Slashdot Mirror
Transec, a Secure Authentication Tag Library
Lado Kumsiashvili writes, "Micromata has placed Transec, a secure authentication JSP tag library, under the GPL. While developing the Polyas (German) online voting system, Micromata invented a component for secure PIN/password input via untrusted, insecure browsers. Transec is freely embeddable and redistributable for non-commercial projects; a commercial license is also available. Spyware in the form of Browser Helper Objects and keyloggers can capture user keyboard input even if it is encrypted. Transec enables user authentication using a 100% server-side control — only images and coordinates are transferred to the untrusted browser. The browser sends coordinate information of each click on this imagemap directly back to the server, and the server responds with a new image. If the browser is infected by malware, it can't give up the PIN/password since the browser doesn't know this information. The Java code and a demo application are available at the Transec homepage." I have heard tales of malware that can grab a screen capture in the vicinity of the cursor at any mouse-click. Does anyone know if such a threat actually exists?
"I have heard tales of malware that can grab a screen capture in the vicinity of the cursor at any mouse-click. Does anyone know if such a threat actually exists?"
Well, it does now.
This could very easily be replicated in praticially any web scripting language of your choice.
Exactly. It doesn't require any client-side processing. That's the beauty of it. This means you can TURN OFF javascript and it will still work.
As for the innovation- it allows a user to enter their pin while reducing the chance that it's snooped by malware, which is a Good Thing. It also makes it a lot harder for said malware to replicate the response compared to keyboard entry- because in addition to protecting your code, it also acts as a (primitive) captcha, making reasonably sure that whoever is entering the code is human.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Using images as a PIN-code isn't making things much more secure, if the same images are used every time. The credentials are still sent in a way that can be logged. It's just an extra annoyance for those who want to steal your password.
I use one-time passwords for accessing my home computer over SSH. Anyone can log my keystrokes, or look over my shoulder how much they want. The password is generated by an OPIE client running on my cell phone, and is valid only once.
OPIE clients run on virtually any kind of device. Just as long as you don't run it on the actual computer which you use to access the server, this is a more secure solution.
Using OPIE on untrusted servers would still present the security problem of initial passphrase synchronization between server and OPIE client - unless the passphrase is sent to the user by some secure channel, unlikely to be snooped.
Without breaking NDAs I can verify that such malware exists, in the wild. So far this functionality (taking screenshots) has not been used widely, but the necessary functions are there, screenshots are taken, it's just not been necessary to use them.
Picture shots would certainly increase security and raise the bar for malware writers. Current BHOs are able to manipulate the data stream on the fly, so you can never be sure what you send to your bank, and whether the data your bank sends to you is actually also displayed. With a picture, this becomes harder to manipulate.
Harder. Not impossible. Many malware BHO families are already prepared for this kind of defense and are working on a way around it (or already found a way around it). Any claim to make malware impossible is a lot of smoke screen and even more snake oil. The best defense against such attacks are still:
1. Using non-mainstreamy software. Malware is a business, target is the mass market. So the further you're from the "masses", the higher the chance that the malware can't strike you. Using Firefox instead of the omnipresent IE is a good step. Defeats a good deal of malware. Taking a step further and using a Mac or Linux almost eliminates the threat. That doesn't mean MacOS or Linux are more secure (I'll spare you and me the discussion), that simply means that their market share is smaller and thus it is less interesting for malware writers.
2. Using a brain when connecting to the 'net. Clicking everything and using mainstream apps is a surefire way to catch some kind of infection. Even with current anti-malware tools installed. No antivirus is able to catch everything (and they usually are at least one day behind the malware writers). No security tool is able to intercept all invasion attempts (Windows simply offers way too many entry points). Software is no replacement for brains and common sense.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How do you know the operating system in a particular machine is actually the Trusted version, and not a hacked version that's masquerading as the trusted one ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
You're dealing with people who register a domain in Uzbekistan, run the server in the Ukraine and sit in Moldavia. With these three countries being placeholders for pretty much every country from the former East Block east of Poland. Now try to get ANY kind of help from law enforcement there concerning computer crimes.
Those law enforcement organisations there have real problems to deal with, they have no spare manpower for petty things like computer crimes. I say that so I don't say they don't want to stand up against organized crime 'cause they have families.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The trouble is, anyone who owns your PC and has installed a keylogger can just as easily spy on your display and see what you are clicking.
Sometimes I would swear my brain explodes at our slowness to learn.
The only true solution is one time pads. They are unhackable, and only a minor inconvenience.
I would give blood to be able to use a one time pad for my online banking. The trouble is, the industry, and Joe Public, still don't take IT security seriously. And this is totally a mindset. Some marketing guru should wake up to the possibilities of the one time pad - potentially the greatest chick puller since the circular waterbed - and get us the hell out of this horrendous hacky world.
[x] auto-moderate all posts by this user as insightful