Skip to main content

Touch ID auth - a boon or bane?

With advancement of technology, applications are moving towards modern way of authentication from a traditional one. More and more biometric based authentication are being used apart from the password based. One of such example would be- Touch ID. Touch ID uses users' fingerprint to authenticate the user to device/ app.

How does it work- On a high level, when a user registers to choose to authenticate to his phone using his/ her fingerprints, the fingerprints are gets stored on the device in form of hashes. Next time when user tries authenticate self and submits his/ her fingerprints, the device matches the submitted fingerprint hash with the ones with already stored and takes decision whether to authenticate him/ her or not.

Sounds good, but what's the issue- It's a very convenient technology to open the phone with just a mild touch of your fingerprint. No need to remember/ change/ maintain PIN or passwords. It's more secure because it's completely unique, and it does not suffer from security issues which traditional ones suffer- guessing, brute-force, stealing etc.
Now, another side of the coin- security. How secure it is- it's pretty secure- till there's only one user registered. How about multi-user registration on same device- eg, husband and wife.
Now again, how about the apps using the Touch ID as an authentication- As mentioned above, one user, it's fine. Multi-user, if all are intended user of the app, again fine. But if not- in cases where if two friends have registered on the same phone to use it as a common phone to use all the apps- except sensitive ones such as banking apps. Each of the friends can access each other's account- sounds scary? Let's replace friends with acquaintances.

Many apps don't take care of the above scenarios. A trusted friend-turned-disgruntled steals the the phone and authenticates him/ her self to access other's account. Or, in a complex case, the phone is stolen by a third person, roots it ad replays the touch id tokens. Most of the apps have MFA- muti factor authentication- such as SMS OTP- but these are effective against traditional password based remote attacks. But not in this scenario- because the phone is already in attacker's possession and the SMS OTP would be received on the same device, defeating purpose of MFA. 

So there has to be some limitation/ controls on use of Touch ID authentication so that there's a fine balance between usability vs security. A few approaches are discussed below:

  • For the apps using Touch ID must take extra care on what to display and what not 'be default'. One default case would be just showing account summary/ balances. 
  • If someone try to gets past that screen, another form of MFA which is out-of-band which is not delivered on the same device must be used. Examples would be, hardware tokens. SMS OTP on same device is not an effective control.
  • Supplemented by account login passwords/ soft tokens, which are unknown to the attacker
  • Clearly devise a policy as what kind of transactions are protected by which control. For example, for High risk transactions, we need to have hardware tokens or randomly generated soft tokens protected by a static PIN which is only known to the legitimate user. Needless to say all of should be validated on server side.
All of the approached can be used in order to achieve mix and match between usability and security.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ardilla- New tool for finding SQL Injection and XSS

Three Researchers -- MIT's Adam Kiezun , Stanford's Philip Guo , and Syracuse University's Karthick Jayaraman -- has developed a new tool ' Ardilla ' that automatically finds and exploits SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Web applications. It creates inputs that pinpoint bugs in Web applications and then generates SQL injection and XSS attacks. But for now Ardilla is for PHP -based Web app only. The researchers say Ardilla found 68 never-before found vulnerabilities in five different PHP applications using the tool -- 23 SQL injection and 45 XSS flaws. More information is awaited. For their attack generation techniques refer to their document at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/create-attacks-tr054.pdf

Combining power of Fiddler with Burp

Both are pretty powerful tools when it comes to intercept and modify http communications. But at some point of time, they become even more powerful combo if tied with each other. They complement each other. In a recent pentest I came across a similar situation where in Burp was not able to intercept a specific kind of traffic and Fiddler came to rescue. The application was designed to upload video. The initial communication was straight forward, I mean logging into application, filling up the video details etc. And all these were easily captured by Burp except the point where you hit the Upload Video and it connects to a different server and surprisingly it was not captured by Burp, not sure why, even after repeated attempts. So, I fired Fiddler to see if the it sees this request. But it's a;ways to play with requests using Burp due to it's various functionalities like, Intruder, Repeaters etc. But it was necessary to capture this request in Burp. So the below steps can be

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T