Tag Archives: security

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit

Post Syndicated from Annika Garbers original https://blog.cloudflare.com/flow-based-monitoring-for-magic-transit/

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit

Network-layer DDoS attacks are on the rise, prompting security teams to rethink their L3 DDoS mitigation strategies to prevent business impact. Magic Transit protects customers’ entire networks from DDoS attacks by placing our network in front of theirs, either always on or on demand. Today, we’re announcing new functionality to improve the experience for on-demand Magic Transit customers: flow-based monitoring. Flow-based monitoring allows us to detect threats and notify customers when they’re under attack so they can activate Magic Transit for protection.

Magic Transit is Cloudflare’s solution to secure and accelerate your network at the IP layer. With Magic Transit, you get DDoS protection, traffic acceleration, and other network functions delivered as a service from every Cloudflare data center. With Cloudflare’s global network (59 Tbps capacity across 200+ cities) and <3sec time to mitigate at the edge, you’re covered from even the largest and most sophisticated attacks without compromising performance. Learn more about Magic Transit here.

Using Magic Transit on demand

With Magic Transit, Cloudflare advertises customers’ IP prefixes to the Internet with BGP in order to attract traffic to our network for DDoS protection. Customers can choose to use Magic Transit always on or on demand. With always on, we advertise their IPs and mitigate attacks all the time; for on demand, customers activate advertisement only when their networks are under active attack. But there’s a problem with on demand: if your traffic isn’t routed through Cloudflare’s network, by the time you notice you’re being targeted by an attack and activate Magic Transit to mitigate it, the attack may have already caused impact to your business.

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit

On demand with flow-based monitoring

Flow-based monitoring solves the problem with on-demand by enabling Cloudflare to detect and notify you about attacks based on traffic flows from your data centers. You can configure your routers to continuously send NetFlow or sFlow (coming soon) to Cloudflare. We’ll ingest your flow data and analyze it for volumetric DDoS attacks.

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit
Send flow data from your network to Cloudflare for analysis

When an attack is detected, we’ll notify you automatically (by email, webhook, and/or PagerDuty) with information about the attack.

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit
Cloudflare detects attacks based on your flow data

You can choose whether you’d like to activate IP advertisement with Magic Transit manually – we support activation via the Cloudflare dashboard or API – or automatically, to minimize the time to mitigation. Once Magic Transit is activated and your traffic is flowing through Cloudflare, you’ll receive only the clean traffic back to your network over your GRE tunnels.

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit
Activate Magic Transit for DDoS protection

Using flow-based monitoring with Magic Transit on demand will provide your team peace of mind. Rather than acting in response to an attack after it impacts your business, you can complete a simple one-time setup and rest assured that Cloudflare will notify you (and/or start protecting your network automatically) when you’re under attack. And once Magic Transit is activated, Cloudflare’s global network and industry-leading DDoS mitigation has you covered: your users can continue business as usual with no impact to performance.

Example flow-based monitoring workflow: faster time to mitigate for Acme Corp

Let’s walk through an example customer deployment and workflow with Magic Transit on demand and flow-based monitoring. Acme Corp’s network was hit by a large ransom DDoS attack recently, which caused downtime for both external-facing and internal applications. To make sure they’re not impacted again, the Acme network team chose to set up on-demand Magic Transit. They authorize Cloudflare to advertise their IP space to the Internet in case of an attack, and set up Anycast GRE tunnels to receive clean traffic from Cloudflare back to their network. Finally, they configure their routers at each data center to send NetFlow data to a Cloudflare Anycast IP.

Cloudflare receives Acme’s NetFlow data at a location close to the data center sending it (thanks, Anycast!) and analyzes it for DDoS attacks. When traffic exceeds attack thresholds, Cloudflare triggers an automatic PagerDuty incident for Acme’s NOC team and starts advertising Acme’s IP prefixes to the Internet with BGP. Acme’s traffic, including the attack, starts flowing through Cloudflare within minutes, and the attack is blocked at the edge. Clean traffic is routed back to Acme through their GRE tunnels, causing no disruption to end users – they’ll never even know Acme was attacked. When the attack has subsided, Acme’s team can withdraw their prefixes from Cloudflare with one click, returning their traffic to its normal path.

Flow-based monitoring for Magic Transit
When the attack subsides, withdraw your prefixes from Cloudflare to return to normal

Get started

To learn more about Magic Transit and flow-based monitoring, contact us today.

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

Post Syndicated from Miguel de Moura original https://blog.cloudflare.com/using-hpke-to-encrypt-request-payloads/

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

The Managed Rules team was recently given the task of allowing Enterprise users to debug Firewall Rules by viewing the part of a request that matched the rule. This makes it easier to determine what specific attacks a rule is stopping or why a request was a false positive, and what possible refinements of a rule could improve it.

The fundamental problem, though, was how to securely store this debugging data as it may contain sensitive data such as personally identifiable information from submissions, cookies, and other parts of the request. We needed to store this data in such a way that only the user who is allowed to access it can do so. Even Cloudflare shouldn’t be able to see the data, following our philosophy that any personally identifiable information that passes through our network is a toxic asset.

This means we needed to encrypt the data in such a way that we can allow the user to decrypt it, but not Cloudflare. This means public key encryption.

Now we needed to decide on which encryption algorithm to use. We came up with some questions to help us evaluate which one to use:

  • What requirements do we have for the algorithm?
  • What language do we implement it in?
  • How do we make this as secure as possible for users?

Here’s how we made those decisions.

Algorithm Requirements

While we knew we needed to use public key encryption, we also needed to keep an eye on performance. This led us to select Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE) early on as it has a best-of-both-worlds approach to using symmetric as well as public-key cryptography to increase performance. While these best-of-both-worlds schemes aren’t new [1][2][3], HPKE aims to provide a single, future-proof, robust, interoperable combination of a general key encapsulation mechanism and a symmetric encryption algorithm.

HPKE is an emerging standard developed by the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG), the research body that supports the development of Internet standards at the IETF. The CFRG produces specifications called RFCs (such as RFC 7748 for elliptic curves) that are then used in higher level protocols including two we talked about previously: ODoH and ECH. Cloudflare has long been a supporter of Internet standards, so HPKE was a natural choice to use for this feature. Additionally, HPKE was co-authored by one of our colleagues at Cloudflare.

How HPKE Works

HPKE combines an asymmetric algorithm such as elliptic curve Diffie-Hellman and a symmetric cipher such as AES. One of the upsides of HPKE is that the algorithms aren’t dictated to the implementer, but making a combination that’s provably secure and meets the developer’s intuitive notions of security is important. All too often developers reach for a scheme without carefully understanding what it does, resulting in security vulnerabilities.

HPKE solves these problems by providing a high level of security in a generic manner and providing necessary hooks to tie messages to the context in which they are generated. This is the application of decades of research into the correct security notions and schemes.

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

HPKE is built in stages. First it turns a Diffie-Hellman key agreement into a Key Encapsulation Mechanism. A key encapsulation mechanism has two algorithms: Encap and Decap. The Encap algorithm creates a symmetric secret and wraps it in a public key, so that only the holder of the private key can unwrap it. An attacker with the encapsulation cannot recover the random key. Decap takes the encapsulation and the private key associated to the public key, and computes the same random key. This translation gives HPKE the flexibility to work almost unchanged with any kind of public key encryption or key agreement algorithm.

HPKE mixes this key with an optional info argument, as well as information relating to the cryptographic parameters used by each side. This ensures that attackers cannot modify messages’ meaning by taking them out of context. A postcard marked “So happy to see you again soon” is ominous from the dentist and endearing from one’s grandmother.

The specification for HPKE is open and available on the IETF website. It is on its way to becoming an RFC after passing multiple rounds of review and analysis by cryptography experts at the CFRG. HPKE is already gaining adoption in IETF protocols like ODoH, ECH, and the new Messaging Layer Security (MLS) protocol. HPKE is also designed with the post-quantum future since it is built to work with any KEM, including all the NIST finalists for post-quantum public-key encryption.

Implementation Language

Once we had an encryption scheme selected, we needed to settle on an implementation. HPKE is still fairly new, so the libraries aren’t quite mature yet. There is a reference implementation, and we’re in the process of developing an implementation in Go as part of CIRCL. However, in the absence of a clear “go to” that is widely known to be the best, we decided to go with an implementation leveraging the same language already powering much of the Firewall code running at the Cloudflare edge – Rust.

Aside from this, the language benefits from features like native primitives, and crucially the ability to easily compile to WebAssembly (WASM).

As we mentioned in a previous blog post, customers are able to generate a key pair and decrypt payloads either from the dashboard UI or from a CLI. Instead of writing and maintaining two different codebases for these, we opted to reuse the same implementation across the edge component that encrypts the payloads and the UI and CLI that decrypt them. To achieve this we compile our library to target WASM so it can be used in the dashboard UI code that runs in the browser. While this approach may yield a slightly larger JavaScript bundle size and relatively small computational overhead, we found it preferable to spending a significant amount of time securely re-implementing HPKE using JavaScript WebCrypto primitives.

The HPKE implementation we decided on comes with the caveat of not yet being formally audited, so we performed our own internal security review. We analyzed the cryptography primitives being used and the corresponding libraries. Between the composition of said primitives and secure programming practices like correctly zeroing memory and safe usage of random number generators, we found no security issues.

Making It Secure For Users

To encrypt on behalf of users, we need them to provide us with a public key. To make this as easy as possible, we built a CLI tool along with the ability to do it right in the browser. Either option allows the user to generate a public/private key pair without needing to talk to Cloudflare servers at all.

In our API, we specifically do not accept the private key of the key pair — we don’t want it! We don’t need and don’t want to be able to decrypt the data we’re storing.

For the dashboard, once the user provides the private key for decryption, the key is held in a temporary JavaScript variable and used for the in-browser decryption. This allows the user to not constantly have to provide the key while browsing the Firewall event logs. The private key is also not persisted in any way in the browser, so any action that refreshes the page such as refreshing or navigating away will require the user to provide the key again. We believe this is an acceptable usability compromise for better security.

How Payload Extraction Works

After deciding how to encrypt the data, we just had to figure out the rest of the feature: what data to encrypt, how to store and transmit it, and how to allow users to decrypt it.

When an HTTP request reaches the L7 Firewall, it is evaluated against a set of rulesets. Each of these rulesets contain several rules written in the wirefilter syntax.

An example of one such rule would be:

http.request.version eq "HTTP/1.1"
and
(
    http.request.uri.path matches "\n+."
    or
    http.request.uri.query matches "\x00+."
)

This expression evaluates to a boolean “true” for HTTP/1.1 requests that either contain one or more newlines followed by a character in the request path or one or more NULL bytes followed by a character in the query string.

Say we had the following request that would match the rule above:

GET /cms/%0Aadmin?action=%00post HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com

If matched data logging is enabled, the rules that match would be executed again in a special context that tags all fields that are accessed during execution. We do this second execution because this tagging adds a noticeable computational overhead, and since the vast majority of requests don’t trigger a rule at all we would be unnecessarily adding overhead to each request. Requests that do match any rules will only match a few rules as well, so we don’t need to re-execute a large portion of the ruleset.

You may notice that although http.request.uri.query matches "\x00+." evaluates to true for this request, it won’t be executed, because the expression short-circuits with the first or condition that also matches. This results in only http.request.version and http.request.uri.path being tagged as accessed:

http.request.version -> HTTP/1.1
http.request.uri.path -> /cms/%0Aadmin

Having gathered the fields that were accessed, the Firewall engine does some post-processing; removing fields that are a subset of others (e.g., the query string and the full URI), or truncating fields that are beyond a certain character length.

Finally, these get serialized as JSON, encrypted with the customer’s public key, serialized again as a set of bytes, and prefixed with a version number should we need to change/update it in the future. To simplify consumption of these blobs, our APIs display a base64 encoded version of the bytes:

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

Now that we have encrypted the data at the edge and persisted it in ClickHouse, we need to allow users to decrypt it. As part of the setup of turning this feature on, users generated a key-pair: the public key which was used to encrypt the payloads and a private key which is used to decrypt them. Decryption is done completely offline via either the command line using cloudflare/matched-data-cli:

$ MATCHED_DATA=AkjQDktMX4FudxeQhwa0UPNezhkgLAUbkglNQ8XVCHYqPgAAAAAAAACox6cEwqWQpFVE2gCFyOFsSdm2hCoE0/oWKXZJGa5UPd5mWSRxNctuXNtU32hcYNR/azLjsGO668Jwk+qCdFvmKjEqEMJgI+fvhwLQmm4=
$ matched-data-cli decrypt -d $MATCHED_DATA -k $PRIVATE_KEY
{"http.request.version": "HTTP/1.1", "http.request.uri.path": "/cms/%0Aadmin"}

Or the dashboard UI:

Using HPKE to Encrypt Request Payloads

Since our CLI tool is open-source and HPKE is interoperable, it can also be used in other tooling as part of a user’s logging pipeline, for example in security information and event management (SIEM) software.

Conclusion

This was a team effort with help from our Research and Security teams throughout the process. We relied on them for recommendations on how best to evaluate the algorithms as well as vetting the libraries we wanted to use.

We’re very pleased with how HPKE has worked out for us from an ease-of-implementation and performance standpoint. It was also an easy choice for us to make due to its impending standardization and best-of-both-worlds approach to security.

AWS Managed Services by Anchor 2021-02-12 01:52:57

Post Syndicated from Andy Haine original https://www.anchor.com.au/blog/2021/02/25645/

The thought of downtime can bring a chill to the bones of any IT team. Depending on the online demand you have for your products or services, even an hour or two of downtime can result in significant financial losses or catastrophic consequences of various other kinds.

As such, avoiding downtime should be a high priority item for any IT or Operations Manager. So, is the AWS cloud completely immune to downtime? We’ll discuss the various aspects of this question below.

The true cost of downtime

The true cost of downtime will vary from business to business, but whether you’re an SMB or an enterprise, all businesses that have critical services on the cloud should design their services from the ground up for high availability.

Gartner has reported the average cost of downtime to be $5,600 per minute. This varies between businesses, as no single business is run the exact same way or has the exact same setup, so at the low end this average could be more like $140,000 per hour, and $300,000 per hour on the high end.

To further break down their findings, Gartner’s research showed that 98% of organisations experience costs over $100,000 from a single hour of downtime. 81% of respondents said that 60 minutes of downtime costs their business in excess of $300,000. And 33% of enterprises found that that one hour of downtime cost them anywhere between $1-5 million.

Some of the causes for such a huge loss during and after a business experiences downtime can include some of the following:

  • Loss of sales
  • Certain business-critical data can become corrupted, depending on the outage
  • Costs of reviewing and resolving systems issues and processes
  • Detrimental reputational effect with stakeholders and customers
  • A drop in employee morale
  • A reduction in employee productivity

The always-online cloud services fallacy

Many businesses have migrated to the cloud and assumed that high availability is all a part of the cloud package, and doesn’t require any further expertise, investigation or implementation – however, this is not the case. To ensure high availability and uptime of internal systems and tools, a business must plan for this during its initial implementation. Properly setting up a business AWS environment for high availability requires an in-depth understanding of all that AWS has to offer, which is where a business can benefit greatly from outsourcing to an MSP that specialises in AWS cloud services.

Your business could experience more downtime with AWS than you would with a traditional hosting service.

Many people are surprised to learn that simply migrating to the cloud doesn’t automatically mean that their services will effectively become bullet-proof. In fact, the opposite can often be true.

AWS cloud services are complex and require extensive experience and in-depth knowledge to properly manage. This means there is a far greater chance for error when AWS services are being configured by an inexperienced user, leaving the services more vulnerable to security threats or performance issues that could ultimately result in downtime.

However, on the other hand, when AWS cloud services have been properly planned and configured from the ground up by certified professionals, the cloud can offer significantly greater availability and protection from downtime than traditional hosting services.

High Availability, Redundancy and Backups

‘High Availability’ is a term often attributed to cloud services, and refers to having multiple geographical regions where your website or application can be accessed from (as opposed to end-users always relaying requests back to a single server in one location). Because of the dynamic and data replicating nature of the cloud, some businesses mistake high availability for being inclusive of redundancy and backups.

                    

High availability can refer to redundancy in the sense that should one geographical access point suffer an outage, and another can automatically step in to cater to an end-user’s request. However, it does not mean that your website or application does not still also require an effective backup and disaster recovery plan.

                    

Should something go wrong with your cloud services, or certain parts of your environment become unavailable, you will need to rely on your own plan for replication or recovery. AWS offers a range of options to cater to this, and these should always be carefully considered and implemented during the planning and building phases.

How can you best protect your business from downtime?

So, to answer the question “Are AWS cloud services immune to downtime?”, the answer is no, as it would be for any form of technology. At this time, there is no technology that can truly claim to be entirely failsafe. However, AWS cloud services can get your business as close to failsafe as it is possible to get – if it’s done right.

For businesses that are serious about ensuring their online operations are available as much as possible, such as those involved in providing critical care, high demand eCommerce environments, or enterprise-level tools and systems, it’s essential to have your cloud services designed by a team of certified AWS professionals who have the correct credentials and expertise. If you’re interested in discussing this further, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with our expert team for a free consultation.

 

The post appeared first on AWS Managed Services by Anchor.

Edge Authentication and Token-Agnostic Identity Propagation

Post Syndicated from Netflix Technology Blog original https://netflixtechblog.com/edge-authentication-and-token-agnostic-identity-propagation-514e47e0b602

by AIM Team Members Karen Casella, Travis Nelson, Sunny Singh; with prior art and contributions by Justin Ryan, Satyajit Thadeshwar

As most developers can attest, dealing with security protocols and identity tokens, as well as user and device authentication, can be challenging. Imagine having multiple protocols, multiple tokens, 200M+ users, and thousands of device types, and the problem can explode in scope. A few years ago, we decided to address this complexity by spinning up a new initiative, and eventually a new team, to move the complex handling of user and device authentication, and various security protocols and tokens, to the edge of the network, managed by a set of centralized services, and a single team. In the process, we changed end-to-end identity propagation within the network of services to use a cryptographically-verifiable token-agnostic identity object.

Read on to learn more about this journey and how we have been able to:

  • Reduce complexity for service owners, who no longer need to have knowledge of and responsibility for terminating security protocols and dealing with myriad security tokens,
  • Improve security by delegating token management to services and teams with expertise in this area, and
  • Improve audit-ability and forensic analysis.

How We Got Here

Netflix started as a website that allowed members to manage their DVD queue. This website was later enhanced with the capability to stream content. Streaming devices came a bit later, but these initial devices were limited in capability. Over time, devices increased in capability and functions that were once only accessible on the website became accessible through streaming devices. Scale of the Netflix service was growing rapidly, with over 2000 device types supported.

Services supporting these functions now had an increased burden of being able to understand multiple tokens and security protocols in order to identify the user and device and authorize access to those functions. The whole system was quite complex, and starting to become brittle. Plus, the architecture of the Edge tier was evolving to a PaaS (platform as a service) model, and we had some tough decisions to make about how, and where, to handle identity token handling.

Complexity: Multiple Services Handling Auth Tokens

To demonstrate the complexity of the system, following is a description of how the user login flow worked prior to the changes described in this article:

At the highest level, the steps involved in this (greatly simplified) flow are as follows:

  1. User enters their credentials and the Netflix client transmits the credentials, along with the ESN of the device to the Edge gateway, AKA Zuul.
  2. Zuul redirects the user call to the API /login endpoint.
  3. The API server orchestrates backend systems to authenticate the user.
  4. Upon successful authentication of the claims provided, the API server sends a cookie response back upstream, including the customerId (a Long), the ESN (a String) and an expiration directive.
  5. Zuul sends the Cookies back to the Netflix client.

This model had some problems, e.g.:

  • Externally valid tokens were being minted deep down in the stack and they needed to be propagated all the way upstream, opening possibilities for them to be logged inappropriately or potentially mismanaged.
  • Upstream systems had to reopen the tokens to identify the user logging in and potentially manage multiple parallel identity data structures, which could easily get out of sync.

Multiple Protocols & Tokens

The example above shows one flow, dealing with one protocol (HTTP/S) and one type of token (Cookies). There are several protocols and tokens in use across the Netflix streaming product, as summarized below:

These tokens were consumed by, and potentially mutated by, several systems within the Netflix streaming ecosystem, for example:

To complicate things further, there were multiple methods for transmitting these tokens, or the data contained therein, from system to system. In some cases, tokens were cracked open and identity data elements extracted as simple primitives or strings to be used in API calls, or passed from system to system via request context headers, or even as URL parameters. There were no checks in place to ensure the integrity of the tokens or the data contained therein.

At Netflix Scale

Meanwhile, the scale at which Netflix operated grew exponentially. At the time of this article, Netflix has 200M+ subscribers, with over a billion devices. We are serving over 2.5 million requests per second, a large percentage of which require some form of authentication. In the old architecture, each of these requests resulted in an API call to authenticate the claims presented with the request, as shown:

EdgePaas Enters the Picture

To further complicate the situation, the Edge Engineering team was in the middle of migrating from an old API server architecture to a new PaaS-based approach. As we migrated to EdgePaaS, front-end services were moved from the Java-based API to a BFF (backend for frontend), aka NodeQuark, as shown:

This model enables front-end engineers to own and operate their services outside of the core API framework. However, this introduced another layer of complexity — how would these NodeQuark services deal with identity tokens? NodeQuark services are written in JavaScript and terminating a protocol as complex as MSL would have been difficult and wasteful, as would replicating all of the logic for token management.

So, Where Were We Again?

To summarize, we found ourselves with a complex and inefficient solution for handling authentication and identity tokens at massive scale. We had multiple types and sources of identity tokens, each requiring special handling, the logic for which was replicated in various systems. Critical identity data was being propagated throughout the server ecosystem in an inconsistent fashion.

Edge Authentication to the Rescue

We realized that in order to solve this problem, a unified identity model was needed. We would need to process authentication tokens (and protocols) further upstream. We did this by moving authentication and protocol termination to the edge of the network, and created a new integrity-protected token-agnostic identity object to propagate throughout the server ecosystem.

Moving Authentication to the Edge

Keeping in mind our objectives to improve security and reduce complexity, and ultimately provide a better user experience, we strategized on how to centralize device authentication operations and user identification and authentication token management to the services edge.

At a high-level, Zuul (cloud gateway) was to become the termination point for token inspection and payload encryption/decryption. In the case that Zuul would be unable to handle these operations (a small percentage), e.g., if tokens were not present, needed to be renewed, or were otherwise invalid, Zuul would delegate those operations to a new set of Edge Authentication Services to handle cryptographic key exchange and token creation or renewal.

Edge Authentication Services

Edge Authentication Services (EAS) is both an architectural concept of moving authentication and identification of devices and users higher up on the stack to the cloud edge, as well as a suite of services that have been developed to handle each token type.

EAS is functionally a series of filters that run in Zuul, which may call out to external services to support their domain, e.g., to a service to handle MSL tokens or another for Cookies. EAS also covers the read-only processing of tokens to create Passports (more on that later).

The basic pattern for how EAS handles requests is as follows:

For each request coming into the Netflix service, the EAS Inbound Filter in Zuul inspects the tokens provided by the device client and either passes through the request to the Passport Injection Filter, or delegates to one of the Edge Authentication Services to process. The Passport Injection Filter generates a token-agnostic identity to propagate down through the rest of the server ecosystem. On the response path, the EAS Outbound Filter determines, with help from the Edge Authentication Services as needed, generates the tokens needed to send back to the client device.

The system architecture now takes the form of:

Notice that tokens never traverse past the Edge gateway / EAS boundary. The MSL security protocol is terminated at the Edge and all tokens are cracked open and identity data is propagated through the server ecosystem in a token-agnostic manner.

A Note on Resilience

On the happy path, Zuul is able to process the large percentage of tokens that are valid and not expired, and the Edge Auth Services handle the remainder of the requests.

The EAS services are designed to be fault tolerant, e.g., in the case where Zuul identifies that Cookies are valid, but expired, and the renewal call to EAS fails or is latent:

In this failure scenario, the EAS filter in Zuul will be lenient and allow the resolved identity to be propagated and will indicate that the renewal call should be rescheduled on the next request.

Token-Agnostic Identity (Passport)

An easily mutable identity structure would not suffice because that would mean passing less trusted identities from service to service. A token-agnostic identity structure was needed.

We introduced an identity structure called “Passport” which allowed us to propagate the user and device identity information in a uniform way. The Passport is also a kind of token, but there are many benefits to using an internal structure that differs from external tokens. However, downstream systems still need access to the user and device identity.

A Passport is a short-lived identity structure created at the Edge for each request, i.e., it is scoped to the life of the request and it is completely internal to the Netflix ecosystem. These are generated in Zuul via a set of Identity Filters. A Passport contains both user & device identity, is in protobuf format, and is integrity protected by HMAC.

Passport Structure

As noted above, the Passport is modeled as a Protocol Buffer. At the highest level, the definition of the Passport is as follows:

message Passport {
   Header header = 1;
   UserInfo user_info = 2;
   DeviceInfo device_info = 3;
   Integrity user_integrity = 4;
   Integrity device_integrity = 5;
}

The Header element communicates the name of the service that created the Passport. What’s more interesting is what is propagated related to the user and device.

User & Device Information

The UserInfo element contains all of the information required to identify the user on whose behalf requests are being made, with the DeviceInfo element containing all of the information required for the device on which the user is visiting Netflix:

message UserInfo {
    Source source = 1;
    int64 created = 2;
    int64 expires = 3;
    Int64Wrapper customer_id = 4;
        … (some internal stuff) …
    PassportAuthenticationLevel authentication_level = 11;
    repeated UserAction actions = 12;
}
message DeviceInfo {
    Source source = 1;
    int64 created = 2;
    int64 expires = 3;
    StringValue esn = 4;
    Int32Value device_type = 5;
    repeated DeviceAction actions = 7;
    PassportAuthenticationLevel authentication_level = 8;
        … (some more internal stuff) …
}

Both UserInfo and DeviceInfo carry the Source and PassportAuthenticationLevel for the request. The Source list is a classification of claims, with the protocol being used and the services used to validate the claims. The PassportAuthenticationLevel is the level of trust that we put into the authentication claims.

enum Source {
    NONE = 0;
    COOKIE = 1;
    COOKIE_INSECURE = 2;
    MSL = 3;
    PARTNER_TOKEN = 4;
}
enum PassportAuthenticationLevel {
    LOW = 1; // untrusted transport
    HIGH = 2; // secure tokens over TLS
    HIGHEST = 3; // MSL or user credentials
}

Downstream applications can use these values to make Authorization and/or user experience decisions.

Passport Integrity

The integrity of the Passport is protected via an HMAC (hash-based message authentication code), which is a specific type of MAC involving a crytographic hash function and a secret cryptographic key. It may be used to simultaneously verify both the data integrity and authenticity of a message.

User and device integrity are defined as:

message Integrity {
    int32 version = 1;
    string key_name = 2;
    bytes hmac = 3;
}

Version 1 of the Integrity element uses SHA-256 for the HMAC, which is encoded as a ByteArray. Future versions of Integrity may use a different has function or encoding. In version 1, the HMAC field contains the 256 bits from MacSpec.SHA_256.

Integrity protection guarantees that Passport field are not mutated after the Passport is created. Client applications can use the Passport Introspector to check the integrity of the Passport before using any of the values contained therein.

Passport Introspector

The Passport object itself is opaque; clients can use the Passport Introspector to extract the Passport from the headers and retrieve the contents inside it. The Passport Introspector is a wrapper over the Passport binary data. Clients create an Introspector via a factory and then have access to basic accessor methods:

public interface PassportIntrospector {
    Long getCustomerId();
    Long getAccountOwnerId();
    String getEsn();
    Integer getDeviceTypeId();
    String getPassportAsString();
}

Passport Actions

In the Passport protocol buffer definition shown above, there are Passport Actions defined:

message UserInfo {
    repeated UserAction actions = 12;
}
message DeviceInfo {
    repeated DeviceAction actions = 7;
}

Passport Actions are explicit signals sent by downstream services, when an update to user or device identity has been performed. The signal is used by EAS to either create or update the corresponding type of token.

Login Flow, Revisited

Let’s wrap up with an example of all of these solutions working together.

With the movement of authentication and protocol termination to the Edge, and the introduction of Passports as identity, the Login Flow described earlier has morphed into the following:

  1. User enters their credentials and the Netflix client transmits the credentials, along with the ESN of the device to the Edge gateway, AKA Zuul.
  2. Identity filters running in Zuul generate a device-bound Passport and pass it along to the API /login endpoint.
  3. The API server propagates the Passport to the mid-tier services responsible for authentication the user.
  4. Upon successful authentication of the claims provided, these services create a Passport Action and send it, along with the original Passport, back up stream to API and Zuul.
  5. Zuul makes a call to the Cookie Service to resolve the Passport and Passport Actions and sends the Cookies back to the Netflix client.

Key Benefits and Learnings

Simplified Authorization

One of the reasons there were external tokens flowing into downstream systems was because authorization decisions often depend on authentication claims in tokens and the trust associated with each token type. In our Passport structure, we have assigned levels to this trust, meaning that systems requiring authorization decisions can write sensible rules around the Passport instead of replicating the trust rules in code across many services.

An Explicit and Extensible Identity Model

Having a structure that is the canonical identity is very useful. Alternatives where identity primitives are passed around are brittle and hard to debug. If the customer identity changed from service A to service D in a call chain, who changed it? Once the identity structure is passed through all key systems, it is relatively easy to add new external token types, new trust levels, or new ways to represent identity.

Operational Concerns and Visibility

Having a structure, like Passport, allows you to define the services that can write a Passport and other services can validate it. When the Passport is propagated and when we see it in logs, we can open it up, validate it, and know what the identity is. We also know the provenance of the Passport, and can trace it back to where it entered the system. This makes the debugging of any identity-related anomalies much easier.

Reduced Downstream System Complexity & Load

Passing a uniform structure to downstream systems means that those systems can easily look up the device and user identity, using an introspection library. Instead of having separate handling for each type of external token, they can use the common structure.

By offloading token processing from these systems to the central Edge Authentication Services, downstream systems saw significant gains in CPU, request latency, and garbage collection metrics, all of which help reduce cluster footprint and cloud costs. The following examples of these gains are from the primary API service.

In the prior implementation, it was necessary to incur decryption/termination costs twice per request because we needed the ability to route at the edge but also needed rich termination in the downstream service. Some of the performance improvement is due to consolidation of this — MSL requests now only need to be processed once.

CPU to RPS Ratio

Offloading token processing resulted in a 30% reduction in CPU cost per request and a 40% reduction in load average. The following graph shows the CPU to RPS ratio, where lower is better:

API Response Time

Response times for all calls on the API service showed significant improvement, with a 30% reduction in average latency and a 20% drop in 99th percentile latency:

Garbage Collection

The API service also saw a significant reduction in GC pressure and GC pause times, as shown in the Stop The World Garbage Collection metrics:

Developer Velocity

Abstracting these authentication and identity-related concerns away from the developers of microservices means that they can focus on their core domain. Changes in this area are now done once, and in one set of specialized services, versus being distributed across multiple.

What’s Next?

Strong(er) Authentication

We are currently expanding the Edge Authentication Services to support Multi-Factor Authentication via a new service called “Resistor”. We selectively introduce the second factor for connections that are suspicious, based on machine learning models. As we onboard new flows, we are introducing new factors, e.g., one-time passwords (OTP) sent to email or phone, push notifications to mobile devices, and third-party authenticator applications. We may also explore opt-in Multi-Factor Authentication for users who desire the added security on their accounts.

Flexible Authorization

Now that we have a verified identity flowing through the system, we can use that as a strong signal for authorization decisions. Last year, we started to explore a new Product Access Strategy (PACS) and are currently working on moving it into production for several new experiences in the Netflix streaming product. PACS recently powered the experience access control for the Streamfest, a weekend of free Netflix in India.

Want More?

Team members presented this work at QCon San Francisco (and were two of the top three attended talks at the conference!):

The authors are members of the Netflix Access & Identity Management team. We pride ourselves on being experts at distributed systems development, operations and identity management. And, we’re hiring Senior Software Engineers! Reach out on LinkedIn if you are interested.


Edge Authentication and Token-Agnostic Identity Propagation was originally published in Netflix TechBlog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

Post Syndicated from Patrick R. Donahue original https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-named-the-innovation-leader-in-holistic-web-protection/

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

I love building products that solve real problems for our customers. These days I don’t get to do so as much directly with our Engineering teams. Instead, about half my time is spent with customers listening to and learning from their security challenges, while the other half of my time is spent with other Cloudflare Product Managers (PMs) helping them solve these customer challenges as simply and elegantly as possible. While I miss the deeply technical engineering discussions, I am proud to have the opportunity to look back every year on all that we’ve shipped across our application security teams.

Taking the time to reflect on what we’ve delivered also helps to reinforce my belief in the Cloudflare approach to shipping product: release early, stay close to customers for feedback, and iterate quickly to deliver incremental value. To borrow a term from the investment world, this approach brings the benefits of compounded returns to our customers: we put new products that solve real-world problems into their hands as quickly as possible, and then reinvest the proceeds of our shared learnings immediately back into the product.

It is these sustained investments that allow us to release a flurry of small improvements over the course of a year, and be recognized by leading industry analyst firms for the capabilities we’ve accumulated and distributed to our customers. Today we’re excited to announce that Frost & Sullivan has named Cloudflare the Innovation Leader in their Frost Radar™: Global Holistic Web Protection Market Report. Frost & Sullivan’s view that this market “will gradually absorb the markets formed around legacy and point solutions” is consistent with our view of the world, and we’re leading the way in “the consolidation of standalone WAF, DDoS mitigation, and Bot Risk Management solutions” they believe is “poised to happen before 2025”.

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020
Image © 2020 Frost & Sullivan from Frost Radar™: Global Holistic Web Protection Market Report

We are honored to receive this recognition, based on the analysis of 10 providers’ competitive strengths and opportunities as assessed by Frost & Sullivan. The rest of this post explains some of the capabilities that we shipped in 2020 across our Web Application Firewall (WAF), Bot Management, and Distributed Denial-of-Service product lines—the scope of Frost & Sullivan’s report. Get a copy of the Frost & Sullivan Frost Radar report to see why Cloudflare was named the Innovation Leader here.

2020 Web Security Themes and Roundup

Before jumping into specific product and feature launches, I want to briefly explain how we think about building and delivering our web security capabilities. The most important “product” by far that’s been built at Cloudflare over the past 10 years is the massive global network that moves bits securely around the world, as close to the speed of light as possible. Building our features atop this network allows us to reject the legacy tradeoff of performance or security. And equipping customers with the ability to program and extend the network with Cloudflare Workers and Firewall Rules allows us to focus on quickly delivering useful security primitives such as functions, operators, and ML-trained data—then later packaging them up in streamlined user interfaces.

We talk internally about building up the “toolbox” of security controls so customers can express their desired security posture, and that’s how we think about many of the releases over the past year that are discussed below. We begin by providing the saw, hammer, and nails, and let expert builders construct whatever defenses they see fit. By watching how these tools are put to use and observing the results of billions of attempts to evade the erected defenses, we learn how to improve and package them together as a whole for those less inclined to build from components. Most recently we did this with API Shield, providing a guided template to create “positive security” models within Firewall Rules using existing primitives plus new data structures for strong authentication such as Cloudflare-managed client SSL/TLS certificates. Each new tool added to the toolbox increases the value of the existing tools. Each new web request—good or bad—improves the models that our threat intelligence and Bot Management capabilities depend upon.

Web application firewall (WAF) usability at scale

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

Last year we spoke with many customers about our plan to decouple configuration from the zone/domain model and allow rules to be set for arbitrary paths and groups of services across an account. In 4Q2020 we put this granular control in the hands of a few developers and some of our most sophisticated enterprise customers, and we’re currently collecting and incorporating feedback before defaulting the capabilities on for new customers.

Rules are great, especially with increased flexibility, but without data structures and request enrichment at the edge (such as the Bot Management techniques described below) they cannot act on anything beyond static properties of the request. In 3Q2020 we released our IP Lists capabilities and customers have been steadily uploading their home-grown and third-party subscription lists. These lists can be referenced anywhere in a customer’s account as named variables and then combined with all other attributes of the request, even Bot Management scores, e.g., http.request.uri.path contains “/login” and (not ip.src in $pingdom_probes and cf.bot_management.score < 30) is a Firewall Rule filter that blocks all bots except Pingdom from accessing the login endpoint.

Requests that are blocked or challenged need to find their way as quickly as possible to our customers’ SOCs for triage, investigation and, occasionally, incident response, so we upgraded our edge-logging framework in 2Q2020 to push real time security-specific logs directly to customer SIEMs. And in 4Q2020, we released the ability to encrypt sensitive payloads within these logs using customer-provided encryption keys and novel encryption algorithms termed “Hybrid Public Key Encryption” (HPKE), and a data localization suite to provide control over where our customers’ data is stored and protected.

Built predominantly in 4Q2020 and currently being tested in the Firewall Rules engine is a brand new implementation of our Rate Limiting engine. By moving this matching and enforcement logic from a standalone tool to a component within a performant, memory-safe, expressive engine built in Rust, we have increased the utility of existing functions. Additional examples of improving this library of capabilities include the work completed in 1Q2020 to add HMAC functions and regex-based HTTP header and body inspection to the engine.

Bots and machine learning (ML)

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

In addition to making edge data sets accessible for request evaluation, we continued to invest heavily within our Bot Management team to provide actionable data so that our customers could decide what (if any) automated traffic they wanted to allow to interact with their applications. Our highest priority for Bot research and development has always been efficacy, and last year was no different. A significant portion of our engineering effort was dedicated to our detection engines — both updating and iterating on existing systems or creating entirely new detection engines from scratch.

In 1Q2020 we completed a total rewrite of our Machine Learning engine, and are continually focused on improving the efficacy of our ML engines. To do this, we draw on one of our major competitive advantages: the massive amount of data flowing through Cloudflare’s network. The early 2020 upgrade to our ML model nearly doubled the number of features we use to evaluate and score requests. And to help customers better understand why requests are flagged as bots, we have recently complemented the bot likelihood score in our logs with attribution to the specific engine that generated the score.

Also in 1Q2020, we upgraded our behavioral analysis engine to incorporate more features and increase overall accuracy. This engine conducts histogram-based outlier scoring and is now fully deployed to nearly all Bot Management zones.

In 2Q2020, we developed a lightweight JavaScript element that further advanced our browser fingerprinting capabilities and aids in detection. Specifically, we now silently challenge browsers and detect if a browser is misrepresenting its User Agent. This technique will be incorporated into our ML models and combined with our heuristics engine for more accurate browser fingerprinting. This feature is entirely optional and can be enabled or disabled by customers through our UI and API. Customers with extremely performance sensitive zones or traffic types that are unsuitable for JavaScript (such as API or some mobile app traffic) can still be accurately scored by our Bot Management engine.

In addition to detection, we also spent (and will continue to spend) engineering effort on mitigation. Our entire JavaScript and CAPTCHA challenge platform was rewritten in the last year and deployed to our customer zones in a staged fashion in the second half of 2020. Our new platform is faster and more robust at detecting automated systems attempting to solve the challenges. More importantly, this platform allows us to further invest in new challenge types and modes as we enter 2021.

The biggest and most well received feature released in 2020 was our dedicated Bot Management analytics, released in 3Q2020. We now present informative graphs that double as diagnostic tools. Customers have found that analytics are far more than interesting charts and statistics: in the case of Bot Management, analytics are essential to spotting and subsequently eliminating false positives.

Last but definitely not least, we announced the deprecation of the __cfduid cookie in 4Q2020 which was used primarily to detect bots but caused confusion for some customers including questions about whether they needed to display a cookie banner because of what we do.

To get a sense of the Bot Attack trends we saw in the first half of 2020, take a read through this blog post. And if you’re curious about how our ML models and heuristic engines work to keep your properties safe, this deep dive by Alex Bocharov, Machine Learning Tech Lead on the Bots team, is an excellent guide.

API and IoT security and protection

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

At the beginning of 4Q2020, we released a product called API Shield that was purpose built to secure, protect, and accelerate API traffic — and will eventually provide much of the common functionality expected in traditional API Gateways. The UI for API Shield was built on top of Firewall Rules for maximum flexibility, and will serve as the jump-off point for configuring additional API security features we have planned this year.

As part of API Shield, every customer now gets a fully managed, domain-scoped private CA generated for each of their zones, and we plan to continue working closely with the SSL/TLS team to expand CA management options based on feedback. Since the release, we’ve seen great adoption from in particular IoT companies focused on locking down their APIs using short-lived client certificates distributed out to devices. Customers can also now upload OpenAPI schemas to be matched against incoming requests from these devices, with bad requests being dropped at the edge rather than passed on to origin infrastructure.

Another capability we released in 4Q2020 was support for gRPC-based API traffic. Since that release, customers have expressed significant interest in using Cloudflare as a secure API gateway between easy-to-use customer-facing JSON endpoints and internal-facing gRPC or GraphQL endpoints. Like most customer challenges at Cloudflare, early adopters are looking to solve these use cases initially with Cloudflare Workers, but we’re keeping an eye on whether there are aspects for which we’ll want to provide first-class feature support.

Distributed Denial-of-Service (DDoS) protections for web applications and APIs

Holistic web protection: industry recognition for a prolific 2020

The application-layer security of a web application or API is of minimal importance if the service itself is not available due to a persistent DDoS attack at L3-L7. While mitigating such attacks has long been one of Cloudflare’s strengths, attack methodologies evolve and we continued to invest heavily in 2020 to drop attacks more quickly, more efficiently, and more precisely; as a result, automatic mitigation techniques are applied immediately and most malicious traffic is blocked in less than 3 seconds.

Early in 2020 we responded to a persistent increase in smaller, more localized attacks by fine-tuning a system that can autonomously detect attacks on any server in any datacenter. In the month prior to us first posting about this tool, it mitigated almost 300,000 network-layer attacks, roughly 55 times greater than the tool we previously relied upon. This new tool, dubbed “dosd”, leverages Linux’s eXpress Data Path (XDP) and allows our system to quickly — and automatically — deploy rules eBPF rules that run on each packet received. We further enhanced our edge mitigation capabilities in 3Q2020 by developing and releasing a protection layer that can operate even in environments where we only see one side of the TCP flow. These network layer protections help protect our customers who leverage both Magic Transit to protect their IP ranges and our WAF to protect their applications and APIs.

To document and provide visibility into these attacks, we released a GraphQL-backed interface in 1Q2020 called Network Analytics. Network Analytics extends the visibility of attacks against our customers’ services from L7 to L3, and includes detailed attack logs containing data such as top source and destination IPs and ports, ASNs, data centers, countries, bit rates, protocol and TCP flag distributions. A litany of improvements made to this graphical rendering engine over the course of 2020 have benefitted all analytics tools using the same front-end. In 4Q2020, Network Analytics was extended to provide traffic and attack insights into Cloudflare Spectrum-protected applications, which are terminated at L4 (TCP/UDP).

Towards the end of 4Q2020, we released real-time DDoS attack alerting capable of sending emails or pages via PagerDuty to alert security teams of ongoing attacks and mitigations. This capability was released just in time to assist with the onslaught of ransomware attacks that Cloudflare helped detect and defend against. For additional context on unique attacks we fought off in 2020, consider reading about an acoustics inspired attack, a 754 million packet-per-second, or a roundup of attacks from 1Q2020, 2Q2020, or 3Q2020.

Wrapping up and looking towards 2021

2020 was a tough year around the world. Throughout what has also been, and continues to be, a period of heightened cyberattacks and breaches, we feel proud that our teams were able to release a steady flow of new and improved capabilities across several critical security product areas reviewed by Frost & Sullivan. These releases culminated in far greater protections for customers at the end of the year than the beginning, and a recognition for our sustained efforts.

We are pleased to have been named the Innovation Leader in their Frost Radar™: Global Holistic Web Protection Market Report, which “addresses organizations’ demand for consolidated, single pane of glass solutions, which not only reduce the security gaps of legacy products but also provide simplified management capabilities”.

As we look towards 2021 we plan to continue releasing early and often, listening to feedback from our customers, and delivering incremental value along the way. If you have ideas on what additional capabilities you’d like to use to protect your applications and networks, we’d love to hear them below in the comments.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity

Post Syndicated from Yan Zhai original https://blog.cloudflare.com/soar-simulation-for-observability-reliability-and-security/

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity

Serving more than approximately 25 million Internet properties is not an easy thing, and neither is serving 20 million requests per second on average. At Cloudflare, we achieve this by running a homogeneous edge environment: almost every Cloudflare server runs all Cloudflare products.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 1. Typical Cloudflare service model: when an end-user (a browser/mobile/etc) visits an origin (a Cloudflare customer), traffic is routed via the Internet to the Cloudflare edge network, and Cloudflare communicates with the origin servers from that point.

As we offer more and more products and enjoy the benefit of horizontal scalability, our edge stack continues to grow in complexity. Originally, we only operated at the application layer with our CDN service and DoS protection. Then we launched transport layer products, such as Spectrum and Argo. Now we have further expanded our footprint into the IP layer and physical link with Magic Transit. They all run on every machine we have. The work of our engineers enables our products to evolve at a fast pace, and to serve our customers better.

However, such software complexity presents a sheer challenge to operation: the more changes you make, the more likely it is that something is going to break. And we don’t tolerate any of our mistakes slipping into the production environment and affecting our customers.

In this article, we will discuss one of the techniques we use to fight such software complexity: simulations. Simulations are basically system tests that run with synthesized customer traffic and applications. We would like to introduce our simulation system, SOAR, i.e. Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity.

What is SOAR? Simply put, it’s a data center built specifically for simulations. It runs the same software stack as our production data centers, but without any production traffic. Within SOAR, there are end-user servers, product servers, and origin servers (Figure 2). The product servers behave exactly the same as servers in our production edge network, and they are the targets that we want to test. End-user servers and origin servers run applications that try to simulate customer behaviors. The simplest case is to run network benchmarks through product servers, in order to evaluate how effective the corresponding products are. Instead of sending test traffic over the Internet, everything happens in the LAN environment that Cloudflare tightly controls. This gives us great flexibility in testing network features such as bring-your-own-IP (BYOIP) products.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 2. SOAR architectural view: by simulating the end users and origin on Cloudflare servers in the same VLAN, we can focus on examining the problems occurring in our edge network.

To demonstrate how this works, let’s go through a running example using Magic Transit.

Magic Transit is a product that provides IP layer protection and acceleration. One of the main functions of Magic Transit is to shield customers from DDoS attacks.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 3. Magic Transit workflow in a nutshell

Customers bring their IP ranges to advertise from Cloudflare edge. When attackers initiate a DoS attack, Cloudflare absorbs all the customer’s traffic, drops the attack traffic, and encapsulates clean traffic to customers. For this product, operational concerns are multifold, and here are some examples:

  • Have we properly configured our data plane so that traffic can reach customers? Is BGP ready? Are ECMP routes programmed correctly? Are health probes working correctly?
  • Do we have any untested corner cases that only manifest with a large amount of traffic?
  • Is our DoS system dropping malicious traffic as intended? How effective
  • Will any other team’s changes break Magic Transit as our edge keeps growing?

To ease these concerns, we run simulated customers with SOAR. Yes, simulated, not real. For example, assume a customer Alice onboarded an IP range 192.0.2.0/24 to Magic Transit. To simulate this customer, in SOAR we can configure a test application (e.g. iperf server) on one origin server to represent Alice’s service. We also bring up a product server to run Magic Transit. This product server will filter traffic toward a.b.c.0/24, and GRE encapsulated cleansed traffic to Alice’s specified GRE endpoint. To make it work, we also add routing rules to forward packets destined to 192.0.2.0/24 to go through the product server above. Similarly, we add routing rules to deliver GRE packets from the product server to the origin servers. Lastly, we start running test clients as eyeballs to evaluate the functional correctness, performance metrics, and resource usage.

For the rest of this article, we will talk about the design and implementation of this simulation system, as well as several real cases in which it helped us catch problems early or avoid problems altogether.

System Design

From performance simulation to config simulation

Before we created SOAR, we had already built a “performance simulation” for our layer 7 services. It is based on SaltStack, our configuration management software. All the simulation cases are system test cases against Cloudflare-owned HTTP sites. These cases are statically configured and run non-stop. Each simulation case produces multiple Prometheus metrics such as requests per second and latency. We monitor these metrics daily on our Grafana dashboard.

While this simulation system is very useful, it becomes less efficient as we have more and more simulation cases and products to run and analyze.

Isolation and Coordination

As more types of simulations are onboarded, it is critical to ensure each simulation runs in a clean environment, and all tasks of a simulation run together. This challenge is specific to providers like Cloudflare, whose products are not virtualized because we want to maximize our edge performance. As a result, we have to isolate simulations and clean up by ourselves; otherwise, different simulations may cross-affect each other.

For example, for Magic Transit simulations, we need to create a GRE tunnel on an origin server and set up several routes on all three servers, to make sure simulated traffic can flow as real Magic Transit customers would. We cannot leave these routes after the simulation finishes, or there might be a conflict. We once ran into a situation where different simulations required different source IP addresses to the same destination. In our original performance simulation environment, we will have to modify simulation applications to avoid these conflicts. This approach is less desirable as different engineering teams have to pay attention to other teams’ code.

Moreover, the performance simulation addresses only the most basic system test cases: a client sends traffic to a server and measures the performance characteristics like request per second and latency quantile. But the situation we want to simulate and validate in our production environment can be far more complex.

In our previous example of Magic Transit, customers can configure complicated network topology. Figure 4 is one simplified case. Let’s say Alice establishes four GRE tunnels with Cloudflare; two connect to her data center 1, and traffic will be ECMP hashed between these two tunnels. Similarly, she also establishes another two tunnels to her data center 2 with similar ECMP settings. She would like to see traffic hit data center 1 normally and fail over to data center 2 when tunnels 1 and 2 are both down.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 4. The customer configured Magic Transit to establish four tunnels to her two data centers. Traffic to data center 1 is hashed between tunnel 1 and 2 using ECMP, and traffic to data center 2 is hashed between tunnel 3 and 4. Data center 1 is the primary one, and traffic should failover to data center 2 if tunnels 1 and 2 are both down. Note the number “2” is purely symbolic, as real customers can have more than just 2 data centers, or 2 paths per ECMP route.

In order to examine the effectiveness of route failover, we would need to inject errors on the product servers only after the traffic on the eyeball server has started. But this type of coordination is not achievable with statically defined simulations.

Engineer friendliness and Interactiveness

Our performance simulation is not engineer-friendly. Not just because it is all statically configured in SaltStack (most engineering teams do not possess Salt expertise), but it is also not integrated with an engineer’s daily routine. Can engineers trigger a simulation on every branch build? Can simulation results get back in time to inform that a performance problem occurs? The answer is no, it is not possible with our static configuration. An engineer can submit a Salt PR to config a new simulation, but this simulation may have to wait for several hours because all other unfinished simulations need to complete first (recall it is just a static loop). Nor can an engineer add a test to the team’s repository to run on every build, as it needs to reside in the SRE-managed Salt repository, making it unmanageable as the number of simulations grows.

The Architecture

To address the above limitations, we designed SOAR.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 5. The Architecture of SOAR

The architecture is a performance simulation structure, extended. We created an internal coordinator service to:

  1. Interface with engineers, so they could now submit one-time simulations from their laptop or within the building pipeline, or view previous execution results.
  2. Dispatch and coordinate simulation tasks to each simulation server, where a simulation agent executes these tasks. The coordinator will isolate simulations properly so none of them contends on system resources. For example, the simplest policy we implemented is to never run two simulations on the same server at the same time.

The coordinator is secured by Cloudflare Access, so that only employees can visit this service. The coordinator will serve two types of simulations: one-time simulation to be run in an ad-hoc way and mainly on a per pull request manner, to ease development testing. It’s also callable from our CI system. Another type is repetitive simulations that are stored in the coordinator’s persistent storage. These simulations serve daily monitoring purposes and will be executed periodically.

Each simulation server runs a simulation agent. This agent will execute two types of tasks received from the coordinator: system tasks and user tasks. System tasks change the system-wide configurations and will be reverted after each simulation terminates. These will include but are not limited to route change, link change, address change, ipset change and iptables change.

User tasks, on the other hand, run benchmarks that we are interested in evaluating, and will be terminated if it exceeds an allocated execution budget. Each user task is isolated in a cgroup, and the agent will ensure all user tasks are executed with dedicated resources. The generic runtime metrics of user tasks is monitored by Cadvisor and sent to Prometheus and Alert Manager. A user task can export its own metrics to Prometheus as well.

For SOAR to run reliably, we provisioned a dedicated environment that enforces the same settings for the production environment and operates it as a production system: hardened security, standard alerts on watch, no engineer access except approved tools. This to a large extent allows us to run simulations as a stable source of anomaly detection.

Simulating with customer-specific configuration

An important ability of SOAR is to simulate for a specific customer. This will provide the customer with more guarantees that both their configurations and our services are battle-tested with traffic before they go live. It can also be used to bisect problems during a customer escalation, helping customer support to rule out unrelated factors more easily.

All of our edge servers know how to dispatch an incoming customer packet. This factor greatly reduces difficulties in simulating a specific customer. What we need to do in simulation is to mock routing and domain translation on simulated eyeballs and origins, so that they will correctly send traffic to designated product servers. And the problem is solved—magic!

The actual implementation is also straightforward: as simulations run in a LAN environment, we have tight control over how to route packets (servers are on the same broadcast domain). Any eyeball, origin, or product server can just use a direct routing rule and a static DNS entry in /etc/hosts to redirect packets to go to the correct destination.

Running a simulation this way allows us to separate customer configuration management from the simulation service: our products will manage it, so any time a customer configuration is changed, they will already reflect in simulations without special care.

Implementation and Integration

All SOAR components are built with Golang from scratch on Linux servers. It took three engineer-months to build the prototype and onboard the first engineering use case. While there are other mature platforms for job scheduling, task isolation, and monitoring, building our own allows us to better absorb new requirements from engineering teams, which is much easier and quicker than an external dependency.

In addition, we are currently integrating the simulation service into our release pipeline. Cloudflare built a release manager internally to schedule product version changes in controlled steps: a new product is first deployed into dogfooding data centers. After the product has been trialed by Cloudflare employees, it moves to several canary data centers with limited customer traffic. If nothing bad happens, in an hour or so, it starts to land in larger data centers spread across three tiers. Tier-3 will receive the changes an hour earlier than tier-2, and the same applies to tier-2 and tier-1. This ensures a product would be battle-tested enough before it can serve the majority of Cloudflare customers.

Now we move this further by adding a simulation step even before dogfooding. In this step, all changes are deployed into the simulation environment, and engineering teams will configure which simulations to run. Dogfooding starts only when there is no performance regression or functional breakage. Here performance regression is based on Prometheus metrics, where each engineering team can define their own Prometheus query to interpret the performance results. All configured simulations will run periodically to detect problems in releases that do not tie to a specific product, e.g. a Linux kernel upgrade. SREs receive notifications asynchronously if any issue is discovered.

Simulations at Cloudflare: Case Studies

Simulations are very useful inside Cloudflare. Let’s see some real experiences we had in the past.

Detecting an anomaly on data center specific releases

In our Magic Transit example, the engineering team was about to release physical network interconnect (PNI) support. With PNI, customer data centers physically peer with Cloudflare routers.

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 6. The Magic Transit service flow for a customer without PNI support. Any Cloudflare data center can receive eyeball traffic. After mitigating a DoS attack traffic, valid traffic is encapsulated to the customer data center from any of the handling Cloudflare data centers.
Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 7. Magic Transit with PNI support. Traffic received from any data center will be moved to the PNI data center that the customer connects to. The PNI data center becomes a choke point.‌‌

However, this PNI functionality introduces a problem in our normal release process. However, PNI data centers are typically different from our dogfooding and canary data centers. If we still release with the normal process, then two critical phases are skipped. And what’s worse, the PNI data center could be a choke point in front of that customer’s traffic. If the PNI data center is taken down, no other data center can replace its role.

SOAR in this case is an important utility to help. The basic idea is to configure a server with PNI information. This server will act as if it runs in a PNI data center. Then we run simulated eyeball and origin to examine if there is any functional breakage:

Soar: Simulation for Observability, reliAbility, and secuRity
Figure 8. SOAR configures a server with PNI information and runs simulated eyeball and origin on this server. If a PNI related code release has a problem, then with proper simulation traffic it will be caught before rolling into production.

With such simulation capability, we were able to detect several problems early on and before releasing. For example, we caught a problem that impacts checksum offloading, which could encapsulate TCP packets with the wrong inner checksum and cause the packets to be dropped at the origin side. This problem does not exist in our virtualized testing environment and integration tests; it only happens when production hardware comes into play. We then use this simulation as a success indicator to test various fixes until we get the packet flow running normally again.

Continuously monitor performance on the edge stack

When a team configures a simulation, it runs on the same stack where all other teams run their products as well. This means when a simulation starts to show unhealthy results, it may or may not directly relate to the product associated with that simulation.

But with continuous simulations, we will have more chances to detect issues before things go south, or at least it will serve as a hint to quickly react to emerging problems. In an example early this year, we noticed one of our performance simulation dashboards showed that some HTTP request throughput was dropping by 20%. After digging into the case, we found our bot detection system had made a change that affected related requests. Luckily enough we moved fast thanks to the hint from the simulation (and some other useful tools like Opentracing).

Our recent enhancement from just HTTP performance simulation to SOAR makes it even more useful for customers. This is because we are now able to simulate with customer-specific configurations, so we might expose customer-specific problems. We are still dogfooding this, and hopefully, we can deploy it to our customers soon.

DoS Attacks as Simulations

When we started to develop Magic Transit, a question worth monitoring was how effective our mitigation pipeline is, and how to apply thresholds for different customers. For our new ACK flood mitigation system, flowtrackd, we onboarded its performance simulation cases together with tunable ACK flood. Combined with customer-specific configuration, this allows us to compare the throughput result under different volumes of attacks, and systematically tune our mitigation threshold.

Another important factor that we will be able to achieve with our “attack simulation” system is to mount attacks we have seen in the past, making sure the development of our mitigation pipelines won’t ever pass on these known attacks to our customers.

Conclusion

In this article, we introduced Cloudflare’s simulation system, SOAR. While simulation is not a new tool, we can use it to improve reliability, observability, and security. Our adoption of SOAR is still in its early stages, but we are pretty confident that, by fully leveraging simulations, we will push our quality of service to a new level.

Content-Security-Policy Nonce with Spring Security

Post Syndicated from Bozho original https://techblog.bozho.net/content-security-policy-nonce-with-spring-security/

Content-Security-Policy is important for web security. Yet, it’s not mainstream yet, it’s syntax is hard, it’s rather prohibitive and tools rarely have flexible support for it.

While Spring Security does have a built-in Content Security Policy (CSP) configuration, it allows you to specify the policy a a string, not build it dynamically. And in some cases you need more than that.

In particular, CSP discourages the user of inline javascript, because it introduces vulnerabilities. If you really need it, you can use unsafe-inline but that’s a bad approach, as it negates the whole point of CSP. The alternative presented on that page is to use hash or nonce.

I’ll explain how to use nonce with spring security, if you are using .and().headers().contentSecurityPolicy(policy). The policy string is static, so you can’t generate a random nonce for each request. And having a static nonce is useless. So first, you define a CSP nonce filter:

public class CSPNonceFilter extends GenericFilterBean {
    private static final int NONCE_SIZE = 32; //recommended is at least 128 bits/16 bytes
    private static final String CSP_NONCE_ATTRIBUTE = "cspNonce";

    private SecureRandom secureRandom = new SecureRandom();

    @Override
    public void doFilter(ServletRequest req, ServletResponse res, FilterChain chain) throws IOException, ServletException {
        HttpServletRequest request = (HttpServletRequest) req;
        HttpServletResponse response = (HttpServletResponse) res;

        byte[] nonceArray = new byte[NONCE_SIZE];

        secureRandom.nextBytes(nonceArray);

        String nonce = Base64.getEncoder().encodeToString(nonceArray);
        request.setAttribute(CSP_NONCE_ATTRIBUTE, nonce);

        chain.doFilter(request, new CSPNonceResponseWrapper(response, nonce));
    }

    /**
     * Wrapper to fill the nonce value
     */
    public static class CSPNonceResponseWrapper extends HttpServletResponseWrapper {
        private String nonce;

        public CSPNonceResponseWrapper(HttpServletResponse response, String nonce) {
            super(response);
            this.nonce = nonce;
        }

        @Override
        public void setHeader(String name, String value) {
            if (name.equals("Content-Security-Policy") && StringUtils.isNotBlank(value)) {
                super.setHeader(name, value.replace("{nonce}", nonce));
            } else {
                super.setHeader(name, value);
            }
        }

        @Override
        public void addHeader(String name, String value) {
            if (name.equals("Content-Security-Policy") && StringUtils.isNotBlank(value)) {
                super.addHeader(name, value.replace("{nonce}", nonce));
            } else {
                super.addHeader(name, value);
            }
        }
    }
}

And then you configure it with spring security using: .addFilterBefore(new CSPNonceFilter(), HeaderWriterFilter.class).

The policy string should containt `nonce-{nonce}` which would get replaced with a random nonce on each request.

The filter is set before the HeaderWriterFilter so that it can wrap the response and intercept all calls to setting headers. Why it can’t be done by just overriding the headers after they are set by the HeaderWriterFiilter, using response.setHeader(..) – because the response is already committed and overriding does nothing.

Then in your pages where you for some reason need inline scripts, you can use:

<script nonce="{{ cspNonce }}">...</script>

(I’m using the Pebble template syntax; but you can use any template to output the request attribute “csp-nonce”)

Once again, inline javascript is rarely a good idea, but sometimes it’s necessary, at least temporarily – if you are adding a CSP to a legacy application, for example, and can’t rewrite everything).

We should have CSP everywhere, but building the policy should be aided by the frameworks we use, otherwise it’s rather tedious to write a proper policy that doesn’t break your application and is secure at the same time.

The post Content-Security-Policy Nonce with Spring Security appeared first on Bozho's tech blog.

re:Invent – New security sessions launching soon

Post Syndicated from Marta Taggart original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/reinvent-new-security-sessions-launching-soon/

Where did the last month go? Were you able to catch all of the sessions in the Security, Identity, and Compliance track you hoped to see at AWS re:Invent? If you missed any, don’t worry—you can stream all the sessions released in 2020 via the AWS re:Invent website. Additionally, we’re starting 2021 with all new sessions that you can stream live January 12–15. Here are the new Security, Identity, and Compliance sessions—each session is offered at multiple times, so you can find the time that works best for your location and schedule.

Protecting sensitive data with Amazon Macie and Amazon GuardDuty – SEC210
Himanshu Verma, AWS Speaker

Tuesday, January 12 – 11:00 AM to 11:30 AM PST
Tuesday, January 12 – 7:00 PM to 7:30 PM PST
Wednesday, January 13 – 3:00 AM to 3:30 AM PST

As organizations manage growing volumes of data, identifying and protecting your sensitive data can become increasingly complex, expensive, and time-consuming. In this session, learn how Amazon Macie and Amazon GuardDuty together provide protection for your data stored in Amazon S3. Amazon Macie automates the discovery of sensitive data at scale and lowers the cost of protecting your data. Amazon GuardDuty continuously monitors and profiles S3 data access events and configurations to detect suspicious activities. Come learn about these security services and how to best use them for protecting data in your environment.

BBC: Driving security best practices in a decentralized organization – SEC211
Apurv Awasthi, AWS Speaker
Andrew Carlson, Sr. Software Engineer – BBC

Tuesday, January 12 – 1:15 PM to 1:45 PM PST
Tuesday, January 12 – 9:15 PM to 9:45 PM PST
Wednesday, January 13 – 5:15 AM to 5:45 AM PST

In this session, Andrew Carlson, engineer at BBC, talks about BBC’s journey while adopting AWS Secrets Manager for lifecycle management of its arbitrary credentials such as database passwords, API keys, and third-party keys. He provides insight on BBC’s secrets management best practices and how the company drives these at enterprise scale in a decentralized environment that has a highly visible scope of impact.

Get ahead of the curve with DDoS Response Team escalations – SEC321
Fola Bolodeoku, AWS Speaker

Tuesday, January 12 – 3:30 PM to 4:00 PM PST
Tuesday, January 12 – 11:30 PM to 12:00 AM PST
Wednesday, January – 7:30 AM to 8:00 AM PST

This session identifies tools and tricks that you can use to prepare for application security escalations, with lessons learned provided by the AWS DDoS Response Team. You learn how AWS customers have used different AWS offerings to protect their applications, including network access control lists, security groups, and AWS WAF. You also learn how to avoid common misconfigurations and mishaps observed by the DDoS Response Team, and you discover simple yet effective actions that you can take to better protect your applications’ availability and security controls.

Network security for serverless workloads – SEC322
Alex Tomic, AWS Speaker

Thursday, January 14 -1:30 PM to 2:00 PM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM PST
Friday, January 15 – 5:30 AM to 6:00 AM PST

Are you building a serverless application using services like Amazon API Gateway, AWS Lambda, Amazon DynamoDB, Amazon Aurora, and Amazon SQS? Would you like to apply enterprise network security to these AWS services? This session covers how network security concepts like encryption, firewalls, and traffic monitoring can be applied to a well-architected AWS serverless architecture.

Building your cloud incident response program – SEC323
Freddy Kasprzykowski, AWS Speaker

Wednesday, January 13 – 9:00 AM to 9:30 AM PST
Wednesday, January 13 – 5:00 PM to 5:30 PM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 1:00 AM to 1:30 AM PST

You’ve configured your detection services and now you’ve received your first alert. This session provides patterns that help you understand what capabilities you need to build and run an effective incident response program in the cloud. It includes a review of some logs to see what they tell you and a discussion of tools to analyze those logs. You learn how to make sure that your team has the right access, how automation can help, and which incident response frameworks can guide you.

Beyond authentication: Guide to secure Amazon Cognito applications – SEC324
Mahmoud Matouk, AWS Speaker

Wednesday, January 13 – 2:15 PM to 2:45 PM PST
Wednesday, January 13 – 10:15 PM to 10:45 PM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 6:15 AM to 6:45 AM PST

Amazon Cognito is a flexible user directory that can meet the needs of a number of customer identity management use cases. Web and mobile applications can integrate with Amazon Cognito in minutes to offer user authentication and get standard tokens to be used in token-based authorization scenarios. This session covers best practices that you can implement in your application to secure and protect tokens. You also learn about new Amazon Cognito features that give you more options to improve the security and availability of your application.

Event-driven data security using Amazon Macie – SEC325
Neha Joshi, AWS Speaker

Thursday, January 14 – 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM PST
Friday, January 15 – 12:00 AM to 12:30 AM PST

Amazon Macie sensitive data discovery jobs for Amazon S3 buckets help you discover sensitive data such as personally identifiable information (PII), financial information, account credentials, and workload-specific sensitive information. In this session, you learn about an automated approach to discover sensitive information whenever changes are made to the objects in your S3 buckets.

Instance containment techniques for effective incident response – SEC327
Jonathon Poling, AWS Speaker

Thursday, January 14 – 10:15 AM to 10:45 AM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 6:15 PM to 6:45 PM PST
Friday, January 15 – 2:15 AM to 2:45 AM PST

In this session, learn about several instance containment and isolation techniques, ranging from simple and effective to more complex and powerful, that leverage native AWS networking services and account configuration techniques. If an incident happens, you may have questions like “How do we isolate the system while preserving all the valuable artifacts?” and “What options do we even have?”. These are valid questions, but there are more important ones to discuss amidst a (possible) incident. Join this session to learn highly effective instance containment techniques in a crawl-walk-run approach that also facilitates preservation and collection of valuable artifacts and intelligence.

Trusted connects for government workloads – SEC402
Brad Dispensa, AWS Speaker

Wednesday, January 13 – 11:15 AM to 11:45 AM PST
Wednesday, January 13 – 7:15 PM to 7:45 PM PST
Thursday, January 14 – 3:15 AM to 3:45 AM PST

Cloud adoption across the public sector is making it easier to provide government workforces with seamless access to applications and data. With this move to the cloud, we also need updated security guidance to ensure public-sector data remain secure. For example, the TIC (Trusted Internet Connections) initiative has been a requirement for US federal agencies for some time. The recent TIC-3 moves from prescriptive guidance to an outcomes-based model. This session walks you through how to leverage AWS features to better protect public-sector data using TIC-3 and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Cybersecurity Framework (CSF). Also, learn how this might map into other geographies.

I look forward to seeing you in these sessions. Please see the re:Invent agenda for more details and to build your schedule.

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

Marta Taggart

Marta is a Seattle-native and Senior Program Manager in AWS Security, where she focuses on privacy, content development, and educational programs. Her interest in education stems from two years she spent in the education sector while serving in the Peace Corps in Romania. In her free time, she’s on a global hunt for the perfect cup of coffee.

Evolving Container Security With Linux User Namespaces

Post Syndicated from Netflix Technology Blog original https://netflixtechblog.com/evolving-container-security-with-linux-user-namespaces-afbe3308c082

By Fabio Kung, Sargun Dhillon, Andrew Spyker, Kyle, Rob Gulewich, Nabil Schear, Andrew Leung, Daniel Muino, and Manas Alekar

As previously discussed on the Netflix Tech Blog, Titus is the Netflix container orchestration system. It runs a wide variety of workloads from various parts of the company — everything from the frontend API for netflix.com, to machine learning training workloads, to video encoders. In Titus, the hosts that workloads run on are abstracted from our users. The Titus platform maintains large pools of homogenous node capacity to run user workloads, and the Titus scheduler places workloads. This abstraction allows the compute team to influence the reliability, efficiency, and operability of the fleet via the scheduler. The hosts that run workloads are called Titus “agents.” In this post, we describe how Titus agents leverage user namespaces to improve the overall security of the Titus agent fleet.

Titus’s Multi-Tenant Clusters

The Titus agent fleet appears to users as a homogenous pool of capacity. Titus internally employs a cellular bulkhead architecture for scalability, so the fleet is composed of multiple cells. Many bulkhead architectures partition their cells on tenants, where a tenant is defined as a team and their collection of applications. We do not take this approach, and instead, we partition our cells to balance load. We do this for reliability, scalability, and efficiency reasons.

Titus is a multi-tenant system, allowing multiple teams and users to run workloads on the system, and ensuring they can all co-exist while still providing guarantees about security and performance. Much of this comes down to isolation, which comes in multiple forms. These forms include performance isolation (ensuring workloads do not degrade one another’s performance), capacity isolation (ensuring that a given tenant can acquire resources when they ask for them), fault isolation (ensuring that the failure of a part of the system doesn’t cause the whole system to fail), and security isolation (ensuring that the compromise of one tenant’s workload does not affect the security of other tenants). This post focuses on our approaches to security isolation.

Secure Multi-tenancy

One of Titus’s biggest concerns with multi-tenancy is security isolation. We want to allow different kinds of containers from different tenants to run on the same instance. Security isolation in containers has been a contentious topic. Despite the risks, we’ve chosen to leverage containers as part of our security boundary. To offset the risks brought about by the container security boundary, we employ some additional protections.

The building blocks of multi-tenancy are Linux namespaces, the very technology that makes LXC, Docker, and other kinds of containers possible. For example, the PID namespace makes it so that a process can only see PIDs in its own namespace, and therefore cannot send kill signals to random processes on the host. In addition to the default Docker namespaces (mount, network, UTS, IPC, and PID), we employ user namespaces for added layers of isolation. Unfortunately, these default namespace boundaries are not sufficient to prevent container escape, as seen in CVEs like CVE-2015–2925. These vulnerabilities arise due to the complexity of interactions between namespaces, a large number of historical decisions during kernel development, and leaky abstractions like the proc filesystem in Linux. Composing these security isolation primitives correctly is difficult, so we’ve looked to other layers for additional protection.

Running many different workloads multi-tenant on a host necessitates the prevention lateral movement, a technique in which the attacker compromises a single piece of software running in a container on the system, and uses that to compromise other containers on the same system. To mitigate this, we run containers as unprivileged users — making it so that users cannot use “root.” This is important because, in Linux, UID 0 (or root’s privileges), do not come from the mere fact that the user is root, but from capabilities. These capabilities are tied to the current process’s credentials. Capabilities can be added via privilege escalation (e.g., sudo, file capabilities) or removed (e.g., setuid, or switching namespaces). Various capabilities control what the root user can do. For example, the CAP_SYS_BOOT capability controls the ability of a given user to reboot the machine. There are also more common capabilities that are granted to users like CAP_NET_RAW, which allows a process the ability to open raw sockets. A user can automatically have capabilities added when they execute specific files via file capabilities. For example, on a stock Ubuntu system, the ping command needs CAP_NET_RAW:

One of the most powerful capabilities in Linux is CAP_SYS_ADMIN, which is effectively equivalent to having superuser access. It gives the user the ability to do everything from mounting arbitrary filesystems, to accessing tracepoints that can expose vital information about the Linux kernel. Other powerful capabilities include CAP_CHOWN and CAP_DAC_OVERRIDE, which grant the capability to manipulate file permissions.

In the kernel, you’ll often see capability checks spread throughout the code, which looks something like this:

Notice this function doesn’t check if the user is root, but if the task has the CAP_SYS_ADMIN capability before allowing it to execute.

Docker takes the approach of using an allow-list to define which capabilities a container receives. These can be extended or attenuated by the user. Even the default capabilities that are defined in the Docker profile can be abused in certain situations. When we looked into running workloads as unprivileged users without many of these capabilities, we found that it was a non-starter. Various pieces of software used elevated capabilities for FUSE, low-level packet monitoring, and performance tracing amongst other use cases. Programs will usually start with capabilities, perform any activities that require those capabilities, and then “drop” them when the process no longer needs them.

User Namespaces

Fortunately, Linux has a solution — User Namespaces. Let’s go back to that kernel code example earlier. The pcrlock function called the capable function to determine whether or not the task was capable. This function is defined as:

This checks if the task has this capability relative to the init_user_ns. The init_user_ns is the namespace that processes are initialially spawned in, as it’s the only user namespace that exists at kernel startup time. User namespaces are a mechanism to split up the init_user_ns UID space. The interface to set up the mappings is via a “uid_map” and “gid_map” that’s exposed via /proc. The mapping looks something like this:

This allows UIDs in user-namespaced containers to be mapped to host UIDs. A variety of translations occur, but from the container’s perspective, everything is from the perspective of the UID ranges (otherwise known as extents) that are mapped. This is powerful in a few ways:

  1. It allows you to make certain UIDs off-limits to the container — if a UID is not mapped in the user namespace to a real UID, and you try to examine a file on disk with it, it will show up as overflowuid / overflowgid, a UID and GID specified in /proc/sys to indicate that it cannot be mapped into the current working space. Also, the container cannot setuid to a UID that can access files owned by that “outside uid.”
  2. From the user namespace’s perspective, the container’s root user appears to be UID 0, and the container can use the entire range of UIDs that are mapped into that namespace.
  3. Kernel subsystems can then proceed to call ns_capable with the specific user namespace that is tied to the resource. Many capability checks are now done to a user namespace that is relative to the resource being manipulated. This, in turn, allows processes to exercise certain privileges without having any privileges in the init user namespace. Even if the mapping is the same across many different namespaces, capability checks are still done relative to a specific user namespace.

One critical aspect of understanding how permissions work is that every namespace belongs to a specific user namespace. For example, let’s look at the UTS namespace, which is responsible for controlling the hostname:

The namespace has a relationship with a particular user namespace. The ability for a user to manipulate the hostname is based on whether or not the process has the appropriate capability in that user namespace.

Let’s Get Into It

We can examine how the interaction of namespaces and users work ourselves. To set the hostname in the UTS namespace, you need to have CAP_SYS_ADMIN in its user namespace. We can see this in action here, where an unprivileged process doesn’t have permission to set the hostname:

The reason for this is that the process does not have CAP_SYS_ADMIN. According to /proc/self/status, the effective capability set of this process is empty:

Now, let’s try to set up a user namespace, and see what happens:

Immediately, you’ll notice the command prompt says the current user is root, and that the id command agrees. Can we set the hostname now?

We still cannot set the hostname. This is because the process is still in the initial UTS namespace. Let’s see if we can unshare the UTS namespace, and set the hostname:

This is now successful, and the process is in an isolated UTS namespace with the hostname “foo.” This is because the process now has all of the capabilities that a traditional root user would have, except they are relative to the new user namespace we created:

If we inspect this process from the outside, we can see that the process still runs as the unprivileged user, and the hostname in the original outside namespace hasn’t changed:

From here, we can do all sorts of things, like mount filesystems, create other new namespaces, and in fact, we can create an entire container environment. Notice how no privilege escalation mechanism was used to perform any of these actions. This approach is what some people refer to as “rootless containers.”

Road to Implementation

We began work to enable user namespaces in early 2017. At the time we had a naive model that was simpler. This simplicity was possible because we were running without user namespaces:

This approach mirrored the process layout and boundaries of contemporary container orchestration systems. We had a shared metrics daemon on the machine that reached in and polled metrics from the container. User access was done by exposing an SSH daemon, and automatically doing nsenter on the user’s behalf to drop them into the container. To expose files to the container we would use bind mounts. The same mechanism was used to expose configuration, such as secrets.

This had the benefit that much of our software could be installed in the host namespace, and only manage files in the that namespace. The container runtime management system (Titus) was then responsible for configuring Docker to expose the right files to the container via bind mounts. In addition to that, we could use our standard metrics daemons on the host.

Although this model was easy to reason about and write software for, it had several shortcomings that we addressed by shifting everything to running inside of the container’s unprivileged user namespace. The first shortcoming was that all of the host daemons now needed to be aware of the UID translation, and perform the proper setuid or chown calls to transition across the container boundary. Second, each of these transitions represented a security risk. If the SSH daemon only partially transitioned into the container namespace by changing into the container’s pid namespace, it would leave its /proc accessible. This could then be used by a malicious attacker to escape.

With user namespaces, we can improve our security posture and reduce the complexity of the system by running those daemons in the container’s unprivileged user namespace, which removes the need to cross the namespace boundaries. In turn, this removes the need to correctly implement a cross-namespace transition mechanism thus, reducing the risk of introducing container escapes.

We did this by moving aspects of the container runtime environment into the container. For example, we run an SSH daemon per container and a metrics daemon per container. These run inside of the namespaces of the container, and they have the same capabilities and lifecycle as the workloads in the container. We call this model “System Services” — one can think of it as a primordial version of pods. By the end of 2018, we had moved all of our containers to run in unprivileged user namespaces successfully.

Why is this useful?

This may seem like another level of indirection that just introduces complexity, but instead, it allows us to leverage an extremely useful concept — “unprivileged containers.” In unprivileged containers, the root user starts from a baseline in which they don’t automatically have access to the entire system. This means that DAC, MAC, and seccomp policies are now an extra layer of defense against accessing privileged aspects of the system — not the only layer. As new privileges are added, we do not have to add them to an exclusion list. This allows our users to write software where they can control low-level system details in their own containers, rather than forcing all of the complexity up into the container runtime.

Use Case: FUSE

Netflix internally uses a purpose built FUSE filesystem called MezzFS. The purpose of this filesystem is to provide access to our content for a variety of encoding tools. Most of these encoding tools are designed to interact with the POSIX filesystem API. Our Media Cloud Engineering team wanted to leverage containers for a new platform they were building, called Archer. Archer, in turn, uses MezzFS, which needs FUSE, and at the time, FUSE required that the user have CAP_SYS_ADMIN in the initial user namespace. To accommodate the use case from our internal partner, we had to run them in a dedicated cluster where they could run privileged containers.

In 2017, we worked with our partner, Kinvolk, to have patches added to the Linux kernel that allowed users to safely use FUSE from non-init user namespaces. They were able to successfully upstream these patches, and we’ve been using them in production. From our user’s perspective, we were able to seamlessly move them into an unprivileged environment that was more secure. This simplified operations, as this workload was no longer considered exceptional, and could run alongside every other workload in the general node pool. In turn, this allowed the media encoding team access to a massive amount of compute capacity from the shared clusters, and better reliability due to the homogeneous nature of the deployment.

Use Case: Unintended Privileges

Many CVEs related to granting containers unintended privileges have been released in the past few years:

CVE-2020–15257: Privilege escalation in containerd

CVE-2019–5736: Privilege escalation via overwriting host runc binary

CVE-2018–10892: Access to /proc/acpi, allowing an attacker to modify hardware configuration

There will certainly be more vulnerabilities in the future, as is to be expected in any complex, quickly evolving system. We already use the default settings offered by Docker, such as AppArmor, and seccomp, but by adding user namespaces, we can achieve a superior defense-in-depth security model. These CVEs did not affect our infrastructure because we were using user namespaces for all of our containers. The attenuation of capabilities in the init user namespace performed as intended and stopped these attacks.

The Future

There are still many bits of the Kernel that are receiving support for user namespaces or enhancements making user namespaces easier to use. Much of the work left to do is focused on filesystems and container orchestration systems themselves. Some of these changes are slated for upcoming kernel releases. Work is being done to add unprivileged mounts to overlayfs allowing for nested container builds in a user namespace with layers. Future work is going on to make the Linux kernel VFS layer natively understand ID translation. This will make user namespaces with different ID mappings able to access the same underlying filesystem by shifting UIDs through a bind mount. Our partners at Kinvolk are also working on bringing user namespaces to Kubernetes.

Today, a variety of container runtimes support user namespaces. Docker can set up machine-wide UID mappings with separate user namespaces per container, as outlined in their docs. Any OCI compliant runtime such as Containerd / runc, Podman, and systemd-nspawn support user namespaces. Various container orchestration engines also support user namespaces via their underlying container runtimes, such as Nomad and Docker Swarm.

As part of our move to Kubernetes, Netflix has been working with Kinvolk on getting user namespaces to work under Kubernetes. You can follow this work via the KEP discussion here, and Kinvolk has more information about running user namespaces under Kubernetes on their blog. We look forward to evolving container security together with the Kubernetes community.


Evolving Container Security With Linux User Namespaces was originally published in Netflix TechBlog on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

Post Syndicated from Kenny Johnson original https://blog.cloudflare.com/integrating-cloudflare-gateway-and-access/

Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

We’re excited to announce that you can now set up your Access policies to require that all user traffic to your application is filtered by Cloudflare Gateway. This ensures that all of the traffic to your self-hosted and SaaS applications is secured and centrally logged. You can also use this integration to build rules that determine which users can connect to certain parts of your SaaS applications, even if the application does not support those rules on its own.

Stop threats from returning to your applications and data

We built Cloudflare Access as an internal project to replace our own VPN. Unlike a traditional private network, Access follows a Zero Trust model. Cloudflare’s edge checks every request to protected resources for identity and other signals like device posture (i.e., information about a user’s machine, like Operating system version, if antivirus is running, etc.).

By deploying Cloudflare Access, our security and IT teams could build granular rules for each application and log every request and event. Cloudflare’s network accelerated how users connected. We launched Access as a product for our customers in 2018 to share those improvements with teams of any size.

Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

Over the last two years, we added new types of rules that check for hardware security keys, location, and other signals. However, we were still left with some challenges:

  • What happened to devices before they connected to applications behind Access? Were they bringing something malicious with them?
  • Could we make sure these devices were not leaking data elsewhere when they reached data behind Access?
  • Had the credentials used for a Cloudflare Access login been phished elsewhere?
Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

We built Cloudflare Gateway to solve those problems. Cloudflare Gateway sends all traffic from a device to Cloudflare’s network, where it can be filtered for threats, file upload/download, and content categories.

Administrators deploy a lightweight agent on user devices that proxies all Internet-bound traffic through Cloudflare’s network. As that traffic arrives in one of our data centers in 200 cities around the world, Cloudflare’s edge inspects the traffic. Gateway can then take actions like prevent users from connecting to destinations that contain malware or block the upload of files to unapproved locations.

With today’s launch, you can now build Access rules that restrict connections to devices that are running Cloudflare Gateway. You can configure Cloudflare Gateway to run in always-on mode and ensure that the devices connecting to your applications are secured as they navigate the rest of the Internet.

Log every connection to every application

In addition to filtering, Cloudflare Gateway also logs every request and connection made from a device. With Gateway running, your organization can audit how employees use SaaS applications like Salesforce, Office 365, and Workday.

Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

However, we’ve talked to several customers who share a concern over log integrity — “what stops a user from bypassing Gateway’s logging by connecting to a SaaS application from a different device?” Users could type in their password and use their second factor authentication token on a different device — that way, the organization would lose visibility into that corporate traffic.

Today’s release gives your team the ability to ensure every connection to your SaaS applications uses Cloudflare Gateway. Your team can integrate Cloudflare Access, and its ruleset, into the login flow of your SaaS applications. Cloudflare Access checks for additional factors when your users log in with your SSO provider. By adding a rule to require Cloudflare Gateway be used, you can prevent users from ever logging into a SaaS application without connecting through Gateway.

Build data control rules in SaaS applications

One other challenge we had internally at Cloudflare is that we lacked the ability to add user-based controls in some of the SaaS applications we use. For example, a team member connecting to a data visualization application had access to dashboards created by other teams, that they shouldn’t have access to.

We can use Cloudflare Gateway to solve that problem. Gateway provides the ability to restrict certain URLs to groups of users; this allows us  to add rules that only let specific team members reach records that live at known URLs.

Integrating Cloudflare Gateway and Access

However, if someone is not using Gateway, we lose that level of policy control. The integration with Cloudflare Access ensures that those rules are always enforced. If users are not running Gateway, they cannot login to the application.

What’s next?

You can begin using this feature in your Cloudflare for Teams account today with the Teams Standard or Teams enterprise plan. Documentation is available here to help you get started.

Want to try out Cloudflare for Teams? You can sign up for Teams today on our free plan and test Gateway’s DNS filtering and Access for up to 50 users at no cost.

Beat – An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

Post Syndicated from Omer Yoachimik original https://blog.cloudflare.com/beat-an-acoustics-inspired-ddos-attack/

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

On the week of Black Friday, Cloudflare automatically detected and mitigated a unique ACK DDoS attack, which we’ve codenamed “Beat”, that targeted a Magic Transit customer. Usually, when attacks make headlines, it’s because of their size. However, in this case, it’s not the size that is unique but the method that appears to have been borrowed from the world of acoustics.

Acoustic inspired attack

As can be seen in the graph below, the attack’s packet rate follows a wave-shaped pattern for over 8 hours. It seems as though the attacker was inspired by an acoustics concept called beat. In acoustics, a beat is a term that is used to describe an interference of two different wave frequencies. It is the superposition of the two waves. When the two waves are nearly 180 degrees out of phase, they create the beating phenomenon. When the two waves merge they amplify the sound and when they are out of sync they cancel one another, creating the beating effect.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack
Beat DDoS Attack

Acedemo.org has a nice tool where you can create your own beat wave. As you can see in the screenshot below, the two waves in blue and red are out of phase and the purple wave is their superposition, the beat wave.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack
Source: https://academo.org/demos/wave-interference-beat-frequency/ 

Reverse engineering the attack

It looks like the attacker launched a flood of packets where the rate of the packets is determined by the equation of the beat wave: ybeat=y1+y2. The two equations y1 and y2 represent the two waves.

Each equation is expressed as

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

where fi is the frequency of each wave and t is time.

Therefore, the packet rate of the attack is determined by manipulation of the equation

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

to achieve a packet rate that ranges from ~18M to ~42M pps.

To get to the scale of this attack we will need to multiply ybeat by a certain variable a and also add a constant c, giving us ybeat=aybeat+c. Now, it’s been a while since I played around with equations, so I’m only going to try and get an approximation of the equation.

By observing the attack graph, we can guesstimate that

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

by playing around with desmos’s cool graph visualizer tool, if we set f1=0.0000345 and f2=0.00003455 we can generate a graph that resembles the attack graph. Plotting in those variables, we get:

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

Now this formula assumes just one node firing the packets. However, this specific attack was globally distributed, and if we assume that each node, or bot in this botnet, was firing an equal amount of packets at an equal rate, then we can divide the equation by the size of the botnet; the number of bots b. Then the final equation is something in the form of:

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

In the screenshot below, g = f 1. You can view this graph here.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

Beating the drum

The attacker may have utilized this method in order to try and overcome our DDoS protection systems (perhaps thinking that the rhythmic rise and fall of the attack would fool our systems). However, flowtrackd, our unidirectional TCP state tracking machine, detected it as being a flood of ACK packets that do not belong to any existing TCP connection. Therefore, flowtrackd automatically dropped the attack packets at Cloudflare’s edge.

The attacker was beating the drum for over 19 hours with an amplitude of ~7 Mpps, a wavelength of ~4 hours, and peaking at ~42 Mpps. During the two days in which the attack took place, Cloudflare systems automatically detected and mitigated over 700 DDoS attacks that targeted this customer. The attack traffic accumulated at almost 500 Terabytes out of a total of 3.6 Petabytes of attack traffic that targeted this single customer in November alone. During those two days, the attackers utilized mainly ACK floods, UDP floods, SYN floods, Christmas floods (where all of the TCP flags are ‘lit’), ICMP floods, and RST floods.

The challenge of TCP based attacks

TCP is a stateful protocol, which means that in some cases, you’d need to keep track of a TCP connection’s state in order to know if a packet is legitimate or part of an attack, i.e. out of state. We were able to provide protection against out-of-state TCP packet attacks for our “classic” WAF/CDN service and Spectrum service because in both cases Cloudflare serves as a reverse-proxy seeing both ingress and egress traffic.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

However, when we launched Magic Transit, which relies on an asymmetric routing topology with a direct server return (DSR), we couldn’t utilize our existing TCP connection tracking systems.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

And so, being a software-defined company, we’re able to write code and spin up software when and where needed — as opposed to vendors that utilize dedicated DDoS protection hardware appliances. And that is what we did. We built flowtrackd, which runs autonomously on each server at our network’s edge. flowtrackd is able to classify the state of TCP flows by analyzing only the ingress traffic, and then drops, challenges, or rate-limits attack packets that do not correspond to an existing flow.

Beat - An Acoustics Inspired DDoS Attack

flowtrackd works together with our two additional DDoS protection systems, dosd and Gatebot, to assure our customers are protected against DDoS attacks, regardless of their size or sophistication — in this case, serving as a noise-canceling system to the Beat attack; reducing the headaches for our customers.

Read more about how our DDoS protection systems work here.

Reflecting on the five years of Bug Bounty at Grab

Post Syndicated from Grab Tech original https://engineering.grab.com/reflecting-on-the-five-years-of-bug-bounty-at-grab

Security has always been a top-priority at Grab; our product security team works round-the-clock to ensure that our customers’ data remains safe. Five years ago, we launched our private bug bounty program on HackerOne, which evolved into a public program in August 2017. The idea was to complement the security efforts our team has been putting through to keep Grab secure. We were a pioneer in South East Asia to implement a public bug bounty program, and now we stand among the Top 20 programs on HackerOne worldwide.

We started as a private bug bounty program which provided us with fantastic results, thus encouraging us to increase our reach and benefit from the vibrant security community across the globe which have helped us iron-out security issues 24×7 in our products and infrastructure. We then publicly launched our bug bounty program offering competitive rewards and hackers can even earn additional bonuses if their report is well-written and display an innovative approach to testing.

In 2019, we also enrolled ourselves in the Google Play Security Reward Program (GPSRP), Offered by Google Play, GPSRP allows researchers to re-submit their resolved mobile security issues directly and get additional bounties if the report qualifies under the GPSRP rules. A selected number of Android applications are eligible, including Grab’s Android mobile application. Through the participation in GPSP, we hope to give researchers the recognition they deserve for their efforts.

In this blog post, we’re going to share our journey of running a bug bounty program, challenges involved and share the learnings we had on the way to help other companies in SEA and beyond to establish and build a successful bug bounty program.

Transitioning from Private to a Public Program

At Grab, before starting the private program, we defined policy and scope, allowing us to communicate the objectives of our bug bounty program and list the targets that can be tested for security issues. We did a security sweep of the targets to eliminate low-hanging security issues, assigned people from the security team to take care of incoming reports, and then launched the program in private mode on HackerOne with a few chosen researchers having demonstrated a history of submitting quality submissions.

One of the benefits of running a private bug bounty program is to have some control over the number of incoming submissions of potential security issues and researchers who can report issues. This ensures the quality of submissions and helps to control the volume of bug reports, thus avoiding overwhelming a possibly small security team with a deluge of issues so that they won’t be overwhelming for the people triaging potential security issues. The invited researchers to the program are limited, and it is possible to invite researchers with a known track record or with a specific skill set, further working in the program’s favour.

The results and lessons from our private program were valuable, making our program and processes mature enough to open the bug bounty program to security researchers across the world. We still did another security sweep, reworded the policy, redefined the targets by expanding the scope, and allocated enough folks from our security team to take on the initial inflow of reports which was anticipated to be in tune with other public programs.

Submissions

Noticeable spike in the number of incoming reports as we went public in July 2017.

Lessons Learned from the Public Program

Although we were running our bug bounty program in private for sometime before going public, we still had not worked much on building standard operating procedures and processes for managing our bug bounty program up until early 2018. Listed below, are our key takeaways from 2018 till July 2020 in terms of improvements, challenges, and other insights.

  1. Response Time: No researcher wants to work with a bug bounty team that doesn’t respect the time that they are putting into reporting bugs to the program. We initially didn’t have a formal process around response times, because we wanted to encourage all security engineers to pick-up reports. Still, we have been consistently delivering a first response to reports in a matter of hours, which is significantly lower than the top 20 bug bounty programs running on HackerOne. Know what structured (or unstructured) processes work for your team in this area, because your program can see significant rewards from fast response times.
  2. Time to Bounty: In most bug bounty programs the payout for a bug is made in one of the following ways: full payment after the bug has been resolved, full payment after the bug has been triaged, or paying a portion of the bounty after triage and the remaining after resolution. We opt to pay the full bounty after triage. While we’re always working to speed up resolution times, that timeline is in our hands, not the researcher’s. Instead of making them wait, we pay them as soon as impact is determined to incentivize long-term engagement in the program.
  3. Noise Reduction: With HackerOne Triage and Human-Augmented Signal, we’re able to focus our team’s efforts on resolving unique, valid vulnerabilities. Human-Augmented Signal flags any reports that are likely false-positives, and Triage provides a validation layer between our security team and the report inbox. Collaboration with the HackerOne Triage team has been fantastic and ultimately allows us to be more efficient by focusing our energy on valid, actionable reports. In addition, we take significant steps to block traffic coming from networks running automated scans against our Grab infrastructure and we’re constantly exploring this area to actively prevent automated external scanning.
  4. Team Coverage: We introduced a team scheduling process, in which we assign a security engineer (chosen during sprint planning) on a weekly basis, whose sole responsibility is to review and respond to bug bounty reports. We have integrated our systems with HackerOne’s API and PagerDuty to ensure alerts are for valid reports and verified as much as possible.

Looking Ahead

In one area we haven’t been doing too great is ensuring higher rates of participation in our core mobile applications; some of the pain points researchers have informed us about while testing our applications are:

  • Researchers’ accounts are getting blocked due to our anti-fraud checks.
  • Researchers are not able to register driver accounts (which is understandable as our driver-partners have to go through manual verification process)
  • Researchers who are not residing in the Southeast Asia region are unable to complete end-to-end flows of our applications.

We are open to community feedback and how we can improve. We want to hear from you! Please drop us a note at [email protected] for any program suggestions or feedback.

Last but not least, we’d like to thank all researchers who have contributed to the Grab program so far. Your immense efforts have helped keep Grab’s businesses and users safe. Here’s a shoutout to our program’s top-earning hackers 🏆:

RankingOverall Top 3 ResearchersYear 2019/2020 Top 3 Researchers
1@reptou@reptou
2@quanyang@alexeypetrenko
3@ngocdh@chaosbolt

Lastly, here is a special shoutout to @bagipro who has done some great work and testing on our Grab mobile applications!

Well done and from everyone on the Grab team, we look forward to seeing you on the program!

Join us

Grab is more than just the leading ride-hailing and mobile payments platform in Southeast Asia. We use data and technology to improve everything from transportation to payments and financial services across a region of more than 620 million people. We aspire to unlock the true potential of Southeast Asia and look for like-minded individuals to join us on this ride.

If you share our vision of driving South East Asia forward, apply to join our team today.

Encrypting your WAF Payloads with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE)

Post Syndicated from Michael Tremante original https://blog.cloudflare.com/encrypt-waf-payloads-hpke/

Encrypting your WAF Payloads with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE)

Encrypting your WAF Payloads with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE)

The Cloudflare Web Application Firewall (WAF) blocks more than 72B malicious requests per day from reaching our customers’ applications. Typically, our users can easily confirm these requests were not legitimate by checking the URL, the query parameters, or other metadata that Cloudflare provides as part of the security event log in the dashboard.

Sometimes investigating a WAF event requires a bit more research and a trial and error approach, as the WAF may have matched against a field that is not logged by default.

Not logging all parts of a request is intentional: HTTP headers and payloads often contain sensitive data, including personally identifiable information, which we consider a toxic asset. Request headers may contain cookies and POST payloads may contain username and password pairs submitted during a login attempt among other sensitive data.

We recognize that providing clear visibility in any security event is a core feature of a firewall, as this allows users to better fine tune their rules. To accomplish this, while ensuring end-user privacy, we built encrypted WAF matched payload logging. This feature will log only the specific component of the request the WAF has deemed malicious — and it is encrypted using a customer-provided key to ensure that no Cloudflare employee can examine the data*. Additionally, the crypto uses an exciting new standard — developed in part by Cloudflare — called Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE).

*All Cloudflare logs are encrypted at rest. This feature implements a second layer of encryption for the specific matched fields so that only the customer can decrypt it.

Encrypting Matched Payloads

To turn on this feature, you need to provide a public key, or generate a private-public key pair directly from the dashboard. Your data will then be encrypted using Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE), which offers a great combination of both performance and security.

Encrypting your WAF Payloads with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE)
Encrypting your WAF Payloads with Hybrid Public Key Encryption (HPKE)

To simplify this process, we have built an easy-to-use command line utility to generate the key pair:

$ matched-data-cli generate-key-pair
{
  "private_key": "uBS5eBttHrqkdY41kbZPdvYnNz8Vj0TvKIUpjB1y/GA=",
  "public_key": "Ycig/Zr/pZmklmFUN99nr+taURlYItL91g+NcHGYpB8="
}

Cloudflare does not store the private key and it is our customers’ responsibility to ensure it is stored safely. Lost keys, and the data encrypted with them, cannot be recovered but customers can rotate keys to be used with future payloads.

Once encrypted, payloads will be available in the logs as encrypted base64 blobs within the metadata field:

"metadata": [
  {
    "key": "encrypted_matched_data",
    "Value": "AdfVn7odpamJGeFAGj0iW2oTtoXOjVnTFT2x4l+cHKJsEQAAAAAAAAB+zDygjV2aUI92FV4cHMkp+4u37JHnH4fUkRqasPYaCgk="
  }
]

Decrypting payloads can be done via the dashboard from the Security Events log, or by using the command line utility, as shown below. If done via the dashboard, the browser will decrypt the payload locally (i.e., client side) and will not send the private key to Cloudflare.

$ printf $PRIVATE_KEY | ./matched-data-cli decrypt -d AdfVn7odpamJGeFAGj0iW2oTtoXOjVnTFT2x4l+cHKJsEQAAAAAAAAB+zDygjV2aUI92FV4cHMkp+4u37JHnH4fUkRqasPYaCgk= – private-key-stdin

The command above returns:

{"REQUEST_HEADERS:REFERER":"https:\/\/example.com\/testkey.txt?a=<script>alert('xss');<\/script>"}

In the example above, the WAF matched against the REQUEST_HEADERS:REFERER field. Any other fields the WAF matched on would be similarly logged.

Better Logging with User Privacy in Mind

In the coming months, this feature will be available on our dashboard to our Enterprise customers. Enterprise customers who would like this feature enabled sooner should reach out to their account team. Only application owners who also have access to the Cloudflare dashboard as Super Administrators will be able to configure encrypted matched payload logging. Those who do not have access to the private key, including Cloudflare staff, are not able to decrypt the logs.

We are also excited for this feature to be one of our first to use Hybrid Public Key Encryption, and for Cloudflare to use this emerging standard developed by the Crypto Forum Research Group (CFRG), the research body that supports the development of Internet standards at the IETF. And stay tuned, we will publish a deep dive post with the technical details soon!

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

Post Syndicated from Tatiana Bradley original https://blog.cloudflare.com/opaque-oblivious-passwords/

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

Passwords are a problem. They are a problem for reasons that are familiar to most readers. For us at Cloudflare, the problem lies much deeper and broader. Most readers will immediately acknowledge that passwords are hard to remember and manage, especially as password requirements grow increasingly complex. Luckily there are great software packages and browser add-ons to help manage passwords. Unfortunately, the greater underlying problem is beyond the reaches of software to solve.

The fundamental password problem is simple to explain, but hard to solve: A password that leaves your possession is guaranteed to sacrifice security, no matter its complexity or how hard it may be to guess. Passwords are insecure by their very existence.

You might say, “but passwords are always stored in encrypted format!” That would be great. More accurately, they are likely stored as a salted hash, as explained below. Even worse is that there is no way to verify the way that passwords are stored, and so we can assume that on some servers passwords are stored in cleartext. The truth is that even responsibly stored passwords can be leaked and broken, albeit (and thankfully) with enormous effort. An increasingly pressing problem stems from the nature of passwords themselves: any direct use of a password, today, means that the password must be handled in the clear.

You say, “but my password is transmitted securely over HTTPS!” This is true.

You say, “but I know the server stores my password in hashed form, secure so no one can access it!” Well, this puts a lot of faith in the server. Even so, let’s just say that yes, this may be true, too.

There remains, however, an important caveat — a gap in the end-to-end use of passwords. Consider that once a server receives a password, between being securely transmitted and securely stored, the password has to be read and processed. Yes, as cleartext!

And it gets worse — because so many are used to thinking in software, it’s easy to forget about the vulnerability of hardware. This means that even if the software is somehow trusted, the password must at some point reside in memory. The password must at some point be transmitted over a shared bus to the CPU. These provide vectors of attack to on-lookers in many forms. Of course, these attack vectors are far less likely than those presented by transmission and permanent storage, but they are no less severe (recent CPU vulnerabilities such as Spectre and Meltdown should serve as a stark reminder.)

The only way to fix this problem is to get rid of passwords altogether. There is hope! Research and private sector communities are working hard to do just that. New standards are emerging and growing mature. Unfortunately, passwords are so ubiquitous that it will take a long time to agree on and supplant passwords with new standards and technology.

At Cloudflare, we’ve been asking if there is something that can be done now, imminently. Today’s deep-dive into OPAQUE is one possible answer. OPAQUE is one among many examples of systems that enable a password to be useful without it ever leaving your possession. No one likes passwords, but as long they’re in use, at least we can ensure they are never given away.

I’ll be the first to admit that password-based authentication is annoying. Passwords are hard to remember, tedious to type, and notoriously insecure. Initiatives to reduce or replace passwords are promising. For example, WebAuthn is a standard for web authentication based primarily on public key cryptography using hardware (or software) tokens. Even so, passwords are frustratingly persistent as an authentication mechanism. Whether their persistence is due to their ease of implementation, familiarity to users, or simple ubiquity on the web and elsewhere, we’d like to make password-based authentication as secure as possible while they persist.

My internship at Cloudflare focused on OPAQUE, a cryptographic protocol that solves one of the most glaring security issues with password-based authentication on the web: though passwords are typically protected in transit by HTTPS, servers handle them in plaintext to check their correctness. Handling plaintext passwords is dangerous, as accidentally logging or caching them could lead to a catastrophic breach. The goal of the project, rather than to advocate for adoption of any particular protocol, is to show that OPAQUE is a viable option among many for authentication. Because the web case is most familiar to me, and likely many readers, I will use the web as my main example.

Web Authentication 101: Password-over-TLS

When you type in a password on the web, what happens? The website must check that the password you typed is the same as the one you originally registered with the site. But how does this check work?

Usually, your username and password are sent to a server. The server then checks if the registered password associated with your username matches the password you provided. Of course, to prevent an attacker eavesdropping on your Internet traffic from stealing your password, your connection to the server should be encrypted via HTTPS (HTTP-over-TLS).

Despite use of HTTPS, there still remains a glaring problem in this flow: the server must store a representation of your password somewhere. Servers are hard to secure, and breaches are all too common. Leaking this representation can cause catastrophic security problems. (For records of the latest breaches, check out https://haveibeenpwned.com/).

To make these leaks less devastating, servers often apply a hash function to user passwords. A hash function maps each password to a unique, random-looking value. It’s easy to apply the hash to a password, but almost impossible to reverse the function and retrieve the password. (That said, anyone can guess a password, apply the hash function, and check if the result is the same.)

With password hashing, plaintext passwords are no longer stored on servers.  An attacker who steals a password database no longer has direct access to passwords. Instead, the attacker must apply the hash to many possible passwords and compare the results with the leaked hashes.

Unfortunately, if a server hashes only the passwords, attackers can download precomputed rainbow tables containing hashes of trillions of possible passwords and almost instantly retrieve the plaintext passwords. (See https://project-rainbowcrack.com/table.htm for a list of some rainbow tables).

With this in mind, a good defense-in-depth strategy is to use salted hashing, where the server hashes your password appended to a random, per-user value called a salt. The server also saves the salt alongside the username, so the user never sees or needs to submit it. When the user submits a password, the server re-computes this hash function using the salt. An attacker who steals password data, i.e., the password representations and salt values, must then guess common passwords one by one and apply the (salted) hash function to each guessed password. Existing rainbow tables won’t help because they don’t take the salts into account, so the attacker needs to make a new rainbow table for each user!

This (hopefully) slows down the attack enough for the service to inform users of a breach, so they can change their passwords. In addition, the salted hashes should be hardened by applying a hash many times to further slow attacks. (See https://blog.cloudflare.com/keeping-passwords-safe-by-staying-up-to-date/ for a more detailed discussion).

These two mitigation strategies — encrypting the password in transit and storing salted, hardened hashes — are the current best practices.

A large security hole remains open. Password-over-TLS (as we will call it) requires users to send plaintext passwords to servers during login, because servers must see these passwords to match against registered passwords on file. Even a well-meaning server could accidentally cache or log your password attempt(s), or become corrupted in the course of checking passwords. (For example, Facebook detected in 2019 that it had accidentally been storing hundreds of millions of plaintext user passwords). Ideally, servers should never see a plaintext password at all.

But that’s quite a conundrum: how can you check a password if you never see the password? Enter OPAQUE: a Password-Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) protocol that simultaneously proves knowledge of a password and derives a secret key. Before describing OPAQUE in detail, we’ll first summarize PAKE functionalities in general.

Password Proofs with Password-Authenticated Key Exchange

Password-Authenticated Key Exchange (PAKE) was proposed by Bellovin and Merrit in 1992, with an initial motivation of allowing password-authentication without the possibility of dictionary attacks based on data transmitted over an insecure channel.

Essentially, a plain, or symmetric, PAKE is a cryptographic protocol that allows two parties who share only a password to establish a strong shared secret key. The goals of PAKE are:

1) The secret keys will match if the passwords match, and appear random otherwise.

2) Participants do not need to trust third parties (in particular, no Public Key Infrastructure),

3) The resulting secret key is not learned by anyone not participating in the protocol – including those who know the password.

4) The protocol does not reveal either parties’ password to each other (unless the passwords match), or to eavesdroppers.

In sum, the only way to successfully attack the protocol is to guess the password correctly while participating in the protocol. (Luckily, such attacks can be mostly thwarted by rate-limiting, i.e, blocking a user from logging in after a certain number of incorrect password attempts).

Given these requirements, password-over-TLS is clearly not a PAKE, because:

  • It relies on WebPKI, which places trust in third-parties called Certificate Authorities (see https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-certificate-transparency-and-nimbus/ for an in-depth explanation of WebPKI and some of its shortcomings).
  • The user’s password is revealed to the server.
  • Password-over-TLS provides the user no assurance that the server knows their password or a derivative of it — a server could accept any input from the user with no checks whatsoever.

That said, plain PAKE is still worse than Password-over-TLS, simply because it requires the server to store plaintext passwords. We need a PAKE that lets the server store salted hashes if we want to beat the current practice.

An improvement over plain PAKE is what’s called an asymmetric PAKE (aPAKE), because only the client knows the password, and the server knows a hashed password. An aPAKE has the four properties of PAKE, plus one more:

5) An attacker who steals password data stored on the server must perform a dictionary attack to retrieve the password.

The issue with most existing aPAKE protocols, however, is that they do not allow for a salted hash (or if they do, they require that salt to be transmitted to the user, which means the attacker has access to the salt beforehand and can begin computing a rainbow table for the user before stealing any data). We’d like, therefore, to upgrade the security property as follows:

5*) An attacker who steals password data stored on the server must perform a per-user dictionary attack to retrieve the password after the data is compromised.

OPAQUE is the first aPAKE protocol with a formal security proof that has this property: it allows for a completely secret salt.

OPAQUE – Servers safeguard secrets without knowing them!

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

OPAQUE is what’s referred to as a strong aPAKE, which simply means that it resists these pre-computation attacks by using a secretly salted hash on the server. OPAQUE was proposed and formally analyzed by Stanislaw Jarecki, Hugo Krawcyzk and Jiayu Xu in 2018 (full disclosure: Stanislaw Jarecki is my academic advisor). The name OPAQUE is a combination of the names of two cryptographic protocols: OPRF and PAKE. We already know PAKE, but what is an OPRF? OPRF stands for Oblivious Pseudo-Random Function, which is a protocol by which two parties compute a function F(key, x) that is deterministic but outputs random-looking values. One party inputs the value x, and another party inputs the key – the party who inputs x learns the result F(key, x) but not the key, and the party providing the key learns nothing.  (You can dive into the math of OPRFs here: https://blog.cloudflare.com/privacy-pass-the-math/).

The core of OPAQUE is a method to store user secrets for safekeeping on a server, without giving the server access to those secrets. Instead of storing a traditional salted password hash, the server stores a secret envelope for you that is “locked” by two pieces of information: your password known only by you, and a random secret key (like a salt) known only by the server. To log in, the client initiates a cryptographic exchange that reveals the envelope key to the client, but, importantly, not to the server.

The server then sends the envelope to the user, who now can retrieve the encrypted keys. (The keys included in the envelope are a private-public key pair for the user, and a public key for the server.) These keys, once unlocked, will be the inputs to an Authenticated Key Exchange (AKE) protocol, which allows the user and server to establish a secret key which can be used to encrypt their future communication.

OPAQUE consists of two phases, being credential registration and login via key exchange.

OPAQUE: Registration Phase

Before registration, the user first signs up for a service and picks a username and password. Registration begins with the OPRF flow we just described: Alice (the user) and Bob (the server) do an OPRF exchange. The result is that Alice has a random key rwd, derived from the OPRF output F(key, pwd), where key is a server-owned OPRF key specific to Alice and pwd is Alice’s password.

Within his OPRF message, Bob sends the public key for his OPAQUE identity. Alice then generates a new private/public key pair, which will be her persistent OPAQUE identity for Bob’s service, and encrypts her private key along with Bob’s public key with the rwd (we will call the result an encrypted envelope). She sends this encrypted envelope along with her public key (unencrypted) to Bob, who stores the data she provided, along with Alice’s specific OPRF keysecret, in a database indexed by her username.

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

OPAQUE: Login Phase

The login phase is very similar. It starts the same way as registration — with an OPRF flow. However, on the server side, instead of generating a new OPRF key, Bob instead looks up the one he created during Alice’s registration. He does this by looking up Alice’s username (which she provides in the first message), and retrieving his record of her. This record contains her public key, her encrypted envelope, and Bob’s OPRF key for Alice.

He also sends over the encrypted envelope which Alice can decrypt with the output of the OPRF flow. (If decryption fails, she aborts the protocol — this likely indicates that she typed her password incorrectly, or Bob isn’t who he says he is). If decryption succeeds, she now has her own secret key and Bob’s public key. She inputs these into an AKE protocol with Bob, who, in turn, inputs his private key and her public key, which gives them both a fresh shared secret key.

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

Integrating OPAQUE with an AKE

An important question to ask here is: what AKE is suitable for OPAQUE? The emerging CFRG specification outlines several options, including 3DH and SIGMA-I. However, on the web, we already have an AKE at our disposal: TLS!

Recall that TLS is an AKE because it provides unilateral (and mutual) authentication with shared secret derivation. The core of TLS is a Diffie-Hellman key exchange, which by itself is unauthenticated, meaning that the parties running it have no way to verify who they are running it with. (This is a problem because when you log into your bank, or any other website that stores your private data, you want to be sure that they are who they say they are). Authentication primarily uses certificates, which are issued by trusted entities through a system called Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). Each certificate is associated with a secret key. To prove its identity, the server presents its certificate to the client, and signs the TLS handshake with its secret key.

Modifying this ubiquitous certificate-based authentication on the web is perhaps not the best place to start. Instead, an improvement would be to authenticate the TLS shared secret, using OPAQUE, after the TLS handshake completes. In other words, once a server is authenticated with its typical WebPKI certificate, clients could subsequently authenticate to the server. This authentication could take place “post handshake” in the TLS connection using OPAQUE.

Exported Authenticators are one mechanism for “post-handshake” authentication in TLS. They allow a server or client to provide proof of an identity without setting up a new TLS connection. Recall that in the standard web case, the server establishes their identity with a certificate (proving, for example, that they are “cloudflare.com”). But if the same server also holds alternate identities, they must run TLS again to prove who they are.

The basic Exported Authenticator flow works resembles a classical challenge-response protocol, and works as follows. (We’ll consider the server authentication case only, as the client case is symmetric).

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

At any point after a TLS connection is established, Alice (the client) sends an authenticator request to indicate that she would like Bob (the server) to prove an additional identity. This request includes a context (an unpredictable string — think of this as a challenge), and extensions which include information about what identity the client wants to be provided. For example, the client could include the SNI extension to ask the server for a certificate associated with a certain domain name other than the one initially used in the TLS connection.

On receipt of the client message, if the server has a valid certificate corresponding to the request, it sends back an exported authenticator which proves that it has the secret key for the certificate. (This message has the same format as an Auth message from the client in TLS 1.3 handshake – it contains a Certificate, a CertificateVerify and a Finished message). If the server cannot or does not wish to authenticate with the requested certificate, it replies with an empty authenticator which contains only a well formed Finished message.

The client then checks that the Exported Authenticator it receives is well-formed, and then verifies that the certificate presented is valid, and if so, accepts the new identity.

In sum, Exported Authenticators provide authentication in a higher layer (such as the application layer) safely by leveraging the well-vetted cryptography and message formats of TLS. Furthermore, it is tied to the TLS session so that authentication messages can’t be copied and pasted from one TLS connection into another. In other words, Exported Authenticators provide exactly the right hooks needed to add OPAQUE-based authentication into TLS.

OPAQUE with Exported Authenticators (OPAQUE-EA)

OPAQUE: The Best Passwords Never Leave your Device

OPAQUE-EA allows OPAQUE to run at any point after a TLS connection has already been set up. Recall that Bob (the server) will store his OPAQUE identity, in this case a signing key and verification key, and Alice will store her identity — encrypted — on Bob’s server. (The registration flow where Alice stores her encrypted keys is the same as in regular OPAQUE, except she stores a signing key, so we will skip straight to the login flow). Alice and Bob run two request-authenticate EA flows, one for each party, and OPAQUE protocol messages ride along in the extensions section of the EAs. Let’s look in detail how this works.

First, Alice generates her OPRF message based on her password. She creates an Authenticator Request asking for Bob’s OPAQUE identity, and includes (in the extensions field) her username and her OPRF message, and sends this to Bob over their established TLS connection.

Bob receives the message and looks up Alice’s username in his database. He retrieves her OPAQUE record containing her verification key and encrypted envelope, and his OPRF key. He uses the OPRF key on the OPRF message, and creates an Exported Authenticator proving ownership of his OPAQUE signing key, with an extension containing his OPRF message and the encrypted envelope. Additionally, he sends a new Authenticator Request asking Alice to prove ownership of her OPAQUE signing key.

Alice parses the message and completes the OPRF evaluation using Bob’s message to get output rwd, and uses rwd to decrypt the envelope. This reveals her signing key and Bob’s public key. She uses Bob’s public key to validate his Authenticator Response proof, and, if it checks out, she creates and sends an Exported Authenticator proving that she holds the newly decrypted signing key. Bob checks the validity of her Exported Authenticator, and if it checks out, he accepts her login.

My project: OPAQUE-EA over HTTPS

Everything described above is supported by lots and lots of theory that has yet to find its way into practice. My project was to turn the theory into reality. I started with written descriptions of Exported Authenticators, OPAQUE, and a preliminary draft of OPAQUE-in-TLS. My goal was to get from those to a working prototype.

My demo shows the feasibility of implementing OPAQUE-EA on the web, completely removing plaintext passwords from the wire, even encrypted. This provides a possible alternative to the current password-over-TLS flow with better security properties, but no visible change to the user.

A few of the implementation details are worth knowing. In computer science, abstraction is a powerful tool. It means that we can often rely on existing tools and APIs to avoid duplication of effort. In my project I relied heavily on mint, an open-source implementation of TLS 1.3 in Go that is great for prototyping. I also used CIRCL’s OPRF API. I built libraries for Exported Authenticators, the core of OPAQUE, and OPAQUE-EA (which ties together the two).

I made the web demo by wrapping the OPAQUE-EA functionality in a simple HTTP server and client that pass messages to each other over HTTPS. Since a browser can’t run Go, I compiled from Go to WebAssembly (WASM) to get the Go functionality in the browser, and wrote a simple script in JavaScript to call the WASM functions needed.

Since current browsers do not give access to the underlying TLS connection on the client side, I had to implement a work-around to allow the client to access the exporter keys, namely, that the server simply computes the keys and sends them to the client over HTTPS. This workaround reduces the security of the resulting demo — it means that trust is placed in the server to provide the right keys. Even so, the user’s password is still safe, even if a malicious server provided bad keys— they just don’t have assurance that they actually previously registered with that server. However, in the future, browsers could include a mechanism to support exported keys and allow OPAQUE-EA to run with its full security properties.

You can explore my implementation on Github, and even follow the instructions to spin up your own OPAQUE-EA test server and client. I’d like to stress, however, that the implementation is meant as a proof-of-concept only, and must not be used for production systems without significant further review.

OPAQUE-EA Limitations

Despite its great properties, there will definitely be some hurdles in bringing OPAQUE-EA from a proof-of-concept to a fully fledged authentication mechanism.

Browser support for TLS exporter keys. As mentioned briefly before, to run OPAQUE-EA in a browser, you need to access secrets from the TLS connection called exporter keys. There is no way to do this in the current most popular browsers, so support for this functionality will need to be added.

Overhauling password databases. To adopt OPAQUE-EA, servers need not only to update their password-checking logic, but also completely overhaul their password databases. Because OPAQUE relies on special password representations that can only be generated interactively, existing salted hashed passwords cannot be automatically updated to OPAQUE records. Servers will likely need to run a special OPAQUE registration flow on a user-by-user basis. Because OPAQUE relies on buy-in from both the client and the server, servers may need to support the old method for a while before all clients catch up.

Reliance on emerging standards. OPAQUE-EA relies on OPRFs, which is in the process of standardization, and Exported Authenticators, a proposed standard. This means that support for these dependencies is not yet available in most existing cryptographic libraries, so early adopters may need to implement these tools themselves.

Summary

As long as people still use passwords, we’d like to make the process as secure as possible. Current methods rely on the risky practice of handling plaintext passwords on the server side while checking their correctness. PAKEs, and (specifically aPAKEs) allow secure password login without ever letting the server see the passwords.

OPAQUE is also being explored within other companies. According to Kevin Lewi, a research scientist from the Novi Research team at Facebook, they are “excited by the strong cryptographic guarantees provided by OPAQUE and are actively exploring OPAQUE as a method for further safeguarding credential-protected fields that are stored server-side.”

OPAQUE is one of the best aPAKEs out there, and can be fully integrated into TLS. You can check out the core OPAQUE implementation here and the demo TLS integration here. A running version of the demo is also available here. A Typescript client implementation of OPAQUE is coming soon. If you’re interested in implementing the protocol, or encounter any bugs with the current implementation, please drop us a line at [email protected]! Consider also subscribing to the IRTF CFRG mailing list to track discussion about the OPAQUE specification and its standardization.

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

Post Syndicated from Tanya Verma original https://blog.cloudflare.com/oblivious-dns/

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

Today we are announcing support for a new proposed DNS standard — co-authored by engineers from Cloudflare, Apple, and Fastly — that separates IP addresses from queries, so that no single entity can see both at the same time. Even better, we’ve made source code available, so anyone can try out ODoH, or run their own ODoH service!

But first, a bit of context. The Domain Name System (DNS) is the foundation of a human-usable Internet. It maps usable domain names, such as cloudflare.com, to IP addresses and other information needed to connect to that domain. A quick primer about the importance and issues with DNS can be read in a previous blog post. For this post, it’s enough to know that, in the initial design and still dominant usage of DNS, queries are sent in cleartext. This means anyone on the network path between your device and the DNS resolver can see both the query that contains the hostname (or website) you want, as well as the IP address that identifies your device.

To safeguard DNS from onlookers and third parties, the IETF standardized DNS encryption with DNS over HTTPS (DoH) and DNS over TLS (DoT). Both protocols prevent queries from being intercepted, redirected, or modified between the client and resolver. Client support for DoT and DoH is growing, having been implemented in recent versions of Firefox, iOS, and more. Even so, until there is wider deployment among Internet service providers, Cloudflare is one of only a few providers to offer a public DoH/DoT service. This has raised two main concerns. One concern is that the centralization of DNS introduces single points of failure (although, with data centers in more than 100 countries, Cloudflare is designed to always be reachable). The other concern is that the resolver can still link all queries to client IP addresses.

Cloudflare is committed to end-user privacy. Users of our public DNS resolver service are protected by a strong, audited privacy policy. However, for some, trusting Cloudflare with sensitive query information is a barrier to adoption, even with such a strong privacy policy. Instead of relying on privacy policies and audits, what if we could give users an option to remove that bar with technical guarantees?

Today, Cloudflare and partners are launching support for a protocol that does exactly that: Oblivious DNS over HTTPS, or ODoH for short.

ODoH Partners:

We’re excited to launch ODoH with several leading launch partners who are equally committed to privacy.

A key component of ODoH is a proxy that is disjoint from the target resolver. Today, we’re launching ODoH with several leading proxy partners, including: PCCW, SURF, and Equinix.

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

“ODoH is a revolutionary new concept designed to keep users’ privacy at the center of everything. Our ODoH partnership with Cloudflare positions us well in the privacy and “Infrastructure of the Internet” space. As well as the enhanced security and performance of the underlying PCCW Global network, which can be accessed on-demand via Console Connect, the performance of the proxies on our network are now improved by Cloudflare’s 1.1.1.1 resolvers. This model for the first time completely decouples client proxy from the resolvers. This partnership strengthens our existing focus on privacy as the world moves to a more remote model and privacy becomes an even more critical feature.” — Michael Glynn, Vice President, Digital Automated Innovation, PCCW Global

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

“We are partnering with Cloudflare to implement better user privacy via ODoH. The move to ODoH is a true paradigm shift, where the users’ privacy or the IP address is not exposed to any provider, resulting in true privacy. With the launch of ODoH-pilot, we’re joining the power of Cloudflare’s network to meet the challenges of any users around the globe. The move to ODoH is not only a paradigm shift but it emphasizes how privacy is important to any users than ever, especially during 2020. It resonates with our core focus and belief around Privacy.” — Joost van Dijk, Technical Product Manager, SURF

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

How does Oblivious DNS over HTTPS (ODoH) work?

ODoH works by adding a layer of public key encryption, as well as a network proxy between clients and DoH servers such as 1.1.1.1. The combination of these two added elements guarantees that only the user has access to both the DNS messages and their own IP address at the same time.

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

There are three players in the ODoH path. Looking at the figure above, let’s begin with the target. The target decrypts queries encrypted by the client, via a proxy. Similarly, the target encrypts responses and returns them to the proxy. The standard says that the target may or may not be the resolver (we’ll touch on this later). The proxy does as a proxy is supposed to do, in that it forwards messages between client and target. The client behaves as it does in DNS and DoH, but differs by encrypting queries for the target, and decrypting the target’s responses. Any client that chooses to do so can specify a proxy and target of choice.

Together, the added encryption and proxying provide the following guarantees:

  1. The target sees only the query and the proxy’s IP address.
  2. The proxy has no visibility into the DNS messages, with no ability to identify, read, or modify either the query being sent by the client or the answer being returned by the target.
  3. Only the intended target can read the content of the query and produce a response.

These three guarantees improve client privacy while maintaining the security and integrity of DNS queries. However, each of these guarantees relies on one fundamental property — that the proxy and the target servers do not collude. So long as there is no collusion, an attacker succeeds only if both the proxy and target are compromised.

One aspect of this system worth highlighting is that the target is separate from the upstream recursive resolver that performs DNS resolution. In practice, for performance, we expect the target to be the same. In fact, 1.1.1.1 is now both a recursive resolver and a target! There is no reason that a target needs to exist separately from any resolver. If they are separated then the target is free to choose resolvers, and just act as a go-between. The only real requirement, remember, is that the proxy and target never collude.

Also, importantly, clients are in complete control of proxy and target selection. Without any need for TRR-like programs, clients can have privacy for their queries, in addition to security. Since the target only knows about the proxy, the target and any upstream resolver are oblivious to the existence of any client IP addresses. Importantly, this puts clients in greater control over their queries and the ways they might be used. For example, clients could select and alter their proxies and targets any time, for any reason!

ODoH Message Flow

In ODoH, the ‘O’ stands for oblivious, and this property comes from the level of encryption of the DNS messages themselves. This added encryption is `end-to-end` between client and target, and independent from the connection-level encryption provided by TLS/HTTPS. One might ask why this additional encryption is required at all in the presence of a proxy. This is because two separate TLS connections are required to support proxy functionality. Specifically, the proxy terminates a TLS connection from the client, and initiates another TLS connection to the target. Between those two connections, the DNS message contexts would otherwise appear in plaintext! For this reason, ODoH additionally encrypts messages between client and target so the proxy has no access to the message contents.

The whole process begins with clients that encrypt their query for the target using HPKE. Clients obtain the target’s public key via DNS, where it is bundled into a HTTPS resource record and protected by DNSSEC. When the TTL for this key expires, clients request a new copy of the key as needed (just as they would for an A/AAAA record when that record’s TTL expires). The usage of a target’s DNSSEC-validated public key guarantees that only the intended target can decrypt the query and encrypt a response (answer).

Clients transmit these encrypted queries to a proxy over an HTTPS connection. Upon receipt, the proxy forwards the query to the designated target. The target then decrypts the query, produces a response by sending the query to a recursive resolver such as 1.1.1.1, and then encrypts the response to the client. The encrypted query from the client contains encapsulated keying material from which targets derive the response encryption symmetric key.

This response is then sent back to the proxy, and then subsequently forwarded to the client. All communication is authenticated and confidential since these DNS messages are end-to-end encrypted, despite being transmitted over two separate HTTPS connections (client-proxy and proxy-target). The message that otherwise appears to the proxy as plaintext is actually an encrypted garble.

What about Performance? Do I have to trade performance to get privacy?

We’ve been doing lots of measurements to find out, and will be doing more as ODoH deploys more widely. Our initial set of measurement configurations spanned cities in the USA, Canada, and Brazil. Importantly, our measurements include not just 1.1.1.1, but also 8.8.8.8 and 9.9.9.9. The full set of measurements, so far, is documented for open access.

In those measurements, it was important to isolate the cost of proxying and additional encryption from the cost of TCP and TLS connection setup. This is because the TLS and TCP costs are incurred by DoH, anyway. So, in our setup, we ‘primed’ measurements by establishing connections once and reusing that connection for all measurements. We did this for both DoH and for ODoH, since the same strategy could be used in either case.

The first thing that we can say with confidence is that the additional encryption is marginal. We know this because we randomly selected 10,000 domains from the Tranco million dataset and measured both encryption of the A record with a different public key, as well as its decryption. The additional cost between a proxied DoH query/response and its ODoH counterpart is consistently less than 1ms at the 99th percentile.

The ODoH request-response pipeline, however, is much more than just encryption. A very useful way of looking at measurements is by looking at the cumulative distribution chart — if you’re familiar with these kinds of charts, skip to the next paragraph. In contrast to most charts where we start along the x-axis, with cumulative distributions we often start with the y-axis.

The chart below shows the cumulative distributions for query/response times in DoH, ODoH, and DoH when transmitted over the Tor Network. The dashed horizontal line that starts on the left from 0.5 is the 50% mark. Along this horizontal line, for any plotted curve, the part of the curve below the dashed line is 50% of the data points. Now look at the x-axis, which is a measure of time. The lines that appear to the left are faster than lines to the right. One last important detail is that the x-axis is plotted on a logarithmic scale. What does this mean? Notice that the distance between the labeled markers (10x) is equal in cumulative distributions but the ‘x’ is an exponent, and represents orders of magnitude. So, while the time difference between the first two markers is 9ms, the difference between the 3rd and 4th markers is 900ms.

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

In this chart, the middle curve represents ODoH measurements. We also measured the performance of privacy-preserving alternatives, for example, DoH queries transmitted over the Tor network as represented by the right curve in the chart. (Additional privacy-preserving alternatives are captured in the open access technical report.) Compared to other privacy-oriented DNS variants, ODoH cuts query time in half, or better. This point is important since privacy and performance rarely play nicely together, so seeing this kind of improvement is encouraging!

The chart above also tells us that 50% of the time ODoH queries are resolved in fewer than 228ms. Now compare the middle line to the left line that represents ‘straight-line’ (or normal) DoH without any modification. That left plotline says that 50% of the time, DoH queries are resolved in fewer than 146ms. Looking below the 50% mark, the curves also tell us that ½ the time that difference is never greater than 100ms. On the other side, looking at the curves above the 50% mark tells us that ½ ODoH queries are competitive with DoH.

Those curves also hide a lot of information, so it is important to delve further into the measurements. The chart below has three different cumulative distribution curves that describe ODoH performance if we select proxies and targets by their latency. This is also an example of the insights that measurements can reveal, some of which are counterintuitive. For example, looking above 0.5, these curves say that ½ of ODoH query/response times are virtually indistinguishable, no matter the choice of proxy and target. Now shift attention below 0.5 and compare the two solid curves against the dashed curve that represents overall average. This region suggests that selecting the lowest-latency proxy and target offers minimal improvement over the average but, most importantly, it shows that selecting the lowest-latency proxy leads to worse performance!

Improving DNS Privacy with Oblivious DoH in 1.1.1.1

Open questions remain, of course. This first set of measurements were executed largely in North America. Does performance change at a global level? How does this affect client performance, in practice? We’re working on finding out, and this release will help us to do that.

Interesting! Can I experiment with ODoH? Is there an open ODoH service?

Yes, and yes! We have open sourced our interoperable ODoH implementations in Rust, odoh-rs and Go, odoh-go, as well as integrated the target into the Cloudflare DNS Resolver. That’s right, 1.1.1.1 is ready to receive queries via ODoH.

We have also open sourced test clients in Rust, odoh-client-rs, and Go, odoh-client-go, to demo ODoH queries. You can also check out the HPKE configuration used by ODoH for message encryption to 1.1.1.1 by querying the service directly:

$ dig -t type65 +dnssec @ns1.cloudflare.com odoh.cloudflare-dns.com 

; <<>> DiG 9.10.6 <<>> -t type65 +dnssec @ns1.cloudflare.com odoh.cloudflare-dns.com
; (1 server found)
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 19923
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1
;; WARNING: recursion requested but not available

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags: do; udp: 1232
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;odoh.cloudflare-dns.com.	IN	TYPE65

;; ANSWER SECTION:
odoh.cloudflare-dns.com. 300	IN	TYPE65	\# 108 00010000010003026832000400086810F8F96810F9F9000600202606 470000000000000000006810F8F92606470000000000000000006810 F9F98001002E002CFF0200280020000100010020ED82DBE32CCDE189 BC6C643A80B5FAFF82548D21601C613408BACAAE6467B30A
odoh.cloudflare-dns.com. 300	IN	RRSIG	TYPE65 13 3 300 20201119163629 20201117143629 34505 odoh.cloudflare-dns.com. yny5+ApxPSO6Q4aegv09ZnBmPiXxDEnX5Xv21TAchxbxt1VhqlHpb5Oc 8yQPNGXb0fb+NyibmHlvTXjphYjcPA==

;; Query time: 21 msec
;; SERVER: 173.245.58.100#53(173.245.58.100)
;; WHEN: Wed Nov 18 07:36:29 PST 2020
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 291

We are working to add ODoH to existing stub resolvers such as cloudflared. If you’re interested in adding support to a client, or if you encounter bugs with the implementations, please drop us a line at [email protected]! Announcements about the ODoH specification and server will be sent to the IETF DPRIVE mailing list. You can subscribe and follow announcements and discussion about the specification here.

We are committed to moving it forward in the IETF and are already seeing interest from client vendors. Eric Rescorla, CTO of Firefox, says, “Oblivious DoH is a great addition to the secure DNS ecosystem. We’re excited to see it starting to take off and are looking forward to experimenting with it in Firefox.” We hope that more operators join us along the way and provide support for the protocol, by running either proxies or targets, and we hope client support will increase as the available infrastructure increases, too.

The ODoH protocol is a practical approach for improving privacy of users, and aims to improve the overall adoption of encrypted DNS protocols without compromising performance and user experience on the Internet.

Acknowledgements

Marek Vavruša and Anbang Wen were instrumental in getting the 1.1.1.1 resolver to support ODoH. Chris Wood and Peter Wu helped get the ODoH libraries ready and tested.

Incorporating security in code-reviews using Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer

Post Syndicated from Nikunj Vaidya original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/incorporating-security-in-code-reviews-using-amazon-codeguru-reviewer/

Today, software development practices are constantly evolving to empower developers with tools to maintain a high bar of code quality. Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer offers this capability by carrying out automated code-reviews for developers, based on the trained machine learning models that can detect complex defects and providing intelligent actionable recommendations to mitigate those defects. A quick overview of CodeGuru is covered in this blog post.

Security analysis is a critical part of a code review and CodeGuru Reviewer offers this capability with a new set of security detectors. These security detectors introduced in CodeGuru Reviewer are geared towards identifying security risks from the top 10 OWASP categories and ensures that your code follows best practices for AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS), Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (Amazon EC2) API, and common Java crypto and TLS/SSL libraries. As of today, CodeGuru security analysis supports Java language, thus we will take an example of a Java application.

In this post, we will walk through the on-boarding workflow to carry out the security analysis of the code repository and generate recommendations for a Java application.

 

Security workflow overview:

The new security workflow, introduced for CodeGuru reviewer, utilizes the source code and build artifacts to generate recommendations. The security detector evaluates build artifacts to generate security-related recommendations whereas other detectors continue to scan the source code to generate recommendations. With the use of build artifacts for evaluation, the detector can carry out a whole-program inter-procedural analysis to discover issues that are caused across your code (e.g., hardcoded credentials in one file that are passed to an API in another) and can reduce false-positives by checking if an execution path is valid or not. You must provide the source code .zip file as well as the build artifact .zip file for a complete analysis.

Customers can run a security scan when they create a repository analysis. CodeGuru Reviewer provides an additional option to get both code and security recommendations. As explained in the following sections, CodeGuru Reviewer will create an Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) bucket in your AWS account for that region to upload or copy your source code and build artifacts for the analysis. This repository analysis option can be run on Java code from any repository.

 

Prerequisites

Prepare the source code and artifact zip files: If you do not have your Java code locally, download the source code that you want to evaluate for security and zip it. Similarly, if needed, download the build artifact .jar file for your source code and zip it. It will be required to upload the source code and build artifact as separate .zip files as per the instructions in subsequent sections. Thus even if it is a single file (eg. single .jar file), you will still need to zip it. Even if the .zip file includes multiple files, the right files will be discovered and analyzed by CodeGuru. For our sample test, we will use src.zip and jar.zip file, saved locally.

Creating an S3 bucket repository association:

This section summarizes the high-level steps to create the association of your S3 bucket repository.

1. On the CodeGuru console, choose Code reviews.

2. On the Repository analysis tab, choose Create repository analysis.

Screenshot of initiating the repository analysis

Figure: Screenshot of initiating the repository analysis

 

3. For the source code analysis, select Code and security recommendations.

4. For Repository name, enter a name for your repository.

5. Under Additional settings, for Code review name, enter a name for trackability purposes.

6. Choose Create S3 bucket and associate.

Screenshot to show selection of Security Code Analysis

Figure: Screenshot to show selection of Security Code Analysis

It takes a few seconds to create a new S3 bucket in the current Region. When it completes, you will see the below screen.

Screenshot for Create repository analysis showing S3 bucket created

Figure: Screenshot for Create repository analysis showing S3 bucket created

 

7. Choose Upload to the S3 bucket option and under that choose Upload source code zip file and select the zip file (src.zip) from your local machine to upload.

Screenshot of popup to upload code and artifacts from S3 bucket

Figure: Screenshot of popup to upload code and artifacts from S3 bucket

 

8. Similarly, choose Upload build artifacts zip file and select the zip file (jar.zip) from your local machine and upload.

 

Screenshot for Create repository analysis showing S3 paths populated

Figure: Screenshot for Create repository analysis showing S3 paths populated

 

Alternatively, you can always upload the source code and build artifacts as zip file from any of your existing S3 bucket as below.

9. Choose Browse S3 buckets for existing artifacts and upload from there as shown below:

 

Screenshot to upload code and artifacts from S3 bucket

Figure: Screenshot to upload code and artifacts from an existing S3 bucket

 

10. Now click Create repository analysis and trigger the code review.

A new pending entry is created as shown below.

 

Screenshot of code review in Pending state

Figure: Screenshot of code review in Pending state

After a few minutes, you would see the recommendations generate that would include security analysis too. In the below case, there are 10 recommendations generated.

Screenshot of repository analysis being completed

Figure: Screenshot of repository analysis being completed

 

For the subsequent code reviews, you can use the same repository and upload new files or create a new repository as shown below:

 

Screenshot of subsequent code review making repository selection

Figure: Screenshot of subsequent code review making repository selection

 

Recommendations

Apart from detecting the security risks from the top 10 OWASP categories, the security detector, detects the deep security issues by analyzing data flow across multiple methods, procedures, and files.

The recommendations generated in the area of security are labelled as Security. In the below example we see a recommendation to remove hard-coded credentials and a non-security-related recommendation about refactoring of code for better maintainability.

Screenshot of Recommendations generated

Figure: Screenshot of Recommendations generated

 

Below is another example of recommendations pointing out the potential resource-leak as well as a security issue pointing to a potential risk of path traversal attack.

Screenshot of deep security recommendations

Figure: More examples of deep security recommendations

 

As this blog is focused on on-boarding aspects, we will cover the explanation of recommendations in more detail in a separate blog.

Disassociation of Repository (optional):

The association of CodeGuru to the S3 bucket repository can be removed by following below steps. Navigate to the Repositories page, select the repository and choose Disassociate repository.

Screenshot of disassociating the S3 bucket repo with CodeGuru

Figure: Screenshot of disassociating the S3 bucket repo with CodeGuru

 

Conclusion

This post reviewed the support for on-boarding workflow to carry out the security analysis in CodeGuru Reviewer. We initiated a full repository analysis for the Java code using a separate UI workflow and generated recommendations.

We hope this post was useful and would enable you to conduct code analysis using Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer.

 

About the Author

Author's profile photo

 

Nikunj Vaidya is a Sr. Solutions Architect with Amazon Web Services, focusing in the area of DevOps services. He builds technical content for the field enablement and offers technical guidance to the customers on AWS DevOps solutions and services that would streamline the application development process, accelerate application delivery, and enable maintaining a high bar of software quality.

Tightening application security with Amazon CodeGuru

Post Syndicated from Brian Farnhill original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/devops/tightening-application-security-with-amazon-codeguru/

Amazon CodeGuru is a developer tool powered by machine learning (ML) that provides intelligent recommendations for improving code quality and identifies an application’s most expensive lines of code. To help you find and remediate potential security issues in your code, Amazon CodeGuru Reviewer now includes an expanded set of security detectors. In this post, we discuss the new types of security issues CodeGuru Reviewer can detect.

Time to read9 minutes
Services usedAmazon CodeGuru

The new security detectors are now a feature in CodeGuru Reviewer for Java applications. These detectors focus on finding security issues in your code before you deploy it. They extend CodeGuru Reviewer by providing additional security-specific recommendations to the existing set of application improvements it already recommends. When an issue is detected, a remediation recommendation and explanation is generated. This allows you to find and remediate issues before the code is deployed. These findings can help in addressing the OWASP top 10 web application security risks, with many of the recommendations being based on specific issues customers have had in this space.

You can run a security scan by creating a repository analysis. CodeGuru Reviewer now provides an additional option to get both code and security recommendations for Java codebases. Selecting this option enables you to find potential security vulnerabilities before they are promoted to production, and support users remaining secure when using your service.

Types of security issues CodeGuru Reviewer detects

Previously, CodeGuru Reviewer helped address security by detecting potential sensitive information leaks (such as personally identifiable information or credit card numbers). The additional CodeGuru Reviewer security detectors expand on this by addressing:

  • AWS API security best practices – Helps you follow security best practices when using AWS APIs, such as avoiding hard-coded credentials in API calls
  • Java crypto library best practices – Identifies when you’re not using best practices for common Java cryptography libraries, such as avoiding outdated cryptographic ciphers
  • Secure web applications – Inspects code for insecure handling of untrusted data, such as not sanitizing user-supplied input to protect against cross-site scripting, SQL injection, LDAP injection, path traversal injection, and more
  • AWS Security best practices – Developed in collaboration with AWS Security, these best practices help bring our internal expertise to customers

Examples of new security findings

The following are examples of findings that CodeGuru Reviewer security detectors can now help you identify and resolve.

AWS API security best practices

AWS API security best practice detectors inspect your code to identify issues that can be caused by not following best practices related to AWS SDKs and APIs. An example of a detected issue in this category is using hard-coded AWS credentials. Consider the following code:

import com.amazonaws.auth.AWSCredentials;
import com.amazonaws.auth.BasicAWSCredentials;

static String myKeyId ="AKIAX742FUDUQXXXXXXX";
static String mySecretKey = "MySecretKey";

public static void main(String[] args) {
    AWSCredentials creds = getCreds(myKeyId, mySecretKey);
}

static AWSCredentials getCreds(String id, String key) {
    return new BasicAWSCredentials(id, key);}
}

In this code, the variables myKeyId and mySecretKey are hard-coded in the application. This may have been done to move quickly, but it can also lead to these values being discovered and misused.

In this case, CodeGuru Reviewer recommends using environment variables or an AWS profile to store these values, because these can be retrieved at runtime and aren’t stored inside the application (or its source code). Here you can see an example of what this finding looks like in the console:

An example of the CodeGuru reviewer finding for IAM credentials in the AWS console

The recommendation suggests using environment variables or an AWS profile instead, and that after you delete or rotate the affected key you monitor it with CloudWatch for any attempted use. Following the learn more link, you’ll see additional detail and recommended approaches for remediation, such as using the DefaultAWSCredentialsProviderChain. An example of how to remediate this in the preceding code is to update the getCreds() function:

import com.amazonaws.auth.DefaultAWSCredentialsProviderChain;

static AWSCredentials getCreds() {
    DefaultAWSCredentialsProviderChain creds =
        new DefaultAWSCredentialsProviderChain();
    return creds.getCredentials();
}

Java crypto library best practices

When working with data that must be protected, cryptography provides mechanisms to encrypt and decrypt the information. However, to ensure the security of this data, the application must use a strong and modern cipher. Consider the following code:

import javax.crypto.Cipher;

static final String CIPHER = "DES";

public void run() {
    cipher = Cipher.getInstance(CIPHER);
}

A cipher object is created with the DES algorithm. CodeGuru Reviewer recommends a stronger cipher to help protect your data. This is what the recommendation looks like in the console:

An example of the CodeGuru reviewer finding for encryption ciphers in the AWS console

Based on this, one example of how to address this is to substitute a different cipher:

static final String CIPHER ="RSA/ECB/OAEPPadding";

This is just one option for how it could be addressed. The CodeGuru Reviewer recommendation text suggests several options, and a link to documentation to help you choose the best cipher.

Secure web applications

When working with sensitive information in cookies, such as temporary session credentials, those values must be protected from interception. This is done by flagging the cookies as secure, which prevents them from being sent over an unsecured HTTP connection. Consider the following code:

import javax.servlet.http.Cookie;

public static void createCookie() {
    Cookie cookie = new Cookie("name", "value");
}

In this code, a new cookie is created that is not marked as secure. CodeGuru Reviewer notifies you that you could make a correction by adding:

cookie.setSecure(true);

This screenshot shows you an example of what the finding looks like.

An example CodeGuru finding that shows how to ensure cookies are secured.

AWS Security best practices

This category of detectors has been built in collaboration with AWS Security and assists in detecting many other issue types. Consider the following code, which illustrates how a string can be re-encrypted with a new key from AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS):

import java.nio.ByteBuffer;
import com.amazonaws.services.kms.AWSKMS;
import com.amazonaws.services.kms.AWSKMSClientBuilder;
import com.amazonaws.services.kms.model.DecryptRequest;
import com.amazonaws.services.kms.model.EncryptRequest;

AWSKMS client = AWSKMSClientBuilder.standard().build();
ByteBuffer sourceCipherTextBlob = ByteBuffer.wrap(new byte[]{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 0});

DecryptRequest req = new DecryptRequest()
                         .withCiphertextBlob(sourceCipherTextBlob);
ByteBuffer plainText = client.decrypt(req).getPlaintext();

EncryptRequest res = new EncryptRequest()
                         .withKeyId("NewKeyId")
                         .withPlaintext(plainText);
ByteBuffer ciphertext = client.encrypt(res).getCiphertextBlob();

This approach puts the decrypted value at risk by decrypting and re-encrypting it locally. CodeGuru Reviewer recommends using the ReEncrypt method—performed on the server side within AWS KMS—to avoid exposing your plaintext outside AWS KMS. A solution that uses the ReEncrypt object looks like the following code:

import com.amazonaws.services.kms.model.ReEncryptRequest;

ReEncryptRequest req = new ReEncryptRequest()
                           .withCiphertextBlob(sourceCipherTextBlob)
                           .withDestinationKeyId("NewKeyId");

client.reEncrypt(req).getCiphertextBlob();

This screenshot shows you an example of what the finding looks like.

An example CodeGuru finding to show how to avoid decrypting and encrypting locally when it's not needed

Detecting issues deep in application code

Detecting security issues can be made more complex by the contributing code being spread across multiple methods, procedures and files. This separation of code helps ensure humans work in more manageable ways, but for a person to look at the code, it obscures the end to end view of what is happening. This obscurity makes it harder, or even impossible to find complex security issues. CodeGuru Reviewer can see issues regardless of these boundaries, deeply assessing code and the flow of the application to find security issues throughout the application. An example of this depth exists in the code below:

import java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException;
import javax.servlet.http.Cookie;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletRequest;
import javax.servlet.http.HttpServletResponse;

private String decode(final String val, final String enc) {
    try {
        return java.net.URLDecoder.decode(val, enc);
    } catch (UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
        e.printStackTrace();
    }
    return "";
}

public void pathTraversal(HttpServletRequest request) throws IOException {
    javax.servlet.http.Cookie[] theCookies = request.getCookies();
    String path = "";
    if (theCookies != null) {
        for (javax.servlet.http.Cookie theCookie : theCookies) {
            if (theCookie.getName().equals("thePath")) {
                path = decode(theCookie.getValue(), "UTF-8");
                break;
            }
        }
    }
    if (!path.equals("")) {
        String fileName = path + ".txt";
        String decStr = new String(org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base64.decodeBase64(
            org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base64.encodeBase64(fileName.getBytes())));
        java.io.FileOutputStream fileOutputStream = new java.io.FileOutputStream(decStr);
        java.io.FileDescriptor fd = fileOutputStream.getFD();
        System.out.println(fd.toString());
    }
}

This code presents an issue around path traversal, specifically relating to the Broken Access Control rule in the OWASP top 10 (specifically CWE 22). The issue is that a FileOutputStream is being created using an external input (in this case, a cookie) and the input is not being checked for invalid values that could traverse the file system. To add to the complexity of this sample, the input is encoded and decoded from Base64 so that the cookie value isn’t passed directly to the FileOutputStream constructor, and the parsing of the cookie happens in a different function. This is not something you would do in the real world as it is needlessly complex, but it shows the need for tools that can deeply analyze the flow of data in an application. Here the value passed to the FileOutputStream isn’t an external value, it is the result of the encode/decode line and as such, is a new object. However CodeGuru Reviewer follows the flow of the application to understand that the input still came from a cookie, and as such it should be treated as an external value that needs to be validated. An example of a fix for the issue here would be to replace the pathTraversal function with the sample shown below:

static final String VALID_PATH1 = "./test/file1.txt";
static final String VALID_PATH2 = "./test/file2.txt";
static final String DEFAULT_VALID_PATH = "./test/file3.txt";

public void pathTraversal(HttpServletRequest request) throws IOException {
    javax.servlet.http.Cookie[] theCookies = request.getCookies();
    String path = "";
    if (theCookies != null) {
        for (javax.servlet.http.Cookie theCookie : theCookies) {
            if (theCookie.getName().equals("thePath")) {
                path = decode(theCookie.getValue(), "UTF-8");
                break;
            }
        }
    }
    String fileName = "";
    if (!path.equals("")) {
        if (path.equals(VALID_PATH1)) {
            fileName = VALID_PATH1;
        } else if (path.equals(VALID_PATH2)) {
            fileName = VALID_PATH2;
        } else {
            fileName = DEFAULT_VALID_PATH;
        }
        String decStr = new String(org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base64.decodeBase64(
            org.apache.commons.codec.binary.Base64.encodeBase64(fileName.getBytes())));
        java.io.FileOutputStream fileOutputStream = new java.io.FileOutputStream(decStr);
        java.io.FileDescriptor fd = fileOutputStream.getFD();
        System.out.println(fd.toString());
    }
}

The main difference in this sample is that the path variable is tested against known good values that would prevent path traversal, and if one of the two valid path options isn’t provided, the third default option is used. In all cases the externally provided path is validated to ensure that there isn’t a path through the code that allows for path traversal to occur in the subsequent call. As with the first sample, the path is still encoded/decoded to make it more complicated to follow the flow through, but the deep analysis performed by CodeGuru Reviewer can follow this and provide meaningful insights to help ensure the security of your applications.

Extending the value of CodeGuru Reviewer

CodeGuru Reviewer already recommends different types of fixes for your Java code, such as concurrency and resource leaks. With these new categories, CodeGuru Reviewer can let you know about security issues as well, bringing further improvements to your applications’ code. The new security detectors operate in the same way that the existing detectors do, using static code analysis and ML to provide high confidence results. This can help avoid signaling non-issue findings to developers, which can waste time and erode trust in the tool.

You can provide feedback on recommendations in the CodeGuru Reviewer console or by commenting on the code in a pull request. This feedback helps improve the performance of the reviewer, so the recommendations you see get better over time.

Conclusion

Security issues can be difficult to identify and can impact your applications significantly. CodeGuru Reviewer security detectors help make sure you’re following security best practices while you build applications.

CodeGuru Reviewer is available for you to try. For full repository analysis, the first 30,000 lines of code analyzed each month per payer account are free. For pull request analysis, we offer a 90 day free trial for new customers. Please check the pricing page for more details. For more information, see Getting started with CodeGuru Reviewer.

About the author

Brian Farnhill

Brian Farnhill is a Developer Specialist Solutions Architect in the Australian Public Sector team. His background is building solutions and helping customers improve DevOps tools and processes. When he isn’t working, you’ll find him either coding for fun or playing online games.

re:Invent 2020 – Your guide to AWS Identity and Data Protection sessions

Post Syndicated from Marta Taggart original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/security/reinvent-2020-your-guide-to-aws-identity-and-data-protection-sessions/

AWS re:Invent will certainly be different in 2020! Instead of seeing you all in Las Vegas, this year re:Invent will be a free, three-week virtual conference. One thing that will remain the same is the variety of sessions, including many Security, Identity, and Compliance sessions. As we developed sessions, we looked to customers—asking where they would like to expand their knowledge. One way we did this was shared in a recent Security blog post, where we introduced a new customer polling feature that provides us with feedback directly from customers. The initial results of the poll showed that Identity and Access Management and Data Protection are top-ranking topics for customers. We wanted to highlight some of the re:Invent sessions for these two important topics so that you can start building your re:Invent schedule. Each session is offered at multiple times, so you can sign up for the time that works best for your location and schedule.

Managing your Identities and Access in AWS

AWS identity: Secure account and application access with AWS SSO
Ron Cully, Principal Product Manager, AWS

Dec 1, 2020 | 12:00 PM – 12:30 PM PST
Dec 1, 2020 | 8:00 PM – 8:30 PM PST
Dec 2, 2020 | 4:00 AM – 4:30 AM PST

AWS SSO provides an easy way to centrally manage access at scale across all your AWS Organizations accounts, using identities you create and manage in AWS SSO, Microsoft Active Directory, or external identity providers (such as Okta Universal Directory or Azure AD). This session explains how you can use AWS SSO to manage your AWS environment, and it covers key new features to help you secure and automate account access authorization.

Getting started with AWS identity services
Becky Weiss, Senior Principal Engineer, AWS

Dec 1, 2020 | 1:30 PM – 2:00 PM PST
Dec 1, 2020 | 9:30 PM – 10:00 PM PST
Dec 2, 2020 | 5:30 AM – 6:00 AM PST

The number, range, and breadth of AWS services are large, but the set of techniques that you need to secure them is not. Your journey as a builder in the cloud starts with this session, in which practical examples help you quickly get up to speed on the fundamentals of becoming authenticated and authorized in the cloud, as well as on securing your resources and data correctly.

AWS identity: Ten identity health checks to improve security in the cloud
Cassia Martin, Senior Security Solutions Architect, AWS

Dec 2, 2020 | 9:30 AM – 10:00 AM PST
Dec 2, 2020 | 5:30 PM – 6:00 PM PST
Dec 3, 2020 | 1:30 AM – 2:00 AM PST

Get practical advice and code to help you achieve the principle of least privilege in your existing AWS environment. From enabling logs to disabling root, the provided checklist helps you find and fix permissions issues in your resources, your accounts, and throughout your organization. With these ten health checks, you can improve your AWS identity and achieve better security every day.

AWS identity: Choosing the right mix of AWS IAM policies for scale
Josh Du Lac, Principal Security Solutions Architect, AWS

Dec 2, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 11:30 AM PST
Dec 2, 2020 | 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM PST
Dec 3, 2020 | 3:00 AM – 3:30 AM PST

This session provides both a strategic and tactical overview of various AWS Identity and Access Management (IAM) policies that provide a range of capabilities for the security of your AWS accounts. You probably already use a number of these policies today, but this session will dive into the tactical reasons for choosing one capability over another. This session zooms out to help you understand how to manage these IAM policies across a multi-account environment, covering their purpose, deployment, validation, limitations, monitoring, and more.

Zero Trust: An AWS perspective
Quint Van Deman, Principal WW Identity Specialist, AWS

Dec 2, 2020 | 12:30 PM – 1:00 PM PST
Dec 2, 2020 | 8:30 PM – 9:00 PM PST
Dec 3, 2020 | 4:30 AM – 5:00 AM PST

AWS customers have continuously asked, “What are the optimal patterns for ensuring the right levels of security and availability for my systems and data?” Increasingly, they are asking how patterns that fall under the banner of Zero Trust might apply to this question. In this session, you learn about the AWS guiding principles for Zero Trust and explore the larger subdomains that have emerged within this space. Then the session dives deep into how AWS has incorporated some of these concepts, and how AWS can help you on your own Zero Trust journey.

AWS identity: Next-generation permission management
Brigid Johnson, Senior Software Development Manager, AWS

Dec 3, 2020 | 11:00 AM – 11:30 AM PST
Dec 3, 2020 | 7:00 PM – 7:30 PM PST
Dec 4, 2020 | 3:00 AM – 3:30 AM PST

This session is for central security teams and developers who manage application permissions. This session reviews a permissions model that enables you to scale your permissions management with confidence. Learn how to set your organization up for access management success with permission guardrails. Then, learn about granting workforce permissions based on attributes, so they scale as your users and teams adjust. Finally, learn about the access analysis tools and how to use them to identify and reduce broad permissions and give users and systems access to only what they need.

How Goldman Sachs administers temporary elevated AWS access
Harsha Sharma, Solutions Architect, AWS
Chana Garbow Pardes, Associate, Goldman Sachs
Jewel Brown, Analyst, Goldman Sachs

Dec 16, 2020 | 2:00 PM – 2:30 PM PST
Dec 16, 2020 | 10:00 PM – 10:30 PM PST
Dec 17, 2020 | 6:00 AM – 6:30 AM PST

Goldman Sachs takes security and access to AWS accounts seriously. While empowering teams with the freedom to build applications autonomously is critical for scaling cloud usage across the firm, guardrails and controls need to be set in place to enable secure administrative access. In this session, learn how the company built its credential brokering workflow and administrator access for its users. Learn how, with its simple application that uses proprietary and AWS services, including Amazon DynamoDB, AWS Lambda, AWS CloudTrail, Amazon S3, and Amazon Athena, Goldman Sachs is able to control administrator credentials and monitor and report on actions taken for audits and compliance.

Data Protection

Do you need an AWS KMS custom key store?
Tracy Pierce, Senior Consultant, AWS

Dec 15, 2020 | 9:45 AM – 10:15 AM PST
Dec 15, 2020 | 5:45 PM – 6:15 PM PST
Dec 16, 2020 | 1:45 AM – 2:15 AM PST

AWS Key Management Service (AWS KMS) has integrated with AWS CloudHSM, giving you the option to create your own AWS KMS custom key store. In this session, you learn more about how a KMS custom key store is backed by an AWS CloudHSM cluster and how it enables you to generate, store, and use your KMS keys in the hardware security modules that you control. You also learn when and if you really need a custom key store. Join this session to learn why you might choose not to use a custom key store and instead use the AWS KMS default.

Using certificate-based authentication on containers & web servers on AWS
Josh Rosenthol, Senior Product Manager, AWS
Kevin Rioles, Manager, Infrastructure & Security, BlackSky

Dec 8, 2020 | 12:45 PM – 1:15 PM PST
Dec 8, 2020 | 8:45 PM – 9:15 PM PST
Dec 9, 2020 | 4:45 AM – 5:15 AM PST

In this session, BlackSky talks about its experience using AWS Certificate Manager (ACM) end-entity certificates for the processing and distribution of real-time satellite geospatial intelligence and monitoring. Learn how BlackSky uses certificate-based authentication on containers and web servers within its AWS environment to help make TLS ubiquitous in its deployments. The session details the implementation, architecture, and operations best practices that the company chose and how it was able to operate ACM at scale across multiple accounts and regions.

The busy manager’s guide to encryption
Spencer Janyk, Senior Product Manager, AWS

Dec 9, 2020 | 11:45 AM – 12:15 PM PST
Dec 9, 2020 | 7:45 PM – 8:15 PM PST
Dec 10, 2020 | 3:45 AM – 4:15 AM PST

In this session, explore the functionality of AWS cryptography services and learn when and where to deploy each of the following: AWS Key Management Service, AWS Encryption SDK, AWS Certificate Manager, AWS CloudHSM, and AWS Secrets Manager. You also learn about defense-in-depth strategies including asymmetric permissions models, client-side encryption, and permission segmentation by role.

Building post-quantum cryptography for the cloud
Alex Weibel, Senior Software Development Engineer, AWS

Dec 15, 2020 | 12:45 PM – 1:15 PM PST
Dec 15, 2020 | 8:45 PM – 9:15 PM PST
Dec 16, 2020 | 4:45 AM – 5:15 AM PST

This session introduces post-quantum cryptography and how you can use it today to secure TLS communication. Learn about recent updates on standards and existing deployments, including the AWS post-quantum TLS implementation (pq-s2n). A description of the hybrid key agreement method shows how you can combine a new post-quantum key encapsulation method with a classical key exchange to secure network traffic today.

Data protection at scale using Amazon Macie
Neel Sendas, Senior Technical Account Manager, AWS

Dec 17, 2020 | 7:15 AM – 7:45 AM PST
Dec 17, 2020 | 3:15 PM – 3:45 PM PST
Dec 17, 2020 | 11:15 PM – 11:45 PM PST

Data Loss Prevention (DLP) is a common topic among companies that work with sensitive data. If an organization can’t identify its sensitive data, it can’t protect it. Amazon Macie is a fully managed data security and data privacy service that uses machine learning and pattern matching to discover and protect your sensitive data in AWS. In this session, we will share details of the design and architecture you can use to deploy Macie at large scale.

While sessions are virtual this year, they will be offered at multiple times with live moderators and “Ask the Expert” sessions available to help answer any questions that you may have. We look forward to “seeing” you in these sessions. Please see the re:Invent agenda for more details and to build your schedule.

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

Marta Taggart

Marta is a Seattle-native and Senior Program Manager in AWS Security, where she focuses on privacy, content development, and educational programs. Her interest in education stems from two years she spent in the education sector while serving in the Peace Corps in Romania. In her free time, she’s on a global hunt for the perfect cup of coffee.

Author

Himanshu Verma

Himanshu is a Worldwide Specialist for AWS Security Services. In this role, he leads the go-to-market creation and execution for AWS Data Protection and Threat Detection & Monitoring services, field enablement, and strategic customer advisement. Prior to AWS, he held roles as Director of Product Management, engineering and development, working on various identity, information security and data protection technologies.

New – Multi-Factor Authentication with WebAuthn for AWS SSO

Post Syndicated from Sébastien Stormacq original https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/multi-factor-authentication-with-webauthn-for-aws-sso/

Starting today, you can add WebAuthn as a new multi-factor authentication (MFA) to AWS Single Sign-On, in addition to currently supported one-time password (OTP) and Radius authenticators. By adding support for WebAuthn, a W3C specification developed in coordination with FIDO Alliance, you can now authenticate with a wide variety of interoperable authenticators provisioned by your system administrator or built into your laptops or smartphones. For example, you can now tap a hardware security key, touch a fingerprint sensor on your Mac, or use facial recognition on your mobile device or PC to authenticate into the AWS Management Console or AWS Command Line Interface (CLI).

With this addition, you can now self-register multiple MFA authenticators. Doing so allows you to authenticate on AWS with another device in case you lose or misplace your primary authenticator device. We make it easy for you to name your devices for long-term manageability.

WebAuthn two-factor authentication is available for identities stored in the AWS Single Sign-On internal identity store and those stored in Microsoft Active Directory, whether it is managed by AWS or not.

What are WebAuthn and FIDO2?

Before exploring how to configure two-factor authentication using your FIDO2-enabled devices, and to discover the user experience for web-based and CLI authentications, let’s recap how FIDO2, WebAuthn and other specifications fit together.

FIDO2 is made of two core specifications: Web Authentication (WebAuthn) and Client To Authenticator Protocol (CTAP).

Web Authentication (WebAuthn) is a W3C standard that provides strong authentication based upon public key cryptography. Unlike traditional code generator tokens or apps using TOTP protocol, it does not require sharing a secret between the server and the client. Instead, it relies on a public key pair and digital signature of unique challenges. The private key never leaves a secured device, the FIDO-enabled authenticator. When you try to authenticate to a website, this secured device interacts with your browser using the CTAP protocol.

WebAuthn is strong: Authentication is ideally backed by a secure element, which can safely store private keys and perform the cryptographic operations. It is scoped: A key pair is only useful for a specific origin, like browser cookies. A key pair registered at console.amazonaws.com cannot be used at console.not-the-real-amazon.com, mitigating the threat of phishing. Finally, it is attested: Authenticators can provide a certificate that helps servers verify that the public key did in fact come from an authenticator they trust, and not a fraudulent source.

To start to use FIDO2 authentication, you therefore need three elements: a website that supports WebAuthn, a browser that supports WebAuthn and CTAP protocols, and a FIDO authenticator. Starting today, the SSO Management Console and CLI now support WebAuthn. All modern web browsers are compatible (Chrome, Edge, Firefox, and Safari). FIDO authenticators are either devices you can use from one device or another (roaming authenticators), such as a YubiKey, or built-in hardware supported by Android, iOS, iPadOS, Windows, Chrome OS, and macOS (platform authenticators).

How Does FIDO2 Work?
When I first register my FIDO-enabled authenticator on AWS SSO, the authenticator creates a new set of public key credentials that can be used to sign a challenge generated by AWS SSO Console (the relaying party). The public part of these new credentials, along with the signed challenge, are stored by AWS SSO.

When I want to use WebAuthn as second factor authentication, the AWS SSO console sends a challenge to my authenticator. This challenge can then be signed with the previously generated public key credentials and sent back to the console. This way, AWS SSO console can verify that I have the required credentials.

How Do I Enable MFA With a Secure Device in the AWS SSO Console?
You, the system administrator, can enable MFA for your AWS SSO workforce when the user profiles are stored in AWS SSO itself, or stored in your Active Directory, either self-managed or a AWS Directory Service for Microsoft Active Directory.

To let my workforce register their FIDO or U2F authenticator in self-service mode, I first navigate to Settings, click Configure under Multi-Factor Authentication. On the following screen, I make four changes. First, under Users should be prompted for MFA, I select Every time they sign in. Second, under Users can authenticate with these MFA types, I check Security Keys and built-in authenticators. Third, under If a user does not yet have a registered MFA device, I check Require them to register an MFA device at sign in. Finally, under Who can manage MFA devices, I check Users can add and manage their own MFA devices. I click on Save Changes to save and return.

Configure SSO 2

That’s it. Now your workforce is prompted to register their MFA device the next time they authenticate.

What Is the User Experience?
As an AWS console user, I authenticate on the AWS SSO portal page URL that I received from my System Administrator. I sign in using my user name and password, as usual. On the next screen, I am prompted to register my authenticator. I check Security Key as device type. To use a biometric factor such as fingerprints or face recognition, I would click Built-in authenticator.

Register MFA Device

The browser asks me to generate a key pair and to send my public key. I can do that just by touching a button on my device, or providing the registered biometric, e.g. TouchID or FaceID.Register a security keyThe browser does confirm and shows me a last screen where I have the possibility to give a friendly name to my device, so I can remember which one is which. Then I click Save and Done.Confirm device registrationFrom now on, every time I sign in, I am prompted to touch my security device or use biometric authentication on my smartphone or laptop. What happens behind the scene is the server sending a challenge to my browser. The browser sends the challenge to the security device. The security device uses my private key to sign the challenge and to return it to the server for verification. When the server validates the signature with my public key, I am granted access to the AWS Management Console.

Additional verification required

At any time, I can register additional devices and manage my registered devices. On the AWS SSO portal page, I click MFA devices on the top-right part of the screen.

MFA device management

I can see and manage the devices registered for my account, if any. I click Register device to register a new device.

How to Configure SSO for the AWS CLI?
Once my devices are configured, I can configure SSO on the AWS Command Line Interface (CLI).

I first configure CLI SSO with aws configure sso and I enter the SSO domain URL that I received from my system administrator. The CLI opens a browser where I can authenticate with my user name, password, and my second-factor authentication configured previously. The web console gives me a code that I enter back into the CLI prompt.aws configure sso

When I have access to multiple AWS Accounts, the CLI lists them and I choose the one I want to use. This is a one-time configuration.

Once this is done, I can use the aws CLI as usual, the SSO authentication happens automatically behind the scene. You are asked to re-authenticate from time to time, depending on the configuration set by your system administrator.

Available today
Just like AWS Single Sign-On, FIDO2 second-factor authentication is provided to you at no additional cost, and is available in all AWS Regions where AWS SSO is available.

As usual, we welcome your feedback. The team told me they are working on other features to offer you additional authentication options in the near future.

You can start to use FIDO2 as second factor authentication for AWS Single Sign-On today. Configure it now.

— seb