I'm working with Firebase for an iOS application. I'm trying to understand how strict my rules need to be, so am trying to attack them myself. My thinking is, if I can find ways of circumventing really lax rules (such as .read and .write are allowed, or simply require authorization) I can build more rules as needed.
I'm fairly confident in the security of my credentials, so an attacker would have to sniff traffic using a proxy, and somehow use their authorization token to make their own calls against the Firebase database. What method would a user be able to use to grab their authorization token (by sniffing proxy traffic, or otherwise) to make their own calls to the database? It seems the Firebase SDK on iOS uses websockets, and the tools for sniffing web traffic (like Charles Proxy) don't seem to easily support websocket sniffing for iOS, so should I be in the clear without any database rules in my app?
In short, is there a way I can act as a bad actor and attack my own database by hijacking my Firebase authorization token? If not, do I really need to worry about the database rules?
You might be missing the point (a bit).
Security rules can be used to limit what a particular user can do. Whether or not that use obtains legitimate credentials is not your concern. There are many ways that a user can give up their credentials to an attacker, and there's nothing you can do about it, so don't put effort into stopping that from happening. If you are worried about sniffing or phishing, just know that it's out of your control, and the user's device can give up every private piece of information if it's compromised. Just make sure that each user can do only what you allow, without respect to anything else.
Outside of per-user rules, you should only be concerned about what unauthenticated users can do in your database. If you allow any unauthenticated reads or writes, you need to think about that carefully and write the rules carefully. Ideally, you do not allow public writes except in very controlled situations.
In addition to what Doug Stevenson said, it's worth looking at restricting what users can write to the database in terms of the object structure.
Personally I've used Firebase Bolt which simplifies the process.
If you want a user to write to their account object which contains firstName and emailAddress you could write the bolt markup as;
type Accounts {
emailAddress: String,
firstName: String
}
path /accounts/{uid} is Accounts {
create() { auth != null && auth.uid == uid; }
update() { auth != null && auth.uid == uid; }
}
This helps keep your data clean and restricts the user from breaking logic. If they have a flat .write access to their nodes, they can delete data, or create unstructured objects which can cause problems. Defining the model helps secure/maintain the integrity of the database.
Related
I am making an application that will use Firebase realtime database for distribution of some data. I think my requirements are more or less common.
Few clients with dedicated app written in Java have read/write access.
Many mobile application users have read only access
Anyone else should have problems reading data (well, some problems)
Anyone else should not be able to read some parts of the data
Anyone else should not be able to write data (this is the most important)
While 3 is a desire, 4 is a strong desire, but 5 is an important requirement.
So far I see two approaches to this task
Give read and write access to authorized users, like
"rules": {
".read": "auth.uid !== null",
".write": "auth.uid !== null"
}
Automatically authenticate mobile users with anonymous login, authenticate writers with any other (OAuth) authentication.
Give read access to anyone, write access to authenticated users
"rules": {
".read": "true",
".write": "auth.uid !== null"
}
and encrypt the data or sensitive portions of it.
In any of these methods I see disadvantages. Method 1 is not good, because anyone who can hack the APK will be able to write to the database - this is unacceptable. Also Google will create hundreds or thousands of anonymous accounts for the database - one for each authorization attempt.
Method 2 avoids this, but there is another issue - anyone with good Internet connection will be able to download ALL the data, making me pay huge money to Google. Each terabyte of malicious download will cost me $1000. The only knowledge required to do this is the URL of the database. And in this case I will not be able to do anything, because all clients are already configured for an unrestricted read access.
Are my expectations correct, and what could be the right solution?
Your security rules should reflect precisely what you want your users to allow to do. In that sense they are part of your application code, just like the Java/Kotlin code is that runs on the Android devices.
My preferred model is to evolve my security rules as I'm writing application code.
So I initially grant nobody any access, as I have no code in my app yet that requires access.
Then as I for example write profile data from the app, my security rules reject that write. I modify my rules to allow only the new operation, and nothing else. So: a user can only write their own profile.
Next I may want all signed-in users to read each others' profile, so I write the code for that, which once again gets rejected. And then again, I modify my security rules to allow this specific read operation.
This approach leads to security rules that grant the minimal access that is needed, rather than your approach that tries to implement security as one big toggle for the entire database.
I highly recommend reading the Firebase documentation on security rules, specifically the page that contains some basic use-cases like the one I describe above
The Firebase Web-App guide states I should put the given apiKey in my Html to initialize Firebase:
// TODO: Replace with your project's customized code snippet
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/firebasejs/3.0.2/firebase.js"></script>
<script>
// Initialize Firebase
var config = {
apiKey: '<your-api-key>',
authDomain: '<your-auth-domain>',
databaseURL: '<your-database-url>',
storageBucket: '<your-storage-bucket>'
};
firebase.initializeApp(config);
</script>
By doing so, the apiKey is exposed to every visitor.
What is the purpose of that key and is it really meant to be public?
The apiKey in this configuration snippet just identifies your Firebase project on the Google servers. It is not a security risk for someone to know it. In fact, it is necessary for them to know it, in order for them to interact with your Firebase project. This same configuration data is also included in every iOS and Android app that uses Firebase as its backend.
In that sense it is very similar to the database URL that identifies the back-end database associated with your project in the same snippet: https://<app-id>.firebaseio.com. See this question on why this is not a security risk: How to restrict Firebase data modification?, including the use of Firebase's server side security rules to ensure only authorized users can access the backend services.
If you want to learn how to secure all data access to your Firebase backend services is authorized, read up on the documentation on Firebase security rules. These rules control access to file storage and database access, and are enforced on the Firebase servers. So no matter if it's your code, or somebody else's code that uses you configuration data, it can only do what the security rules allow it to do.
For another explanation of what Firebase uses these values for, and for which of them you can set quotas, see the Firebase documentation on using and managing API keys.
If you'd like to reduce the risk of committing this configuration data to version control, consider using the SDK auto-configuration of Firebase Hosting. While the keys will still end up in the browser in the same format, they won't be hard-coded into your code anymore with that.
Update (May 2021): Thanks to the new feature called Firebase App Check, it is now actually possible to limit access to the backend services in your Firebase project to only those coming from iOS, Android and Web apps that are registered in that specific project.
You'll typically want to combine this with the user authentication based security described above, so that you have another shield against abusive users that do use your app.
By combining App Check with security rules you have both broad protection against abuse, and fine gained control over what data each user can access, while still allowing direct access to the database from your client-side application code.
Building on the answers of prufrofro and Frank van Puffelen here, I put together this setup that doesn't prevent scraping, but can make it slightly harder to use your API key.
Warning: To get your data, even with this method, one can for example simply open the JS console in Chrome and type:
firebase.database().ref("/get/all/the/data").once("value", function (data) {
console.log(data.val());
});
Only the database security rules can protect your data.
Nevertheless, I restricted my production API key use to my domain name like this:
https://console.developers.google.com/apis
Select your Firebase project
Credentials
Under API keys, pick your Browser key. It should look like this: "Browser key (auto created by Google Service)"
In "Accept requests from these
HTTP referrers (web sites)", add the URL of your app (exemple: projectname.firebaseapp.com/* )
Now the app will only work on this specific domain name. So I created another API Key that will be private for localhost developement.
Click Create credentials > API Key
By default, as mentioned by Emmanuel Campos, Firebase only whitelists localhost and your Firebase hosting domain.
In order to make sure I don't publish the wrong API key by mistake, I use one of the following methods to automatically use the more restricted one in production.
Setup for Create-React-App
In /env.development:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###dev-key###
In /env.production:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###public-key###
In /src/index.js
const firebaseConfig = {
apiKey: process.env.REACT_APP_API_KEY,
// ...
};
I am not convinced to expose security/config keys to client. I would not call it secure, not because some one can steal all private information from first day, because someone can make excessive request, and drain your quota and make you owe to Google a lot of money.
You need to think about many concepts from restricting people not to access where they are not supposed to be, DOS attacks etc.
I would more prefer the client first will hit to your web server, there you put what ever first hand firewall, captcha , cloudflare, custom security in between the client and server, or between server and firebase and you are good to go. At least you can first stop suspect activity before it reaches to firebase. You will have much more flexibility.
I only see one good usage scenario for using client based config for internal usages. For example, you have internal domain, and you are pretty sure outsiders cannot access there, so you can setup environment like browser -> firebase type.
The API key exposure creates a vulnerability when user/password sign up is enabled. There is an open API endpoint that takes the API key and allows anyone to create a new user account. They then can use this new account to log in to your Firebase Auth protected app or use the SDK to auth with user/pass and run queries.
I've reported this to Google but they say it's working as intended.
If you can't disable user/password accounts you should do the following:
Create a cloud function to auto disable new users onCreate and create a new DB entry to manage their access.
Ex: MyUsers/{userId}/Access: 0
exports.addUser = functions.auth.user().onCreate(onAddUser);
exports.deleteUser = functions.auth.user().onDelete(onDeleteUser);
Update your rules to only allow reads for users with access > 1.
On the off chance the listener function doesn't disable the account fast enough then the read rules will prevent them from reading any data.
I believe once database rules are written accurately, it will be enough to protect your data. Moreover, there are guidelines that one can follow to structure your database accordingly. For example, making a UID node under users, and putting all under information under it. After that, you will need to implement a simple database rule as below
"rules": {
"users": {
"$uid": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid"
}
}
}
}
No other user will be able to read other users' data, moreover, domain policy will restrict requests coming from other domains.
One can read more about it on
Firebase Security rules
While the original question was answered (that the api key can be exposed - the protection of the data must be set from the DB rulles), I was also looking for a solution to restrict the access to specific parts of the DB.
So after reading this and some personal research about the possibilities, I came up with a slightly different approach to restrict data usage for unauthorised users:
I save my users in my DB too, under the same uid (and save the profile data in there). So i just set the db rules like this:
".read": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()",
".write": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()"
This way only a previous saved user can add new users in the DB so there is no way anyone without an account can do operations on DB.
Also adding new users is posible only if the user has a special role and edit only by admin or by that user itself (something like this):
"userdata": {
"$userId": {
".write": "$userId === auth.uid || root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').val() === 'superadmin'",
...
EXPOSURE OF API KEYS ISN'T A SECURITY RISK BUT ANYONE CAN PUT YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THEIR SITE.
Open api keys leads to attacks that can use a lot resources at firebase that will definitely cost your hard money.
You can always restrict you firebase project keys to domains / IP's.
https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/key
select your project Id and key and restrict it to Your Android/iOs/web App.
It is oky to include them, and special care is required only for Firebase ML or when using Firebase Authentication
API keys for Firebase are different from typical API keys:
Unlike how API keys are typically used, API keys for Firebase services are not used to control access to backend resources; that can only be done with Firebase Security Rules. Usually, you need to fastidiously guard API keys (for example, by using a vault service or setting the keys as environment variables); however, API keys for Firebase services are ok to include in code or checked-in config files.
Although API keys for Firebase services are safe to include in code, there are a few specific cases when you should enforce limits for your API key; for example, if you're using Firebase ML or using Firebase Authentication with the email/password sign-in method. Learn more about these cases later on this page.
For more informations, check the offical docs
I am making a blog website on github pages. I got an idea to embbed comments in the end of every blog page. I understand how firebase get and gives you data.
I have tested many times with project and even using console. I am totally disagree the saying vlit is vulnerable.
Believe me there is no issue of showing your api key publically if you have followed privacy steps recommend by firebase.
Go to https://console.developers.google.com/apis
and perfrom a security steup.
You should not expose this info. in public, specially api keys.
It may lead to a privacy leak.
Before making the website public you should hide it. You can do it in 2 or more ways
Complex coding/hiding
Simply put firebase SDK codes at bottom of your website or app thus firebase automatically does all works. you don't need to put API keys anywhere
The Firebase Web-App guide states I should put the given apiKey in my Html to initialize Firebase:
// TODO: Replace with your project's customized code snippet
<script src="https://www.gstatic.com/firebasejs/3.0.2/firebase.js"></script>
<script>
// Initialize Firebase
var config = {
apiKey: '<your-api-key>',
authDomain: '<your-auth-domain>',
databaseURL: '<your-database-url>',
storageBucket: '<your-storage-bucket>'
};
firebase.initializeApp(config);
</script>
By doing so, the apiKey is exposed to every visitor.
What is the purpose of that key and is it really meant to be public?
The apiKey in this configuration snippet just identifies your Firebase project on the Google servers. It is not a security risk for someone to know it. In fact, it is necessary for them to know it, in order for them to interact with your Firebase project. This same configuration data is also included in every iOS and Android app that uses Firebase as its backend.
In that sense it is very similar to the database URL that identifies the back-end database associated with your project in the same snippet: https://<app-id>.firebaseio.com. See this question on why this is not a security risk: How to restrict Firebase data modification?, including the use of Firebase's server side security rules to ensure only authorized users can access the backend services.
If you want to learn how to secure all data access to your Firebase backend services is authorized, read up on the documentation on Firebase security rules. These rules control access to file storage and database access, and are enforced on the Firebase servers. So no matter if it's your code, or somebody else's code that uses you configuration data, it can only do what the security rules allow it to do.
For another explanation of what Firebase uses these values for, and for which of them you can set quotas, see the Firebase documentation on using and managing API keys.
If you'd like to reduce the risk of committing this configuration data to version control, consider using the SDK auto-configuration of Firebase Hosting. While the keys will still end up in the browser in the same format, they won't be hard-coded into your code anymore with that.
Update (May 2021): Thanks to the new feature called Firebase App Check, it is now actually possible to limit access to the backend services in your Firebase project to only those coming from iOS, Android and Web apps that are registered in that specific project.
You'll typically want to combine this with the user authentication based security described above, so that you have another shield against abusive users that do use your app.
By combining App Check with security rules you have both broad protection against abuse, and fine gained control over what data each user can access, while still allowing direct access to the database from your client-side application code.
Building on the answers of prufrofro and Frank van Puffelen here, I put together this setup that doesn't prevent scraping, but can make it slightly harder to use your API key.
Warning: To get your data, even with this method, one can for example simply open the JS console in Chrome and type:
firebase.database().ref("/get/all/the/data").once("value", function (data) {
console.log(data.val());
});
Only the database security rules can protect your data.
Nevertheless, I restricted my production API key use to my domain name like this:
https://console.developers.google.com/apis
Select your Firebase project
Credentials
Under API keys, pick your Browser key. It should look like this: "Browser key (auto created by Google Service)"
In "Accept requests from these
HTTP referrers (web sites)", add the URL of your app (exemple: projectname.firebaseapp.com/* )
Now the app will only work on this specific domain name. So I created another API Key that will be private for localhost developement.
Click Create credentials > API Key
By default, as mentioned by Emmanuel Campos, Firebase only whitelists localhost and your Firebase hosting domain.
In order to make sure I don't publish the wrong API key by mistake, I use one of the following methods to automatically use the more restricted one in production.
Setup for Create-React-App
In /env.development:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###dev-key###
In /env.production:
REACT_APP_API_KEY=###public-key###
In /src/index.js
const firebaseConfig = {
apiKey: process.env.REACT_APP_API_KEY,
// ...
};
I am not convinced to expose security/config keys to client. I would not call it secure, not because some one can steal all private information from first day, because someone can make excessive request, and drain your quota and make you owe to Google a lot of money.
You need to think about many concepts from restricting people not to access where they are not supposed to be, DOS attacks etc.
I would more prefer the client first will hit to your web server, there you put what ever first hand firewall, captcha , cloudflare, custom security in between the client and server, or between server and firebase and you are good to go. At least you can first stop suspect activity before it reaches to firebase. You will have much more flexibility.
I only see one good usage scenario for using client based config for internal usages. For example, you have internal domain, and you are pretty sure outsiders cannot access there, so you can setup environment like browser -> firebase type.
The API key exposure creates a vulnerability when user/password sign up is enabled. There is an open API endpoint that takes the API key and allows anyone to create a new user account. They then can use this new account to log in to your Firebase Auth protected app or use the SDK to auth with user/pass and run queries.
I've reported this to Google but they say it's working as intended.
If you can't disable user/password accounts you should do the following:
Create a cloud function to auto disable new users onCreate and create a new DB entry to manage their access.
Ex: MyUsers/{userId}/Access: 0
exports.addUser = functions.auth.user().onCreate(onAddUser);
exports.deleteUser = functions.auth.user().onDelete(onDeleteUser);
Update your rules to only allow reads for users with access > 1.
On the off chance the listener function doesn't disable the account fast enough then the read rules will prevent them from reading any data.
I believe once database rules are written accurately, it will be enough to protect your data. Moreover, there are guidelines that one can follow to structure your database accordingly. For example, making a UID node under users, and putting all under information under it. After that, you will need to implement a simple database rule as below
"rules": {
"users": {
"$uid": {
".read": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid",
".write": "auth != null && auth.uid == $uid"
}
}
}
}
No other user will be able to read other users' data, moreover, domain policy will restrict requests coming from other domains.
One can read more about it on
Firebase Security rules
While the original question was answered (that the api key can be exposed - the protection of the data must be set from the DB rulles), I was also looking for a solution to restrict the access to specific parts of the DB.
So after reading this and some personal research about the possibilities, I came up with a slightly different approach to restrict data usage for unauthorised users:
I save my users in my DB too, under the same uid (and save the profile data in there). So i just set the db rules like this:
".read": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()",
".write": "auth != null && root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').exists()"
This way only a previous saved user can add new users in the DB so there is no way anyone without an account can do operations on DB.
Also adding new users is posible only if the user has a special role and edit only by admin or by that user itself (something like this):
"userdata": {
"$userId": {
".write": "$userId === auth.uid || root.child('/userdata/'+auth.uid+'/userRole').val() === 'superadmin'",
...
EXPOSURE OF API KEYS ISN'T A SECURITY RISK BUT ANYONE CAN PUT YOUR CREDENTIALS ON THEIR SITE.
Open api keys leads to attacks that can use a lot resources at firebase that will definitely cost your hard money.
You can always restrict you firebase project keys to domains / IP's.
https://console.cloud.google.com/apis/credentials/key
select your project Id and key and restrict it to Your Android/iOs/web App.
It is oky to include them, and special care is required only for Firebase ML or when using Firebase Authentication
API keys for Firebase are different from typical API keys:
Unlike how API keys are typically used, API keys for Firebase services are not used to control access to backend resources; that can only be done with Firebase Security Rules. Usually, you need to fastidiously guard API keys (for example, by using a vault service or setting the keys as environment variables); however, API keys for Firebase services are ok to include in code or checked-in config files.
Although API keys for Firebase services are safe to include in code, there are a few specific cases when you should enforce limits for your API key; for example, if you're using Firebase ML or using Firebase Authentication with the email/password sign-in method. Learn more about these cases later on this page.
For more informations, check the offical docs
I am making a blog website on github pages. I got an idea to embbed comments in the end of every blog page. I understand how firebase get and gives you data.
I have tested many times with project and even using console. I am totally disagree the saying vlit is vulnerable.
Believe me there is no issue of showing your api key publically if you have followed privacy steps recommend by firebase.
Go to https://console.developers.google.com/apis
and perfrom a security steup.
You should not expose this info. in public, specially api keys.
It may lead to a privacy leak.
Before making the website public you should hide it. You can do it in 2 or more ways
Complex coding/hiding
Simply put firebase SDK codes at bottom of your website or app thus firebase automatically does all works. you don't need to put API keys anywhere
I have most of my MVC 4 web application ready. I have even developed the password auto-generation algorithm. Now I am stuck as to how to show this password to the user.
The controller handling the Sign Up process is the one that will generate the password by calling a method from the PasswordGenerator class. I want to show this to the user in a message box using some jQuery.
I've tried passing it through TempData and ViewBag but the password can be seen in the HTML code sent over the internet. Is there anyway to do this securely without showing the password over the internet?
FYI, sending an email with the password is not an option. This is a class project, not intended for something of that magnitude.
Any help would be appreciated.
For starters, there's nothing special about jQuery, TempData, or ViewBag that's useful to you here. Anything you send over the internet gets, you know, sent over the internet. If an attacker has control of your user's network, then they can intercept a javascript->WebApi call or an email more-or-less as easily as they can intercept an HTML page.
More generally, you should be aware of the trade-offs between security, usability, and development cost. By-and-large there is no such thing as "secure". There are threats you can mitigate and specific attacks you can and should defend against, but there's also a level of risk you can accept depending on the nature of your service.
So, what can we do in this situation:-
The most obvious action to take (and the only one I would truly recommend in your case) is to enable SSL. This secures your transport layer against most snooping with no practical drawbacks. Any time you send sensitive data over the internet, you should use SSL. Some would argue you should use SSL always.
You can mitigate over-the-shoulder-type snooping by hiding the password using javascript, and having the user perform some action to "uncover" it (such as hovering the mouse pointer over a target, or pressing a button). Beware that some of your users may be inexperienced, disabled, or using a mobile device. If I were assessing you, I would care far more that you were "being careful" about accessibility than about hand-rolling your own security hacks!
You can mitigate computer-left-unlocked attacks somewhat by timing out the user's session. You'll see this used frequently with internet banking. Be aware that this also has a usability cost - in particular I would be concerned about timing a user out while they're looking for a pen and a post-it to write down the password you generated for them!
A tangential note:- Storing passwords properly is hard, and storing passwords improperly can be disastrous. Make sure you're doing it correctly! At your level of experience, I would strongly advise against rolling your own password storage system unless your assessor has specifically asked you to. Furthermore, having the server generate passwords for end users to remember is quite controversial. If you haven't been specifically asked for it, you should consider whether it is the right approach and make sure you justify it. For something of this scale, you may want to look into some kind of federated authentication (e.g. "sign in with your google account") instead of handling passwords at all.
I'm going to be writing the services for an iPhone app being built by a third party vendor.
I'll be using ASP.NET MVC to accept posts and also return JSON formatted data.
My question is, how do you secure it?
Just using an API key perhaps? Would that be enough to ensure that only data from the iPhone apps are allowed to hit the specified services?
I'm sort of struggling with the same concepts myself. I think the first thing is to do HTTPS only, so that it's starting out more secure than not.
Next, it depends on how you're going to do authentication. If all you need is an API key, (to track which entity is accessing the data) that should be fine. If you also want to track user information, you'll need some way to associate that specific API keys can access specific types of records, based on a join somewhere.
I'm looking at doing forms auth on my app, and using an auth cookie. Fortunately ASP.NET on IIS can do a lot of that heavy lifting for you.
Example time: (I'm sure I'll need to add more to this, but while I'm at work it gives something to gnaw on)
Forms auth:
Send a pair (or more) of fields in a form body. This is POST through and through. There's no amount of non-reversible hashing that can make this secure. To secure it you must either always be behind a firewall from all intruding eyes (yeah right) or you must be over HTTPS. Simple enough.
Basic auth:
Send a base64 encoded string of "username:password" over the wire as part of the header. Note that base64 is to secure as a screen door is to a submarine. You do not want it to be unsecured. HTTPS is required.
API key:
This says that an app is supposedly XYZ. This should be private. This has nothing to do with users. Preferably is that at the time that the API key is requested, a public key is shared with the API grantor, allowing the API key to be encoded on transit, thus ensuring that it stays private but still proves the source as who they are. This can get complicated, but because there is an application process and because it won't change from the vendor, this can be done over HTTP. This does not mean per-user, this means per-developing-company-that-uses-your-api.
So what you want to have happen is that for the app accessing your data, that you want to make sure it's an authorized app, you can do negotiation using private keys for signing at runtime. This ensures that you're talking to the app you want to talk to. But remember, this does not mean that the user is who they say they are.
HOWEVER.
What you can do is you can use the API key and the associated public/private keys to encode the username and password information for sending them over the wire using HTTP. This is very similar to how HTTPS works but you're only encrypting the sensitive part of the message.
But to let a user track their information, you're going to have to assign a token based on login based on a user. So let them login, send the data over the wire using the appropriate system, then return some unique identifier that represents the user back to the app. Let the app then send that information every time that you are doing user specific tasks. (generally all the time).
The way you send it over the wire is you tell the client to set a cookie, and all the httpClient implementations I've ever seen know that when they make a request to the server, they send back all cookies the server has ever set that are still valid. It just happens for you. So you set a cookie on your response on the server that contains whatever information you need to communicate with the client by.
HTH, ask me more questions so we can refine this further.
One option would be to use forms authentication and use the authentication cookie. Also, make sure all the service calls are being sent over SSL.