According to this post, it's possible to decompile an iOS application.
How can I prevent an attacker from gaining access to my AWS DynamoDB database? Just having the access keys out in the open like shown on the Amazon developer guide doesn't seem like it would be very safe.
I would think that I could use keychain to store the keys, but I feel like there would be an easy way to get past this for a motivated attacker, given they have the app's assembly source code.
Currently, I connect using Amazon Cognito. All I have to use to connect are the identity ID and the role name. I don't see anything stopping an attacker from simply getting those values and connecting to the database.
For example, what stops an attacker from decompiling the Facebook iOS app code and deleting all of the users?
How can I prevent attackers from decompiling my iOS application and getting access to the database access keys, or at least prevent them from doing any major damage, such as deleting users?
Based on my admittedly limited experience, I'd say that a really motivated attacker will always be able to retrieve the credentials you use to access your database regardless of what you do to your executable. I would, however, question why you application needs to have direct access to your database in the first place.
The usual way to safeguard your serverside data is to use a web service to access it. App contacts web service with request, service contacts db, gets data, sends it back. Since the web service and the db are both hosted on your server and only the web service needs direct access to your db, there is no need to store db access info in your app. Problem solved.
It's impossible. In order for your program to do something, it must contain the instructions that allow the computer to follow to do that thing, which means anyone else can also follow those instructions to learn how to do the exact same thing.
You can use SQLCipher and use your auth's userToken and/or userId as cipher keys.
Related
in 2017 I would like to make an ios App for iphones/ipads in which I will have a database.
The database is the result of 7 years of research. This database is highly important to us. If it gets stolen, it could destroy our business.
Our idea is a medical app.
Users put their symptoms and it queries the database that gives the disease.
A developer told me it was not possible to protect the database. So its offer was simple : the symptoms are asked locally, then it generates a code that is sent to a server (internet). The server reads the code and process the query and sends back its result. The security is done on the server and not on the ios App. I dont like that solution as it is not local.
Another developer told me it was possible. The database is encrypted and decrypted in the RAM. It is highly secured. At least as secured as a server.
I dont know what to think, but I really would like to have your lights.
I would like the database to be highly secured and the app to work in local (no internet).
Thanks for your help
PS: I forgot to add that users never write on the database. They are just using it...
In my openion
If the data is extremely sensitive then it should never be stored offline on the device because all devices are crackable.
The keychain is one option for storing data securely. However it's encryption is based on the pin code of the device. User's are not forced to set a pin, so in some situations the data may not even be encrypted. In addition the users pin code may be easily hacked.
A better solution is to use something like SQLCipher which is a fully encrypted SQLite database. The encryption key can be enforced by the application and separate from the user's pin code.
Other security best practices are:
Only communicate with remote servers over SSL/HTTPS.
If possible implement certificate pinning in the application to prevent man-in-the-middle attacks on public WiFi.
Clear sensitive data out of memory by overwriting it.
Ensure all validation of data being submitted is also run on the server side.
I am developing an iOS application (to be deployed on the App Store) that requires content updates on a weekly basis.
I understand that the best way to achieve this would be to use a server, where the app would query for new data and download responses in JSON. However I am not knowledgeable when it comes to HTML, PHP or MySQL and therefore am endeavoring to find an alternative.
Here's an idea: using Dropbox to substitute for a server backend. My app connects to one central Dropbox account, checks for new files, and downloads them if present.
Is this idea feasible? If not, are there any alternatives?
Dropbox cannot be a dependable substitute for your server/backend for following reasons:
Dropbox uses OAuth for authentication, which needs user interaction. You do not want your app users to go through Dropbox authentication with your 'common' credentials.
Users who have a Dropbox account or the app installed, will most likely use their own credentials to login which completely breaks your flow.
Drobox, although a good way of sharing and syncing files is not meant for more meaningful data like web services etc or user/database interaction etc. Just syncing JSON file may suffice your app's needs for now but from a long term perspective you want a proper back end.
As suggested in the comment by #tkanzakic you can use one of the substitution services if you don't want to get too technical on the backend.
I am pretty late to the party, but this is possible and not necessarily a stupid idea (though this depends on what you need). You might want to have a look at remote storage for example, which allows you to use Dropbox among other providers as backend.
For sure, you can use the Dropbox Sync API to achieve this (https://www.dropbox.com/developers/sync).
I'm developing an application which lets users upload pictures. I'd like to use Google cloud services to store these pictures. I am creating a unique GUID for each image in database and would like to store the images in the cloud with that name. It makes sense for me to make an ajax request for a GUID and then upload the image from the same page directly to google cloud services.
https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/storage-getting-started-javascript/blob/master/index.html
Like shown in this example.
My first question is, should I be sending this to my back-end(C# code) and uploading it from there? Or is this the correct approach?
And my second question if this is the correct approach is, wouldn't exposing my details like that in javascript allow other people to upload from outside my application as well?
An API key, by itself, identifies a call as being associated with a certain project for purposes of billing. It's only necessary for anonymous calls. An API key does not grant any sort of authorizations. If there's an object in a bucket in your project that only your project members can see, the API key won't give anyone permission to read it.
That said, it's not a great idea to share your API key if you can help it, and if you need to share it, you should lock it down as much as possible. API keys can be limited to use with only certain IP addresses, only with certain web referrers (for instance, it will only work with JavaScript clients on www.yoursite.com), or only when run from a particular iPhone or Android app. These precautions aren't cryptographically fool-proof (there's no reason a hacker couldn't spoof a referer header), but they do make them pretty much useless for someone else who just wants to paste an API key somewhere to enable a web app and doesn't want to pay for it themselves.
The problem with using the javascript client's approach for your application is that individual users would either end up uploading objects completely anonymously or with their own Google accounts. Neither is super great, since the anonymous option would basically require you to create a bucket with anonymous writes enabled, and you don't want to do that.
There is a great approach to letting users upload pictures, though: signed URLs. Signed URLs allow your server to securely sign, in advance, a request to upload an object with your credentials. This is your best option for letting anonymous end users securely upload objects to your buckets.
Documentation on signed URLs: https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/accesscontrol#Signed-URLs
I'm currently building a mobile application (iOS at first), which needs a backend web service to communicate with.
Since this service will be exposing data that I only want to be accessed by my mobile clients, I would like to restrict the access to the service.
However I'm in a bit of a doubt as to how this should be implemented. Since my app doesn't require authentication, I can't just authenticate against the service with these credentials. Somehow I need to be able to identify if the request is coming from a trusted client (i.e. my app), and this of course leads to the thought that one could just use certificates. But couldn't this certificate just be extracted from the app and hence misused?
Currently my app is based on iOS, but later on android and WP will come as well.
The web service I'm expecting to develop in nodejs, though this is not a final decision - it will however be a RESTful service.
Any advice on best practice is appreciated!
Simple answer: You cannot prevent just anybody from acecssing your web site from a non-mobile client. You can, however, make it harder.
Easy:
Send a nonstandard HTTP header
Set some unique query parameter
Send an interesting (or subtly non-interesting) User Agent string
(you can probably think of a few more)
Difficult:
Implement a challenge/response protocol to identify your client
(Ab)use HTTP as a transport for your own encrypted content
(you can probably think of a few more)
Of course anybody could extract the data, decompile your code, replay your HTTP requests, and whatnot. But at some point, being able to access a free Web application wouldn't be worth the effort that'd be required to reverse-engineer your app.
There's a more basic question here, however. What would be the harm of accessing your site with some other client? You haven't said; and without that information it's basically impossible to recommend an appropriate solution.
I'm developing a simple iPhone app where users register, and sign in with their email/password. These values are stored in a remote database.
I'm using Cloudant to store this information (CouchDB is great), and have granted read-only privileges to a new user (created API key/pass). In order to communicate with Cloudant, you obviously need a URL to access it (eg https://user:pass#db.cloudant.com), which is stored in the app as a string.
Now, while I know this is pretty unsafe, I can't think of any other alternatives in order to keep the db URL safe (specifically the username/password for it). I've seen people talk about using another server to proxy through to obtain the credentials, but it seems a little awkward.
Any help or thoughts would be really appreciated!
Are you trying to make a connection from your iPhone app directly to the database? You shouldn't give your app read access to the whole remote user table / database. Sooner or later someone would find out and would have read access to your data. No matter how you try to obfuscate it, the user/password combination would need to be stored somehow in your app.
What you should do is build a web service that connects to your DB and verifies your users. The database password stays on a server. This proxy-approach is not awkward, it is the only way to keep your database logins away from your users.
One option is to create your own service in the cloud that abstracts away your storage. That also has the benefit of allowing you to change your storage without updating all your devices.
In that model, the service stores the credentials to access the storage and you implement user security in your application layer. I also wouldn't think of it as a proxy layer - that implies that it's a thin pass through. If you develop a service, you should define a web interface (rest, soap) that's agnostic to the storage. In that case, it's a service, not a proxy.
EDIT:
Typically the web service authenticates the user (don't write your own). Basic Auth with SSL is typical. Then, in that services context API, you get access to the username. From there, you do you what you need. Your storage is accessed with the one storage account that has full access to all content.
Another auth option is OAuth which allows them to authenticate with someone like google - you never get the password - just a token from google letting you know they authenticated and they are who they claim to be. For example, that's how stack overflow works.