Criterions for a crypto app

Following the previous article, people have asked me what I would consider as a good secure system, and others asked me to review their app, so I think it will be interesting to expose my process when studying those projects.

Threat modeling

The most important point I look for in a project is the threat model. This is the document that will explain for whom the project was created, who are the adversaries, what they are trying to obtain, and which of these threats you are addressing.

Without that document, I cannot know if you considered all the possible actors, and I must infer it from the protocol, which is relatively easy, but my view of the threat model might not correspond to what you expected.

With a good threat model, I can know right away what is your target market (ex: sexting for teens, or secure reporting for journalists in war environments), see if your users will understand the implications, if it will need training, and more importantly, if your system can be safe for that context.

You cannot create a project and say that it will solve all of the privacy problems with some magical crypto algorithm, against all adversaries, even the state actors. I would prefer a useful tool for a niche with real and well defined needs.

Prior art

As you have probably seen, the secure messaging space is already very crowded. If you come up with a new solution to an already solved problem, you need to justify it. Why didn’t you improve an existing project? Couldn’t you adapt someone else’s code, add a better UI?

the NIH syndrome is at the heart of innovation, so I am not against it. But in the case of crypto applications, it might be a good idea to employ already existing (and already audited) code, instead of writing a whole new protocol or algorithm from scratch.

Otherwise, if you are working on an unsolved problem, or improving on current solutions, be prepared to justify it, and a lot, if you employ unusual systems. I am not telling you to avoid funny stuff like Pailler’s cryptosystem, PIR or pairing based cryptography. Just be aware that people will ask you about these.

Publications

That part is fundamental: if you are providing a new protocol or algorithm, you should publish it and ask for review before you start coding and get users. I am not advising you to start up LaTeX and write a paper in ACM format. Just explaining your system on a webpage is fine. The crypto community is full of nice people that will be able to point out if there is any problem (and if you use the academic way of publishing, you might even profit from other people’s funding to get reviews :p).

Some said that the crypto community is full of bitter people eager to hit any new project, following the whole Telegram debacle. That tends to happen when you make a big announcement to get users, telling that it will solve any security problem, and dismiss the opinions of experts, without having asked for review previously.

Note that some of those experts have worked for years on a project before even thinking of communicating about it. As examples, check out Briar, Pond or Cryptosphere: those are quiet but interesting projects. They are not trying to get a lot of users quickly or profit from the post Snowden panic. They have been at it for a long time.

So, publish, ask for review, fix flaws, publish again, fix stuff, and repeat again and again. That is the smartest way to spend your time and money on your project. Once everything is developed and deployed, you will have a hard time trying to plug the holes.

Protocol design

Once we get in the technical stuff, the protocol design is interesting to get a high level view of what you want to achieve. I’ll ask questions like:

  • Is it server centric or P2P? (note: a network of server introduces routing, but is not P2P)
  • Does it include authentication?
  • Is it encrypted end to end?
  • How do you protect against DoS?
  • Is it versioned? Do you allow for protocol version negotiation? Are the algorithms negotiated?
  • Can you revoke keys or identities?

Often, the protocol show what you want to achieve with your system, and it is often answering more threats than the crypto algorithms themselves. A good way to present your protocols is to use diagrams and present the message contents.

Do not insist on algorithms at this point: use general words to describe the primitive you need, like authenticated cipher, public key, key derivation function, MAC. You might change the algorithms later, so stating the properties you need will help reviewers understand what you want to achieve.

A specific note on server VS peer to peer: it is a very understandable feeling for geeks that P2P architectures look better, because they’re decentralizing everything, etc. But they can introduce other problems (like hole punching or sybil attacks), and in some case, you will not be able to avoid servers (for message routing and retries, for mobile systems, etc). Both types of systems are fine, just be aware of their shortcomings.

Cryptographic constructs

Cryptographic algorithms are not enough, you need to apply them correctly. I will have no pity if you say you use “military grade AES 256 encryption” but do not know what is a block cipher mode or Encrypt-Then-MAC. A lot of ugly details can hide here, so do not try to be clever, use battle tested systems:

  • add a separate authentication layer to Diffie-Hellman key exchanges
  • use an authenticated encryption mode
  • use RSA-OAEP instead of PKCS1 padding
  • know well if you need a nonce, an unpredictable number or a time based ID
  • etc.

This is one of the parts where crypto experts will ask annoying questions, because a lot of bugs come from there. They can also propose better solutions (safer, more performant, etc), so listen to them.

If you are employing an unusual scheme here, be prepared to justify it. It might be ok for you, but if the design looks weird to cryptographers, that will raise alarms. Your scheme could be safe, but if it has never been proven right, you are taking a risk, and your users will take that risk too. Is it worth it? Hint: your weird design should provide a unique property that no other algorithm has.

Choice of algorithms

Yes, I do not worry about algorithms until I am already deep in the system. It is not that hard to make correct choices there. Just listen to the recent attacks (ie, avoid RC4) choose large enough keys, choose correct elliptic curves.

Every algorithm has parameters that you need to get right, so be sure to document yourself on your algorithm choices:

  • AES-CBC needs an initialization vector, but AES-CTR uses an incremented nonce
  • RSA needs a good exponent
  • Some elliptic curves work better for some operations

Even if you choose dubious algorithms, if your protocol was well designed, you will be able to move to better algorithm. Be careful with algorithm negotiation, though, a lot of smart people were bitten before.

The implementation

This is probably the part that I will skip, because I do not have the time nor the funding to audit thoroughly the code of every new projects. I will often grep a bit through the code, look for some important points, but this is not something that should be done quickly. This is where the protocol review shows its limits.

Even with a good design, a lot of vulnerabilities can be present in a flawed implementation. Crypto projects should undergo a careful audit like the one Least Authority performed recently on Cryptocat. And that is why you should not communicate about your project before it has been reviewed.

There are things you should always look for in your software projects:

  • encrypting data at rest: if you worry about stolen data, know that a mobile phone or laptop can be stolen
  • random number generation: you should use a CSPRNG, with a good source, and probably some user or device specific data
  • data backup: is it possible? is it safe?
  • software updates: are they downloaded from a secure source? Are the updates verified?
  • Do you use public key pinning?
  • How long are they private keys stored as plaintext in memory?

The implementation details are as important as the whole protocol. You can have a good protocol, but a small error in the code could greatly affect your users. Nevertheless, specifying your protocol is useful, because people can provide better implementations, or make it interoperate with other software. Having other implementations is a good thing: you will not control those versions, but they will be able to construct cool stuff around your system, and make a part of your PR.

User interface

this part is more and more important, because we have been able to create safe systems for years, but often at the price of usability. The user experience of crypto apps needs a lot of innovation, and I’ll follow closely any interesting idea in that space: onboarding experience, useful alerts, user decision making, etc. People should be able to understand when there is a security problem.

I’ll state it once more: if you create a new crypto software, you HAVE to make it easy to use and understand. Some complexity is acceptable, but it must be compensated by documentation (with screenshots, etc) or training.

Other criterions

There are two others that I could think of, but they do not matter that much.

The first is the team. I have been accused of making fun of Telegram for waving around their team of PhDs, but the truth is that I was hopeful: a team full of smart people can come up with interesting design and solve complex problems. If they do not deliver on that, I could be less indulgent. That does not mean I will think less of people without big diplomas. I know too many smart people that dropped out of school to make that mistake. Ultimately, the important thing to judge is the design.

The last parameter is attitude. It is normal to be defensive when someone else reviews your work, but that does not justify denial and dishonesty. People are often taking time off of their job to study your system, so they will be quick and get to the point. If you do not answer or refuse to explain your decisions, it will smell fishy. Even more if you did not ask for a review before communicating about your project. But it does not matter that much. If you are humble and quick to answer, people may help you out of good will, but if you anger cryptographers, you may just have won a free thorough audit :D

 

About these ads

Telegram, AKA “Stand back, we have Math PhDs!”

Here is the second entry in our serie about weird encryption apps, about Telegram, which got some press recently.

According to their website, Telegram is “cloud based and heavily encrypted”. How secure is it?

Very secure. We are based on a new protocol, MTProto, built by our own specialists, employing time-tested security algorithms. At this moment, the biggest security threat to your Telegram messages is your mother reading over your shoulder. We took care of the rest.

(from their FAQ)

Yup. Very secure, they said it.

So, let’s take a look around.

Available technical information

Their website details the protocol. They could have added some diagrams, instead of text-only, but that’s still readable. There is also an open source Java implementation of their protocol. That’s a good point.

About the team (yes, I know, I said I would not do ad hominem attacks, but they insist on that point):

The team behind Telegram, led by Nikolai Durov, consists of six ACM champions, half of them Ph.Ds in math. It took them about two years to roll out the current version of MTProto. Names and degrees may indeed not mean as much in some fields as they do in others, but this protocol is the result of thougtful and prolonged work of professionals

(Seen on Hacker News)

They are not cryptographers, but they have some background in maths. Great!

So, what is the system’s architecture? Basically, a few servers everywhere in the world, routing messages between clients. Authentication is only done between the client and the server, not between clients communicating with each other. Encryption happens between the client and the server, but not using TLS (some home made protocol instead). Encryption can happen end to end between clients, but there is no authentication, so the server can perform a MITM attack.

Basically, their threat model is a simple “trust the server”. What goes around the network may be safely encrypted, although we don’t know anything about their server to server communication, nor about their data storage system. But whatever goes through the server is available in clear. By today’s standards, that’s boring, unsafe and careless. For equivalent systems, see Lavabit or iMessage. They will not protect your messages against law enforcement eavesdropping or server compromise. Worse: you cannot detect MITM between you and your peers.

I could stop there, but that would not be fun. The juicy bits are in the crypto design. The ideas are not wrong per se, but the algorithm choices are weird and unsafe, and they take the most complicated route for everything.

Network protocol

The protocol has two phases: the key exchange and the communication.

The key exchange registers a device to the server. They wrote a custom protocol for that, because TLS was too slow and complicated. That’s true, TLS needs two roundtrips between the client and the server to exchange a key. It also needs x509 certificates, and a combination of a public key algorithm like RSA or DSA, and eventually a key exchange algorithm like Diffie-Hellman.

Telegram greatly simplified the exchange by requiring three roundtrips, using RSA, AES-IGE (some weird mode that nobody uses), and Diffie-Hellman, along with a proof of work (the client has to factor a number, probably a DoS protection). Also, they employ some home made function to generate the AES key and IV from nonces generated by the server and the client (server_nonce appears in plaintext during the communication):

  • key = SHA1(new_nonce + server_nonce) + substr (SHA1(server_nonce + new_nonce), 0, 12);
  • IV = substr (SHA1(server_nonce + new_nonce), 12, 8) + SHA1(new_nonce + new_nonce) + substr (new_nonce, 0, 4);

Note that AES-IGE is not an authenticated encryption mode. So they verify the integrity. By using plain SHA1 (nope, not a real MAC) on the plaintext. And encrypting the hash along with the plaintext (yup, pseudoMAC-Then-Encrypt).

The final DH exchange creates the authorization key that will be stored (probably in plaintext) on the client and the server.

I really don’t understand why they needed such a complicated protocol. They could have made something like: the client generates a key pair, encrypts the public key with the server’s public key, sends it to the server with a nonce, and the server sends back the nonce encrypted with the client’s public key. Simple and easy. And this would have provided public keys for the clients, for end-to-end authentication.

About the communication phase: they use some combination of server salt, message id and message sequence number to prevent replay attacks. Interestingly, they have a message key, made of the 128 lower order bits of the SHA1 of the message. That message key transits in plaintext, so if you know the message headers, there is probably some nice info leak there.

The AES key (still in IGE mode) used for message encryption is generated like this:

The algorithm for computing aes_key and aes_iv from auth_key and msg_key is as follows:

  • sha1_a = SHA1 (msg_key + substr (auth_key, x, 32));
  • sha1_b = SHA1 (substr (auth_key, 32+x, 16) + msg_key + substr (auth_key, 48+x, 16));
  • sha1_с = SHA1 (substr (auth_key, 64+x, 32) + msg_key);
  • sha1_d = SHA1 (msg_key + substr (auth_key, 96+x, 32));
  • aes_key = substr (sha1_a, 0, 8) + substr (sha1_b, 8, 12) + substr (sha1_c, 4, 12);
  • aes_iv = substr (sha1_a, 8, 12) + substr (sha1_b, 0, 8) + substr (sha1_c, 16, 4) + substr (sha1_d, 0, 8);

where x = 0 for messages from client to server and x = 8 for those from server to client.

Since the auth_key is permanent, and the message key only depends on the server salt (living 24h), the session (probably permanent, can be forgotten by the server) and the beginning of the message, the message key may be the same for a potentially large number of messages. Yes, a lot of messages will probably share the same AES key and IV.

Edit: Following Telegram’s comment, the AES key and IV will be different for every message. Still, they depend on the content of the message, and that is a very bad design. Keys and initialization vectors should always be generated from a CSPRNG, independent from the encrypted content.

Edit 2: the new protocol diagram makes it clear that the key is generated by a weak KDF from the auth key and some data transmitted as plaintext. There should be some nice statistical analysis to do there.

Edit 3: Well, if you send the same message twice (in a day, since the server salt lives 24h), the key and IV will be the same, and the ciphertext will be the same too. This is a real flaw, that is usually fixed by changing IVs regularly (even broken protocols like WEP do it) and changing keys regularly (cf Forward Secrecy in TLS or OTR). The unencrypted message contains a (time-dependent) message ID and sequence number that are incremented, and the client won’t accept replayed messages, or too old message IDs.

Edit 4: Someone found a flaw in the end to end secret chat. The key generated from the Diffie-Hellman exchange was combined with a server-provided nonce: key = (pow(g_a, b) mod dh_prime) xor nonce. With that, the server can perform a MITM on the connection and generate the same key for both peers by manipulating the nonce, thus defeating the key verification. Telegram has updated their protocol description and will fix the flaw. (That nonce was introduced to fix RNG issues on mobile devices).

Seriously, I have never seen anyone use the MAC to generate the encryption key. Even if I wanted to put a backdoor in a protocol, I would not make it so evident…

To sum it up: avoid at all costs. There are no new ideas, and they add their flawed homegrown mix of RSA, AES-IGE, plain SHA1 integrity verification, MAC-Then-Encrypt, and a custom KDF. Instead of Telegram, you should use well known and audited protocols, like OTR (usable in IRC, Jabber) or the Axolotl key ratcheting of TextSecure.

Theoretical definitions for crypto wannabes

Every week, I hear about a new secure software designed to protect your privacy, thwart the NSA/GCHQ and save kittens. Most of the time, though, they’re started by people that are very enthusiastic yet unskilled.

They tend to concentrate directly on choosing algorithms and writing code, instead of stepping back and thinking a bit about what they want to develop.

Sure, they probably spent some time saying things like:

  • that piece of data should absolutely be encrypted
  • users will all have key pairs to authenticate themselves
  • we should use AES, that’s the safest choice (what are theses “modes” you’re talking about?)

That is not how you design a protocol. That is not how you design a software using encryption. And that is not how you will design the next secure distributed social network.

To design your system, you need three things:

  • a good threat model
  • theoretical tools addressing the threats
  • algorithms implementing these theoretical tools

As you see, most of the projects only have the third item, and that’s insufficient to design a correct system. If you don’t have a good threat model, you don’t have a good mental model of your users and attackers, their means and their objectives. If you don’t have the theoretical tools, you will try to shoehorn your favorite algorithm on the problem without knowing if it really fits (example: using hash algorithms to store passwords :p).

So, in this post, I’ll provide those (simplified) theoretical definitions. You will probably recognize some of them.

High level view

First, you need to forget notions like “privacy”, use any of these terms to describe the properties you want to achieve:

  • authentication: you can recognize which entity you are communicating with
  • authorization: the entity cannot get access to data it has no permission on (note that it is different from authentication)
  • confidentiality: the data should not be readable by an entity that has no permission on it (it can be protected by crypto, but also by policies in the code)
  • integrity: unauthorized modification of the data can be detected and marked as invalid
  • non repudiation: an entity cannot deny it has executed an action
  • deniability: an entity _can_ deny it has executed an action

Ok, now that we have some basic properties, let’s apply them: think for a long time about the actors of the system (users, malicious users, admins, sysadmins, random attacker on the network, etc), what authorizations they have, what they should not get access to, what data moves on the network and between whom.

You should now have a very basic threat model and a rough overview of your system or protocol: you know what part of the network communications should be confidential, you know where you would need to authenticate.

You will now need some ideas about the type of attacks that could happen to your system, because you probably did not think of everything. Separate your systems in logical parts (like “client”, and “server”, etc), observe them, and observe how they communicate.

Common attacks

Security properties

Here are some security properties that will be useful when you will try to choose algorithms later:

  • Random oracle: a system that answers deterministically every question with a random answer from its answer space. You cannot predict what it will answer, but if you send the same question twice, it will answer the same both times.
  • Perfect secrecy: for any two plaintext messages of same size, an attacker cannot distinguish which plaintext maps to which ciphertext. Basically, the adversary learns nothing from the ciphertext only.
  • Semantic security: same thing as perfect secrecy, except what the adversary learns on the plaintext is negligible. example: One Time Pad

Security tests

those properties can be tested by creating a “game”, where the attacker tries to guess information on the data:

  • IND-CPA (indistinguishability under the chosen plaintext attack) test: the adversary can generate as many ciphertexts as he wants. Then, he chooses two messages m0 and m1 of same length, those messages are encrypted, and one of the ciphertexts is sent back to him. The adversary should not be able to guess which message was used to generate that ciphertext (note that this is just one way of testing for CPA, there are many other schemes, some with stronger properties)
  • IND-CCA (indistinguishability under the chosen ciphertext attack): the attacker can get the decryption of arbitrary ciphertexts, but should not, from this, be able to decrypt any other ciphertext.

Attack patterns

Here are some common attack types that can be applied to crypto protocols. The list is not exhaustive, and covers only crypto attacks: there are many more ways to attack a system.

  • Replay attacks: the attacker has observed some valid (encrypted or not) data going on the wire, and tries to send it again. Obviously, it should not be accepted
  • MITM (Man In The Middle): the attacker can observe and modify live data running between two actors of the system. In the worst case, the attacker should not be able to forge valid data, decrypt data, or impersonate one of the users. In the best case, it should be detectable.
  • Oracle attack: when an algorithm or protocol has a part that can act as an oracle (can be asked something and give answer, like a server), an attacker could exploit flaws in the algorithm to get useful information on the data (then the oracle is not a random oracle). Timing attacks are part of this type of attack. See also padding oracle attacks, or the recent BREACH attack on TLS.
  • Offline attack: the attacker got access to some encrypted data (on the wire, or by accessing a disk somewhere), stored it, and tries to decrypt it for an amount of time

You should now have a better view of the system: what are the parts of the system that need protection, what attacks they must resist, and what properties they should have.

That means we can go to the next part: choosing the tools to implement the solution.

General cryptographic functions

No, we will not choose algorithms right now. That would be too easy :D

We will choose from a list of cryptographic constructions that implement some of the security properties of the system, and combine them to meet all the needed properties:

  • Secure Pseudo Random Function: function from spaces K (keys) and X (message) to Y (other message space). The basic definition is that if you choose randomly one of these functions (like choosing randomly a k from K), its output will appear totally random (testable with IND-CPA).
  • Pseudo Random Permutation: this is a PRF where X and Y are the same space. It is bijective (every y from Y maps to exactly one x from X, and every y is an output of the function), and there exists an efficient inversion function for it (from Y to X). Example: AES (in ECB, which is unsafe for common use)
  • Message Authentication Code: defines a pair of algorithms. One of them takes a key k and a message m and outputs a code c. The other algorithm takes k, m, c and outputs True or False. An attacker should not be able to forge a valid c without knowing k. A PRF could be used to construct a MAC system. A hash function too. Example: HMAC
  • Authenticated encryption: an encryption function (with semantic security under the CPA) where the attacker cannot forge new ciphertexts that decrypt correctly. Example: AES-GCM.
  • Hash function: collision resistance (cannot find different messages m1, m2 so that H(m1) == H(m2), with different collision levels). Not easily invertible. Usually, they are fast. Example: SHA2.
  • Trapdoor function: a function that is easy to compute, for which finding its inverse is hard, unless you have specific information. (secure under IND-CCA). examples: RSA, DSA.
  • Zero knowledge proof: a way to prove something to the other party in a communication, without giving her any info, except the proof.

There are a lot of other constructions, depending on your needs, from low level algorithms like the Diffie Hellman key exchange to higher level protocols like OTR. Again, the constructions will depend on the security properties.

Choosing the algorithms

Can we do it now? YES! But there are rules. You must not choose an algorithm because it’s hype or because someone said so in an old book. Basically, you choose algorithms that implement the properties you need (like authenticated encryption), and you choose the parameters of the algorithm (key size, exponent, elliptic curve) depending on the strength you need. Basically, a key size can define how much time encrypted data should remain impossible to decrypt. Those parameters also define the performance of the algorithm. Don’t choose them without consulting experts, or you will face problems similar to those encountered by the projects that used low RSA exponents (it looks good from a performance standpoint, but it introduces very bad security).

Am I done now?

Nope. We have only define some very high level parts. Creating a protocol implies a lot of thoughts on:

  • how you establish the communications
  • protocol negotiation (version, algorithms, etc)
  • key exchange
  • authentication
  • nonce usage
  • storing sessions
  • handling lost connections
  • renegotiation
  • closing the connection
  • etc.

As you can see, designing a protocol involves a lot more than choosing a few algorithms. Note that this was only a very rough overview of what you would need to create a safe system. And we did not even start coding!

So, if you want to build the next privacy protecting system, please talk to experts. They don’t necessarily want to make you feel bad. They just have a lot of formal tools and the experience needed to see what will not work.

Harden WordPress using database permissions

Here is a small idea that I would like to throw into the world: most web applications use only one database user for most operations (installation, administration, common usage). Couldn’t we harness the database to protect a bit your data?

How to

This is how you could do it:

  • Create one user (called ‘user’) with full privileges on the database
  • Create another user with no privileges (let’s call him ‘read’)
  • Create a copy of wp-config.php that you will name wp-config-admin.php
  • Write the ‘read’ credentials in the wp-config.php and the normal credentials in wp-config-admin.php (don’t forget to use different auth, secure auth, logged in and nonce keys)
  • Create a copy of wp-load.php that you will name wp-load-admin.php
  • Replace in wp-load-admin.php the reference to wp-config.php by wp-config-admin.php
  • Replace in wp-login.php and wp-admin/* the references to wp-load.php by wp-load-admin.php
  • Now, you can use the admin interface, create posts, etc.
  • Grant some permissions to the ‘read’ database user: GRANT SELECT ON `db`.* TO ‘read'; GRANT INSERT, UPDATE ON `db`.`wp_comments` TO ‘read';

That was a bit of work, but not that hard! So, what did we do here? We created a user for the admin interface with full privileges on the database (create/update posts, change the taxonomy, approve the comments, etc) and another one for the front end interface, with only read privileges on all tables (that bothers me too, but read on).

This means that SQL injections, either in plugins or in WordPress code (out of the admin panel) will be much harder to implement with this setup. Beware of the custom tables for some plugins. Those will require specific permissions. Depending on the plugin, some could be read only for common usage.

Going further

That’s nice, but not enough in my opinion. As I said, the full select permission for the ‘read’ user bothers me. Couldn’t we restrict a bit the permissions on wp_users? Some of the columns are needed, but do we need to access the user_pass column? Also, the “ALL PRIVILEGES” for ‘user’ is a bit too much. Do we really use the “FILE” privilege (out of SQL injections :D)?

Without further ado, here are the SQL commands you should use:

GRANT SELECT, INSERT, UPDATE ON `db`.`wp_comments` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_commentmeta` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_links` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_options` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_term_taxonomy` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_usermeta` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_terms` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_term_relationships` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_postmeta` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT ON `db`.`wp_posts` TO ‘read';

GRANT SELECT (user_activation_key, id, user_login, user_nicename, user_status, user_url, display_name, user_email, user_registered) ON `db`.`wp_users` TO ‘read';

REVOKE ALL PRIVILEGES ON `db`.* from ‘user';

GRANT SELECT, INSERT, DELETE, UPDATE, CREATE, DROP, ALTER, INDEX ON `db`.* TO ‘user';

With these commands, ‘user’ can only manipulate tables. If you’re an evil DBA, you can even revoke the “CREATE, DROP, ALTER” permission after install, and reactivate them only for upgrades or plugin installation. The ‘read’ user has the same permissions as before on wp_comments, has “SELECT” on all tables except the wp_users. For wp_users, we grant “SELECT” on all columns except the user_pass one.

Thanks to this configuration, even a SQL injection in a plugin will not reach the password hashes! We also removed dangerous permissions like “FILE”. I’d like to prevent timing attacks like “SELECT BENCHMARK(5000000,ENCODE(‘MSG’,’by 5 seconds’));” but i did not figure out what is the right syntax for this (I tried variations around: “revoke execute on function benchmark from read”, without result).

Thankfully, WordPress mostly works with this configuration, and I think that a lot of other applications could be protected like this. Imagine: you could grant insert but not select on the credit card table in an e-commerce application, and process transactions with a background task with the right permissions.

Database privileges are indeed a powerful tool to protect your code from SQL injections. They might require some architectural changes, but the profits can be huge for your security.

Warning your users about a vulnerability

Somebody just told you about a vulnerability in your code. Moreover, they published a paper about it. Even worse, people have been very vocal about it.
What can you do now? The usual (and natural) reaction is to downplay the vulnerability, and try to keep it confidential. After all, publishing a vuln will make your users unsafe, and it is bad publicity for your project, right?

WRONG!

The best course of action is to communicate a lot. Here’s why:

Communicate with the security researcher

Yes, I know, we security people tend to be harsh, quickly flagging a vulnerable project as “broken”, “dangerous for your customers” or even “EPIC FAIL“. That is, unfortunately, part of the folklore. But behind that, security researchers are often happy to help you fix the problem, so take advantage of that!

If you try to silence the researcher, you will not get any more bug reports, but your software will still be vulnerable. Worse, someone else will undoubtedly find the vulnerability, and may sell it to governments and/or criminals.

Vulnerabilities are inevitable, like bugs. Even if you’re very careful, people will still find ways to break your software. Be humble and accept them, they’re one of the costs of writing software. The only thing that should be on your mind when you receive a security report is protecting your users. The rest is just ego and fear of failure.

So, be open, talk to security researchers, and make it easy for them to contact you (tips: create a page dedicated to security on your website, and provide a specific email for that).

Damage control of a public vulnerability

What do you do when you discover the weakness on the news/twitter/whatever?

Communicate. Now.

Contact the researchers, contact the journalists writing about it, the users whining about the issue, write on your blog, on twitter, on facebook, on IRC, and tell them this: “we know about the issue, we’re looking into it, we’re doing everything we can to fix it, and we’ll update you as soon as it’s fixed“.

This will buy you a few hours or days to fix the issue. You can’t say anything else, because you probably don’t know enough about the problem to formulate the right opinion. What you should not say:

  • “we’ve seen no report of this exploited in the wild”, yet
  • “as far as we know, the bug is not exploitable”, but soon it will be
  • “the issue happens on a test server, not in production” = “we assume that the researcher didn’t also test on prod servers”
  • “no worries, there’s a warning on our website telling that it’s beta software”. Beta means people are using it.

Anything you could say in the few days you got might harm your project. Take it as an opportunity to cool your head, work on the vulnerability, test regressions, find other mitigations, and plan the new release.

Once it is done, publish the security report:

Warning your users

So, now, you fixed the vulnerability. You have to tell your users about it. As time passes, more and more people will learn about the issue, so they might as well get it from you.

You should have a specific webpage for security issues. You may fear that criminals might use it to attack your software or website. Don’t worry, they don’t need it, they have other ways to know about software weaknesses. This webpage is for your users. It has multiple purposes:

  • showing that you handle security issues
  • telling which versions someone should not use
  • explaining how to fix some vulnerabilities if people cannot update

For each vulnerability, here is what you should display:

  • the title (probably chosen by the researcher)
  • the security researcher’s name
  • the CVE identifier
  • the chain of events:
    • day of report
    • dates of back and forth emails with the researcher
    • day of fix
    • day of release (for software)
    • day of deploy (for web apps)
  • the affected versions (for software, not web apps)
  • the affected components (maybe the issue only concerns specific parts of a library)
  • how it can be exploited. You don’t need to get into the details of the exploit.
  • The target of the exploit. Be very exhaustive about the consequences. Does the attacker get access to my contacts list? Can he run code on my computer? etc.
  • The mitigations. Telling to update to the latest version is not enough. Some users will not update right away, because they have their own constraints. Maybe they have a huge user base and can’t update quickly. Maybe they rely on an old feature removed in the latest version. Maybe their users refuse to update because it could introduce regressions. What you should tell:
    • which version is safe (new versions with the fix, but also old versions if the issue was introduced recently)
    • if it’s open source, which commit introduced the fix. That way, people managing their own internal versions of software can fix it quickly
    • how to fix the issue without updating (example for a recent Skype bug). You can provide a quick fix, that will buy time for sysadmins and downstream developers to test, fix and deploy the new version.

Now that you have a good security report, contact again the security researchers, journalists and users, provide them with the report, and emphasize what users risked, and how they can fix it. You can now comment publicly about the issue, make a blog post, send emails to your users to tell them how much you worked to protect them. And don’t forget the consecrated formule: “we take security very seriously and have taken measures to prevent this issue from happening ever again”.

Do you need help fixing your vulnerabilities? Feel free to contact me!

Software security is like medicine

People don’t get software security. Between the legends around hackers, the scaremongering by salesmen and the technical level needed to practice it, you won’t even try to understand. It is hard to get a high level view of how it works, and how you can protect yourself. But there’s a nice little metaphore to understand security: it’s like medicine!

Medicine is about taking care of your body, fighting off illness, healing injuries. The body is a big machine that can fail in a lot of ways, depending on a lot of parameters. It is the same for software security: you want to prevent and repair any disruption that could fail at any time. Security, like medicine, is a very technical domain, and takes a lot of time to learn. Even after learning, you still don’t know everything, and you must keep up to date with recent research.

But basic body maintenance is easy. And protecting your software against basic attacks is easy too. You don’t need to study for 11 years to prevent basic SQL injections. Most of the time, the diseases and bugs that will affect you are common, and you don’t need Dr House to prevent them.

Bodies and software are problematic because they both decay through time, and are very sensitive to their environment. Change the environment, and you could catch something new. The world is full of germs and criminals. Is that a good reason to always stay at home? Obviously not. You must accept that you can get sick at any time. So, take steps to protect yourself. Wash your hands and sanitize your inputs. And beware of snake oil.

Feel free to extend on the metaphore in the comments, and use it to explain software security around you!

By the way, if you need someone to auscultate your applications, you can contact me at geoffroycouprie.com