[security-dev] PLINK-84 - Login can be bypassed with any user after a first successful login

Bruno Oliveira bruno at abstractj.org
Thu Jan 31 10:25:01 EST 2013


Thanks Anil. 


-- 
"The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato
-
@abstractj
-
Volenti Nihil Difficile



On Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote:

> Ok. We throw an exception now if there is a second login() call on an already authenticated session.
> 
> On 01/31/2013 07:25 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote:
> > Exactly! That's my point! Thanks Marek. 
> > -- "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato - @abstractj - Volenti Nihil Difficile On Thursday, January 31, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Marek Posolda wrote: 
> > 
> > > > In Servlet 3.0 specification, method HttpServletRequest.login(username, > password) stated in javadoc that it throws exception if someone is > trying to login on already authenticated session. Javadoc looks like this: > > * @exception ServletException if the configured login mechanism > * does not support username > * password authentication, or > if a > * non-null caller identity had > * already been established > (prior > * to the call to login), or if > * validation of the provided > * username and password fails. > > Indeed throwing exception seems to me like best approach in this case. I > think that if someone wants to login again with different credentials, > he should first logout before second login. So usecase could be like: > > credential.setCredential(x); > identity.login(); > // Do something with identity 'x' > identity.logout(); > > credential.setCredential(y); > identity.login(); > // Do something with identity 'y' > > > > Marek > > On 31/01/13 01:58, Jess Sigh
tler wrote: 
> > > > > > I see no reason why someone would call login again on an already authenticated session. I believe that Seam 2.x used to catch this and throw an exception (though I could be misremembering). Personally, I would prefer an exception over silently ignoring the call or an option such as the one below. > > > > Unless there is a valid reason to call .login again? > > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > > > > > From: "Anil Saldhana" <Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com (mailto:Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com)> (mailto:Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com%28mailto:Anil.Saldhana at redhat.com%29) > > > To: security-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:security-dev at lists.jboss.org) (mailto:security-dev at lists.jboss.org) > > > Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013 7:31:33 PM > > > Subject: Re: [security-dev] PLINK-84 - Login can be bypassed with any user after a first successful login > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, I do not see a problem in customizing the behavior of > > > repeated login() method calls: > > > > > > something like: > > > > > > identity.setOption(Option.LOGIN_REPEAT); > > > credential.setCredential(x); > > > identity.login(); > > > credential.setCredential(y); > > > identity.login(); > > > > > > If the option is set, then the second call of login() will > > > authenticate again. > > > > > > By default, we want to maintain the session behavior. But if Aerogear > > > wants repeated login() logic, they should
 be able to set it in the > > > option? > > > > > > Feedback? > > > > > > On 01/30/2013 11:47 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I still don't agree with it, we're giving the benefit of the doubt to > > > developers. If I have a method which is invoked twice for example > > > via HTTP request with the following code: > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > credential.setCredential(x); > > identity.login(); > Login should > > > > > be validate it again, but if you think that is not a problem, > > > > > I'm fine. > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anil, could you please provide the final solution for it? Examples of > > > usage? > > > -- > > > "The measure of a man is what he does with power" - Plato > > > - > > > @abstractj > > > - > > > Volenti Nihil Difficile > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote: > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On 01/30/2013 09:33 AM, Bruno Oliveira wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > So if I'm a bank where the user account is logged in, this user > > > > > has just forgot to 'logout'. Another person using his computer > > > > > can just bypass the login, because the session still exists? > > > > > Banks get over this by frequently being proactive using > > > > > Javascript. If the user has been idle for a minute, they give > > > > > out a warning and if there is no response, they log out the > > > > > user. > > > > > > > Another scenario, I'm at the same network of John, running my > > > > > whatever-sniffer, then is just a matter of grab the current > > > > > session ID and login? Am I wrong? Because If understood > > > > > correctly, after user login, even if I invoke this method for a > > > > > second time, what really matters is the session ID. https/ssl > > > > > should be mandatory for all critical web applications. Just have > > > > > a HTTP Header agent installed for your browser. Your passwords > > > > > are in the clear in the ht
tp header agent if you do not use > > > > > https. > > > > > > I'm confused. > > -- "The measure of a man is what he does with > > > > > power" - Plato - @abstractj - Volenti Nihil Difficile On > > > > > Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Anil Saldhana wrote: > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 01/29/2013 08:08 PM, Douglas Campos wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 05:19:23PM -0600, Anil Saldhana > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shane, > > > this is not a bug rather a feature > > > > > > > > > > > request. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's a bug > > > > > > > > Aerogear has the > > > > > > > > > > > > > following sequence: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential.setCredential(x); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identity.login(); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > credential.setCredential(y); > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identity.login(); > > > > > > Aerogear wants > > > > > > > > > > > > > PicketLink to reauthenticate during the second > > > > > > > > > > > > > login() > > > call. Currently > > > it will not > > > > > > > > > > > > > because the first login() established a User > > > > > > > > > > > > > instance and > > > subsequent login() > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calls will just bypass the auth process. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If my API doesn't do the login process on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > login() call, am I not > > failing with the > > > > > > > > > > > > > "least surprise principle"? If it doesn't do all > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > login procedure when called, better > > > > > > > > > > > > > rename it then: mayLogin(), > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > loginWithCaching() or anything like this. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your usage: > > User user = null; > AuthenticationResult > > > > > > > > > result = identity.login(); > if(result == > > > > > > > > > AuthenticationResult.SUCCESS){ > user = > > > > > > > > > identity.getUser(); > } else { > throw new > > > > > > > > > RuntimeException("Authentication Failed"); > } > > //Now > > > > > > > > > identity has an user > //Irrespective of what you want > > > > > > > > > to put in credential, you are > authenticated already > > > > > > > > > until you logout > result = identity.login(); > //result > > > > > > > > > is always SUCCESS. > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMO, this is not only wrong, but I think it can be > > > > > > > > > > > used as a potential > > attack vector. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How? 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- qmx > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> security-dev mailing list
> security-dev at lists.jboss.org (mailto:security-dev at lists.jboss.org)
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/security-dev
> 
> 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/security-dev/attachments/20130131/e2756007/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the security-dev mailing list