[squid-dev] [PATCH] Digest Auth support for LDAP HA1 attribute without realm
emmanuel.fuste at thalesgroup.com
Tue Feb 7 09:33:50 UTC 2017
Le 30/01/2017 à 16:04, FUSTE Emmanuel a écrit :
> Le 29/01/2017 à 14:33, Amos Jeffries a écrit :
>> On 21/01/2017 2:05 a.m., FUSTE Emmanuel wrote:
>>> We have to support many historic digest auth implementation for which
>>> the realm is not included in the digest password attribute:
>>> The password is effectively stored as "HA1" instead of "REALM:HA1".
>>> I would like to kill our own homegrown helpers and use the Squid
>>> provided one.
>>> Is something like the attached patch is acceptable/could be included
>>> in a future Squid release ?
>>> Best regards,
>> Sorry it has taken me so long to respond on this. I wanted to verify the
>> importance of realm in the H(A1) digest. Why it was marked as REQUIRED
>> to begin with.
> No, thank you to have taken the time.
>> Sadly I have to report my suspicion was correct and I vote -1 on this in
>> its current form. BUT I can think of two ways to get around it, see end
>> of this mail.
>> The problems are that;
>> 1) the realm is both the salting value used within the hash and the
>> scope limitation on what inputs from HTTP are used to compare against
>> the A1, and
>> 2) Squid does not itself verify the realm received was the one offered
>> and leaves the comparison to the backend system. There is some
>> possibility the authentication system is using multiple security realms
>> and Squids realm string is just an offer.
>> Not having realm tied to the credentials in the backend storage leaves
>> this particular helper with no other option but to trust the realm sent
>> (probably) over clear-text by any client/attacker actually matches the
>> salting. That allows remote senders to manipulate the realm string they
>> send to perform a collision attack against the stored password.
>> They no longer have to find and prove knowledge of the password. But
>> just find a collision for its hash vs arbitrary realm strings.
> Ok point taken.
>> Old Digest systems are not the safest things to begin with. They also
>> tend to use MD5 hashing which was the only one available for many years
>> and relatively easy to find collisions for.
>> Workaround #1:
>> Is there just one (or a few) realm that all your stored passwords use?
> Yes only one, as we lost the ability to iterate over multi-valued entry
> using the realm as a key.
>> I think we can accept the absence of realm per-password if there were a
>> global realm to check against instead. A command line option could be
>> added to pass an explicit realm (or multiple?) which the helper can use
>> to reject the possible attacks.
> Ok, so a rework of the patch with a mandatory command line option to
> specify the realm in case of null delimiter will be acceptable ?
> I think that "an explicit realm" is sufficient. To have multiple realm,
> something like realm:HA1 must already be in place or is really
> completely broken by design.
> Mono "hard-coded in conf" realm is not flexible but not broken -> I know
> a lots of such setup. That is what I would like to address.
> I don't know any real setup which need the "multiple possible implicit
> realm in conf" way
New patch attached.
- Empty realm parameter is treated as no realm parameter supplied.
- realm parameter is mandatory if empty delimiter is supplied
- -f vs -F typo corrected in the help text
Tested in real conditions.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the squid-dev