On the Security of Authentication Protocols on the Web Antoine Delignat-Lavaud
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
On the Security of Single Sign-On
On the Security of Single Sign-On Vladislav Mladenov (Place of birth: Pleven/Bulgaria) [email protected] 30th June 2017 Ruhr-University Bochum Horst G¨ortz Institute for IT-Security Chair for Network and Data Security Dissertation zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktor-Ingenieurs der Fakult¨atf¨urElektrotechnik und Informationstechnik an der Ruhr-Universit¨atBochum First Supervisor: Prof. Dr. rer. nat. J¨org Schwenk Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Felix Freiling www.nds.rub.de Abstract Single Sign-On (SSO) is a concept of delegated authentication, where an End- User authenticates only once at a central entity called Identity Provider (IdP) and afterwards logs in at multiple Service Providers (SPs) without reauthenti- cation. For this purpose, the IdP issues an authentication token, which is sent to the SP and must be verified. There exist different SSO protocols, which are implemented as open source libraries or integrated in commercial products. Google, Facebook, Microsoft and PayPal belong to the most popular SSO IdPs. This thesis provides a comprehensive security evaluation of the most popular and widely deployed SSO protocols: OpenID Connect, OpenID, and SAML. A starting point for this research is the development of a new concept called malicious IdP, where a maliciously acting IdP is used to attack SSO. Generic attack classes are developed and categorized according to the requirements, goals, and impact. These attack classes are adapted to different SSO proto- cols, which lead to the discovery of security critical vulnerabilities in Software- as-a-Service Cloud Providers, eCommerce products, web-based news portals, Content-Management systems, and open source implementations. -
Proof-Of-Possession Tokens in Microservice Architectures
Proof-of-Possession Tokens in Microservice Architectures Ruaridh Watt January 26, 2018 MSc Computer Science Thesis External Partner: Omegapoint External Supervisors: Markus Örebrand & Björn Nyberg Internal Supervisor: Mikael Rännar Examiner: Henrik Björklund Abstract The popular OAuth 2.0 Framework specifies the use of Bearer Tokens for the transmission of authorization credentials. A Bearer Token has the property that any party in possession of it can use the it. Requests including Bearer Tokens are therefore performed over a secure channel to ensure that tokens cannot be obtained by eavesdroppers. There are, however, still ways in which tokens may be leaked, in- cluding cross-site scripting and man-in-the-middle attacks. In situations where Bearer Tokens do not provide adequate security, proof-of-possession techniques may be employed to bind tokens to clients, thereby mitigating token leakage. This project presents a method which can be used to bind tokens to clients based on authentication performed by an external identity provider. How clients form proof-of-possession tokens is also described. The result is a token which may be used to transmit authorization credentials over an insecure channel. Token performance is measured in terms of client key generation time, token generation time, and authorization time. The effect different signing algorithms have on performance is measured and the proof-of-possession token is compared to Bearer Token based authorization. The results show that Elliptical Curve cryptography may be employed by lightweight devices to reduce client key and token generation times. The analysis also shows that an increase in authorization time by a factor of between six and nine can be expected when compared to Bearer Token based authorization. -
Background on Identity Federation Technologies for the Public Safety Community
1 Draft NISTIR 8336 2 Background on Identity Federation 3 Technologies for the Public Safety 4 Community 5 6 William Fisher 7 Mark Russell* 8 Sudhi Umarji 9 Karen Scarfone 10 11 * Former employee; all work for this 12 publication was done while at employer. 13 14 15 16 This publication is available free of charge from: 17 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8336-draft 18 19 20 21 Draft NISTIR 8336 22 Background on Identity Federation 23 Technologies for the Public Safety 24 Community 25 William Fisher 26 Applied Cybersecurity Division 27 Information Technology Laboratory 28 29 Mark Russell* 30 Sudhi Umarji 31 The MITRE Corporation 32 McLean, VA 33 34 Karen Scarfone 35 Scarfone Cybersecurity 36 Clifton, VA 37 38 * Former employee; all work for this 39 publication was done while at employer. 40 41 This publication is available free of charge from: 42 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8336-draft 43 44 June 2021 45 46 47 48 U.S. Department of Commerce 49 Gina Raimondo, Secretary 50 51 National Institute of Standards and Technology 52 James K. Olthoff, Performing the Non-Exclusive Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 53 for Standards and Technology & Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology 54 National Institute of Standards and Technology Interagency or Internal Report 8336 55 80 pages (June 2021) 56 This publication is available free of charge from: 57 https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.IR.8336-draft 58 Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an 59 experimental procedure or concept adequately. -
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Popov Internet-Draft M. Nystroem Intended Status: Standards Track Microsoft Corp
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Popov Internet-Draft M. Nystroem Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Corp. Expires: September 22, 2016 D. Balfanz, Ed. A. Langley Google Inc. J. Hodges Paypal March 21, 2016 Token Binding over HTTP draft-ietf-tokbind-https-03 Abstract This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind authentication tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to a TLS [RFC5246] connection. We describe both _first-party_ as well as _federated_ scenarios. In a first-party scenario, an HTTP server issues a security token (such as a cookie) to a client, and expects the client to send the security token back to the server at a later time in order to authenticate. Binding the token to the TLS connection between client and server protects the security token from theft, and ensures that the security token can only be used by the client that it was issued to. Federated token bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS [RFC5246] connection that the client has with a _different_ server than the one issuing the token. This Internet-Draft is a companion document to The Token Binding Protocol [TBPROTO] Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. -
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Popov Internet-Draft M
Internet Engineering Task Force A. Popov Internet-Draft M. Nystroem Intended status: Standards Track Microsoft Corp. Expires: April 17, 2016 D. Balfanz, Ed. A. Langley Google Inc. October 15, 2015 Token Binding over HTTP draft-ietf-tokbind-https-02 Abstract This document describes a collection of mechanisms that allow HTTP servers to cryptographically bind authentication tokens (such as cookies and OAuth tokens) to a TLS [RFC5246] connection. We describe both _first-party_ as well as _federated_ scenarios. In a first-party scenario, an HTTP server issues a security token (such as a cookie) to a client, and expects the client to send the security token back to the server at a later time in order to authenticate. Binding the token to the TLS connection between client and server protects the security token from theft, and ensures that the security token can only be used by the client that it was issued to. Federated token bindings, on the other hand, allow servers to cryptographically bind security tokens to a TLS [RFC5246] connection that the client has with a _different_ server than the one issuing the token. This Internet-Draft is a companion document to The Token Binding Protocol [TBPROTO] Status of This Memo This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. -
Security Investigation and Analysis of Openid: Problems and Enhancements
198 IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL.17 No.10, October 2017 Security Investigation and Analysis of OpenID: Problems and Enhancements Waleed A. Alrodhan and Alya I. Alqarni College of Computer and Information Sciences Al-Imam Muhammad ibn Saud University Summary confident sources that exist in other systems or structural OpenID is a widely used identity management system (IdMS) by areas, at the moment when the user uses the method [2]. which identity providers (IdPs) provide their users with 'open' SSO aims at boosting-up the user-convenience and identities that can be used to log in to particular relaying parties mitigating the risk of users forgetting their security (RPs). OpenID implements a single sign-on (SSO) solution that credentials. reduces the number of authentication credentials that are required. An SSO permits users to authenticate themselves to many SPs by using one set of authentication credentials. OpenID is faster and 1.1 OpenID system easier than the traditional method, which requires the user to manage a large number of digital identities, since each SP only OpenID is one of the IDMS’s that offer users with a recognises the identity it has issued. This increases the security universal identity, permitting them to sign in to several risk of identity theft and, at the same time, forms an obstacle with relying parties (or RPs). OpenID supports SSO which regard to user convenience. The aim of this paper is to analyse the prevents the necessity to have individual signings and security of OpenID by identifying its weaknesses and passwords for to each website which supports OpenID [3].