Prev: Put all class in one file or different files
Next: Caution Fraud Alert about Antony Papamichail
From: tedd on 29 Aug 2010 12:24
Hi gangl:

I realize that the problem stated herein has been solved by others,
so I'm not claiming I've done anything new -- it's only new to me. It
was a learning experience for *me* and my solution may help others.

In any event, I've finished creating a method for establishing what I
think is secure communication between two servers. I've written two
scripts that run on different servers, which confirm communication
between them via hard-wired urls and creating/writing/reading a
url-confirmation file.

The purpose of this exercise was to simply to keep database-access
data (i.e., user_name, password, key to decryption) secret. However,
the secret could be anything you want to keep secret -- secret being
defined as no data residing on the server of concern while allowing
that server access to the data when needed and under authorization.

Here's what I've done -- I have two domains, namely webbytedd.com
(the Master) and php1.net (the Slave) -- both domains reside on
different servers. The domain names really don't matter, it's just
that this method currently works between those two domains.

Statement of Requirements:

1. The Master requires "access" to it's database.

2. The Slave keeps "access" to Master's database in it's own database.

3. It's required that "access" remain secret in the event that the
Master is hacked.

*The term "access" above is defined as database-access data, such as
user_name, password, and key to decryption.

Description of Method:

1. When the Master wants access to it's database, it first creates a
url-confirmation file and writes a token to that file, which resides
on the Master. I've used time() as the token, but the token could be
any variable -- it really doesn't make much difference other than the
value should be different each time.

2. The Master then sends a cURL request to the Slave via a POST where
the POST variable contains the token.

3. The Slave when receiving the POST request from Master reads the
token from the newly created url-confirmation file residing on the
Master and then compares that token with the token provided by the
POST -- if the tokens match, then the Slave returns "the access" to
the Master. If not, the process fails.

4. After receiving "access" the Master deletes the url-confirmation
file and continues with it operation. If the Master does not receive
"access" then it deletes the url-confirmation file and exits.

This method sounds simple enough and does several things.

1. There is no "access" stored on the Master.

2. While the Slave has "access" for the Master stored in its
database, the access to the Slave's database is kept in an
out-of-root (not open to the web) file. Note, in this case, this was
not possible on the Master because the host did not allow out-of-root
files -- but that is only tangential to the problem addressed here.

3. If a hacker did obtain access to the Slave database, then the
hacker would discover the contents have been encrypted and only the
Master has the decryption key kept in it's database.

4. If a hacker did obtain access to the code residing on the Master,
then the hacker could not access the Master's database because the
"access" data is recorded on another server (i.e., Slave).
Furthermore, the hacker could not get the code to run anywhere else
because the Slave's "look-up URL" for the url-confirmation file is
hardwired to the Master address.

5. And lastly, all communication between both domains is done via https.

Now, for the exception of both server's being hacked at the same
time, what could go wrong?

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com/
From: Peter Lind on 29 Aug 2010 12:40
On 29 August 2010 18:24, tedd <tedd(a)sperling.com> wrote:
> Hi gangl:
>
> I realize that the problem stated herein has been solved by others, so I'm
> not claiming I've done anything new -- it's only new to me. It was a
> learning experience for *me* and my solution may help others.
>
> In any event, I've finished creating a method for establishing what I think
> is secure communication between two servers. I've written two scripts that
> run on different servers, which confirm communication between them via
> hard-wired urls and creating/writing/reading a url-confirmation file.
>
> The purpose of this exercise was to simply to keep database-access data
> (i.e., user_name, password, key to decryption) secret. However, the secret
> could be anything you want to keep secret -- secret being defined as no data
> residing on the server of concern while allowing that server access to the
> data when needed and under authorization.
>
> Here's what I've done -- I have two domains, namely webbytedd.com (the
> Master) and php1.net (the Slave) -- both domains reside on different
> servers. The domain names really don't matter, it's just that this method
> currently works between those two domains.
>
> Statement of Requirements:
>
> 1. The Master requires "access" to it's database.
>
> 2. The Slave keeps "access" to Master's database in it's own database.
>
> 3. It's required that "access" remain secret in the event that the Master is
> hacked.
>
> *The term "access" above is defined as database-access data, such as
> user_name, password, and key to decryption.
>
> Description of Method:
>
> 1. When the Master wants access to it's database, it first creates a
> url-confirmation file and writes a token to that file, which resides on the
> Master. I've used time() as the token, but the token could be any variable
> -- it really doesn't make much difference other than the value should be
> different each time.
>
> 2. The Master then sends a cURL request to the Slave via a POST where the
> POST variable contains the token.
>
> 3. The Slave when receiving the POST request from Master reads the token
> from the newly created url-confirmation file residing on the Master and then
> compares that token with the token provided by the POST -- if the tokens
> match, then the Slave returns "the access" to the Master. If not, the
> process fails.
>
> 4. After receiving "access" the Master deletes the url-confirmation file and
> continues with it operation. If the Master does not receive "access" then it
> deletes the url-confirmation file and exits.
>
> This method sounds simple enough and does several things.
>
> 1. There is no "access" stored on the Master.
>
> 2. While the Slave has "access" for the Master stored in its database, the
> access to the Slave's database is kept in an out-of-root (not open to the
> web) file. Note, in this case, this was not possible on the Master because
> the host did not allow out-of-root files -- but that is only tangential to
> the problem addressed here.
>
> 3. If a hacker did obtain access to the Slave database, then the hacker
> would discover the contents have been encrypted and only the Master has the
> decryption key kept in it's database.
>
> 4. If a hacker did obtain access to the code residing on the Master, then
> the hacker could not access the Master's database because the "access" data
> is recorded on another server (i.e., Slave). Furthermore, the hacker could
> not get the code to run anywhere else because the Slave's "look-up URL" for
> the url-confirmation file is hardwired to the Master address.
>
> 5. And lastly, all communication between both domains is done via https.
>
> Now, for the exception of both server's being hacked at the same time, what
> could go wrong?

A) I wouldn't want to reinvent the wheel but would use
SSL/certificates/something to that effect (it's a whole lot more
secure than your setup), and B) there's nothing in this setup that
secures you from someone hacking Master and just sucking out data from
that machine.

Regards
Peter

--
<hype>
WWW: http://plphp.dk / http://plind.dk
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/plind
BeWelcome/Couchsurfing: Fake51
Twitter: http://twitter.com/kafe15
</hype>
From: Per Jessen on 29 Aug 2010 13:02
tedd wrote:

> Hi gangl:
>=20
> I realize that the problem stated herein has been solved by others,
> so I'm not claiming I've done anything new -- it's only new to me. It=

> was a learning experience for *me* and my solution may help others.
>=20
> In any event, I've finished creating a method for establishing what I=

> think is secure communication between two servers.=20

First thought - you're reinventing the wheel. When I connect to a
server via https, I have secure communication.=20



--=20
Per Jessen, Z=C3=BCrich (16.5=C2=B0C)

From: Jim Lucas on 29 Aug 2010 13:31
Per Jessen wrote:
> tedd wrote:
>
>> Hi gangl:
>>
>> I realize that the problem stated herein has been solved by others,
>> so I'm not claiming I've done anything new -- it's only new to me. It
>> was a learning experience for *me* and my solution may help others.
>>
>> In any event, I've finished creating a method for establishing what I
>> think is secure communication between two servers.
>
> First thought - you're reinventing the wheel. When I connect to a
> server via https, I have secure communication.
>
>
>

First, it isn't the connection that he is trying to secure. He admits
to using HTTPS in his connections already. What I think he is trying to
prevent (correct me if I'm wrong) is access to the data on the opposite
server. He wants to make sure that the access to this data is only able
to be done by the remote server. Hence why he said that the key to the
local data is located only on the remote server. So, my guess would be
that the key would only be usable by the remote server. It would not
work on the local server.

Jim
From: tedd on 29 Aug 2010 14:36
At 10:31 AM -0700 8/29/10, Jim Lucas wrote:
>Per Jessen wrote:
>>tedd wrote:
>>
>>>Hi gangl:
>>>
>>>I realize that the problem stated herein has been solved by others,
>>>so I'm not claiming I've done anything new -- it's only new to me. It
>>>was a learning experience for *me* and my solution may help others.
>>>
>>>In any event, I've finished creating a method for establishing what I
>>>think is secure communication between two servers.
>>
>>First thought - you're reinventing the wheel. When I connect to a
>>server via https, I have secure communication.
>>
>
>First, it isn't the connection that he is trying to secure. He
>admits to using HTTPS in his connections already. What I think he
>is trying to prevent (correct me if I'm wrong) is access to the data
>on the opposite server. He wants to make sure that the access to
>this data is only able to be done by the remote server. Hence why
>he said that the key to the local data is located only on the remote
>server. So, my guess would be that the key would only be usable by
>the remote server. It would not work on the local server.
>


Jim:

Bingo. That's it.

Sometimes it's hard for people to fully understand what I am saying
even when I explain it in great detail. Often people respond with
what they feel is an obvious solution when the statement is much more
complicated than that.

Like in this example, I use HTTPS in all the steps yet one responder
said "use HTTPS". That means: 1) He didn't understand what I was
saying; 2) He didn't read what I wrote, which probably the reason for
#1.

Also, as per another responders statement, using a SSL does not
necessarily mean that the server is more secure. In the case I am
working on the host has a SSL, but I am still going this length
because of the possibility that the server may be hacked. The SSL
only assures visitors to the host that the host is who the host
claims to be. It does not assure, nor prevent, in any way that the
server may not be hacked -- am I wrong?

Cheers,

tedd

--
-------
http://sperling.com/
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Put all class in one file or different files
Next: Caution Fraud Alert about Antony Papamichail