems require authentication for certain actions, it may be feasible to brute force the PIN, since many devices don’t limit the number of guesses a user can make. Among other things, light-based commands can be sent from one building to another and penetrate glass when a vulnerable device is kept near a closed window.

MongoDB Offers Field Level Encryption

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/06/mongodb_offers_.html

MongoDB now has the ability to encrypt data by field:

MongoDB calls the new feature Field Level Encryption. It works kind of like end-to-end encrypted messaging, which scrambles data as it moves across the internet, revealing it only to the sender and the recipient. In such a “client-side” encryption scheme, databases utilizing Field Level Encryption will not only require a system login, but will additionally require specific keys to process and decrypt specific chunks of data locally on a user’s device as needed. That means MongoDB itself and cloud providers won’t be able to access customer data, and a database’s administrators or remote managers don’t need to have access to everything either.

For regular users, not much will be visibly different. If their credentials are stolen and they aren’t using multifactor authentication, an attacker will still be able to access everything the victim could. But the new feature is meant to eliminate single points of failure. With Field Level Encryption in place, a hacker who steals an administrative username and password, or finds a software vulnerability that gives them system access, still won’t be able to use these holes to access readable data.

CAs Reissue Over One Million Weak Certificates

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/03/cas_reissue_ove.html

Turns out that the software a bunch of CAs used to generate public-key certificates was flawed: they created random serial numbers with only 63 bits instead of the required 64. That may not seem like a big deal to the layman, but that one bit change means that the serial numbers only have half the required entropy. This really isn’t a security problem; the serial numbers are to protect against attacks that involve weak hash functions, and we don’t allow those weak hash functions anymore. Still, it’s a good thing that the CAs are reissuing the certificates. The point of a standard is that it’s to be followed.

Using a Fake Hand to Defeat Hand-Vein Biometrics

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/01/using_a_fake_ha.html

Nice work:

One attraction of a vein based system over, say, a more traditional fingerprint system is that it may be typically harder for an attacker to learn how a user’s veins are positioned under their skin, rather than lifting a fingerprint from a held object or high quality photograph, for example.

But with that said, Krissler and Albrecht first took photos of their vein patterns. They used a converted SLR camera with the infrared filter removed; this allowed them to see the pattern of the veins under the skin.

“It’s enough to take photos from a distance of five meters, and it might work to go to a press conference and take photos of them,” Krissler explained. In all, the pair took over 2,500 pictures to over 30 days to perfect the process and find an image that worked.

They then used that image to make a wax model of their hands which included the vein detail.

Slashdot thread.

Real-Time Attacks Against Two-Factor Authentication

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/real-time_attac.html

Attackers are targeting two-factor authentication systems:

Attackers working on behalf of the Iranian government collected detailed information on targets and used that knowledge to write spear-phishing emails that were tailored to the targets’ level of operational security, researchers with security firm Certfa Lab said in a blog post. The emails contained a hidden image that alerted the attackers in real time when targets viewed the messages. When targets entered passwords into a fake Gmail or Yahoo security page, the attackers would almost simultaneously enter the credentials into a real login page. In the event targets’ accounts were protected by 2fa, the attackers redirected targets to a new page that requested a one-time password.

This isn’t new. I wrote about this exact attack in 2005 and 2009.

Using Machine Learning to Create Fake Fingerprints

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/using_machine_l.html

Researchers are able to create fake fingerprints that result in a 20% false-positive rate.

The problem is that these sensors obtain only partial images of users’ fingerprints — at the points where they make contact with the scanner. The paper noted that since partial prints are not as distinctive as complete prints, the chances of one partial print getting matched with another is high.

The artificially generated prints, dubbed DeepMasterPrints by the researchers, capitalize on the aforementioned vulnerability to accurately imitate one in five fingerprints in a database. The database was originally supposed to have only an error rate of one in a thousand.

Another vulnerability exploited by the researchers was the high prevalence of some natural fingerprint features such as loops and whorls, compared to others. With this understanding, the team generated some prints that contain several of these common features. They found that these artificial prints were more likely to match with other prints than would be normally possible.

If this result is robust — and I assume it will be improved upon over the coming years — it will make the current generation of fingerprint readers obsolete as secure biometrics. It also opens a new chapter in the arms race between biometric authentication systems and fake biometrics that can fool them.

More interestingly, I wonder if similar techniques can be brought to bear against other biometrics are well.

Research paper.

Slashdot thread

Troy Hunt on Passwords

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/11/troy_hunt_on_pa.html

Troy Hunt has a good essay about why passwords are here to stay, despite all their security problems:

This is why passwords aren’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future and why [insert thing here] isn’t going to kill them. No amount of focusing on how bad passwords are or how many accounts have been breached or what it costs when people can’t access their accounts is going to change that. Nor will the technical prowess of [insert thing here] change the discussion because it simply can’t compete with passwords on that one metric organisations are so focused on: usability. Sure, there’ll be edge cases and certainly there remain scenarios where higher-friction can be justified due to either the nature of the asset being protected or the demographic of the audience, but you’re not about to see your everyday e-commerce, social media or even banking sites changing en mass.

He rightly points out that biometric authentication systems — like Apple’s Face ID and fingerprint authentication — augment passwords rather than replace them. And I want to add that good two-factor systems, like Duo, also augment passwords rather than replace them.

Hacker News thread.

Facebook Is Using Your Two-Factor Authentication Phone Number to Target Advertising

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/10/facebook_is_usi.html

From Kashmir Hill:

Facebook is not content to use the contact information you willingly put into your Facebook profile for advertising. It is also using contact information you handed over for security purposes and contact information you didn’t hand over at all, but that was collected from other people’s contact books, a hidden layer of details Facebook has about you that I’ve come to call “shadow contact information.” I managed to place an ad in front of Alan Mislove by targeting his shadow profile. This means that the junk email address that you hand over for discounts or for shady online shopping is likely associated with your account and being used to target you with ads.

Here’s the research paper. Hill again:

They found that when a user gives Facebook a phone number for two-factor authentication or in order to receive alerts about new log-ins to a user’s account, that phone number became targetable by an advertiser within a couple of weeks. So users who want their accounts to be more secure are forced to make a privacy trade-off and allow advertisers to more easily find them on the social network.

Using a Smartphone’s Microphone and Speakers to Eavesdrop on Passwords

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/09/using_a_smartph.html

It’s amazing that this is even possible: “SonarSnoop: Active Acoustic Side-Channel Attacks“:

Abstract: We report the first active acoustic side-channel attack. Speakers are used to emit human inaudible acoustic signals and the echo is recorded via microphones, turning the acoustic system of a smart phone into a sonar system. The echo signal can be used to profile user interaction with the device. For example, a victim’s finger movements can be inferred to steal Android phone unlock patterns. In our empirical study, the number of candidate unlock patterns that an attacker must try to authenticate herself to a Samsung S4 Android phone can be reduced by up to 70% using this novel acoustic side-channel. Our approach can be easily applied to other application scenarios and device types. Overall, our work highlights a new family of security threats.

News article.

Good Primer on Two-Factor Authentication Security

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/08/good_primer_on_.html

Stuart Schechter published a good primer on the security issues surrounding two-factor authentication.

While it’s often an important security measure, it’s not a panacea. Stuart discusses the usability and security issues that you have to think about before deploying the system.

GCHQ on Quantum Key Distribution

Post Syndicated from Bruce Schneier original https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/08/gchq_on_quantum.html

The UK’s GCHQ delivers a brutally blunt assessment of quantum key distribution:

QKD protocols address only the problem of agreeing keys for encrypting data. Ubiquitous on-demand modern services (such as verifying identities and data integrity, establishing network sessions, providing access control, and automatic software updates) rely more on authentication and integrity mechanisms — such as digital signatures — than on encryption.

QKD technology cannot replace the flexible authentication mechanisms provided by contemporary public key signatures. QKD also seems unsuitable for some of the grand future challenges such as securing the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, social media, or cloud applications.

I agree with them. It’s a clever idea, but basically useless in practice. I don’t even think it’s anything more than a niche solution in a world where quantum computers have broken our traditional public-key algorithms.

Read the whole thing. It’s short.