Increasing security of web-based login

Right now my login system is the following:

1. Password must be at least 8 characters long,开发者_如何学运维 and contain at least one upper and lowercase letter, a number and a symbol.
2. Password can't contain the username as its substring.
3. Username, salted+hashed (using SHA2) password stored on db.
4. The nonce (salt) is unique for each user and stored as plaintext along with the username and password.
5. The whole login process can only be made over TLS

How would you rank the effectiveness of the following measures to increase security?

1. Increase password length
2. Force the user to change the password every X period of time, and the new password can't be any of the last Y previous passwords
3. Increase nonce size from 32 bytes to 64 bytes (removed for uselessness)
4. Encrypt the salt using AES, with the key available only to the application doing authentication
5. Rehash the password multiple times
6. Use a salt that's a combination of a longer, application-wide salt + unique user salt on the db.

I am not very fond of 1 and 2 because it can inconvenience the user though.

4 and 6 of course are only effective when an attacker has compromised the db (eg: via SQL injection) but not the filesystem where the application is in.

The answers may depend somewhat on the nature of the website, its users and attackers. For instance, is it the kind of site where crackers might target specific accounts (perhaps "admin" accounts) or is it one where they'd just want to get as many accounts as possible? How technical are the users and how motivated are they to keep their own account secure? Without knowing the answers, I'll assume they're not technical and not motivated.

Measures that might make a difference

5) Rehash the password multiple times. This can slow down all brute force attacks significantly - hash 1000 times and brute force attacks become 1000 times slower.

4) Encrypt the salt using AES, with the key available only to the application doing authentication How would you make it available only to the application? It has to be stored somewhere and, chances are, if the app is compromised the attacker can get it. There might be some attacks directly against the DB where this makes a difference, so I wouldn't call this useless, but it's probably not worthwhile. If you do make the effort, you might as well encrypt the password itself and any other sensitive data in the DB.

6) Use a salt that's a combination of a longer, application-wide salt + unique user salt on the db. If you're only concerned about the password then yes, this would be a better way of achieving the same result as 4) and, of course, it's very easy to implement.

Ineffective measures

3) Increase nonce size from 32 bytes to 64 bytes. Computing rainbow tables is already completely impractical with any salt, so this would only make a difference if the salt was not known to the attacker. However, if they can get the hashed password they could also get the salt.

Ineffective and annoying measures

1) Increase password length Increasing password length beyond 8 won't make a practical difference to the brute force time.

2) Force the user to change the password I agree, this will always be worked around. In fact, it may make the site less secure, because people will write down the password somewhere!

1. Increasing password length add a few bits of entropy to the password.
2. Requiring frequent password changes will generally force the users to use less secure passwords. They will need to figure out what the password is in May, June, July. Some@05x, Some@06x, Some@07x.
3. Can't say for sure, but I would expect the password length to be more significant in your case.
4. Slightly more secure. But if someone gains access to your data, they can likely gain access to the key.
5. Other than increasing CPU costs, you won't gain anything.

There are a number of well tried one-way password encryption algorithms which are quite secure. I would use one of them rather than inventing my own. Your original items 1, 2, and 5 are all good. I would drop 3, and 4.

You could allow pass phrases to ease password length issues.

I would suggest that you read http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/cormac/papers/2009/SoLongAndNoThanks.pdf

This paper discusses part of the reason it is hard to get users to follwo good security advice; in short the costs lie with the users and they experience little or no benefit.

Increasing the password length and forcing more complex passwords can reduce seciryt by leading to one or both of; reused passwords between sites/applications and writing down of passwords.

3 Increase nonce size from 32 bytes to 64 bytes
4 Encrypt the salt using AES, with the key available only to the application doing authentication
5 Rehash the password multiple times

These steps only affect situations where the password file (DB columns) are stolen and visible to the attacker. The nonce only defeats pre-hashing (rainbow tables), but that's still a good thing and should be kept.

(Again, under the assumption you're trying to minimize the impact of a compromised DB.) Encrypting the nonce means the attacker has an extra brute-force step, but you didn't say where the encryption key for the nonce is stored. It's probably safe to assume that if the DB is compromised the nonce will be plaintext or trivially decrypted. So, the attacker's effort is once again a brute-force against each hash.

Rehashing just makes a brute-force attack take longer, but possibly not much more so depending on your assumptions about the potential attacker's cracks/second.

Regardless of your password composition requirements a user can still make a "more guessable" password like "P@ssw0rd" that adheres to the rule. So, brute force is likely to succeed for some population of users in any case. (By which I mean to highlight taking steps to prevent disclosure of the passwords.)

The password storage scheme sounds pretty good in terms of defense against disclosure. I would make sure other parts of the auth process are also secure (rate limiting login attempts, password expiration, SQL injection countermeasures, hard-to-predict session tokens, etc.) rather than over-engineering this part.

For existing:

e1: I see where you're coming from, but these rules are pretty harsh - it certainly increases security, but at the expense of user experience. As vulkanino mentions this is going to deter some users (depends on your audience - if this is an intranet application they have no choice... but they'll have a yellow sticky with their password on their monitor - cleaners and office loiterers are going to be your biggest issue).

e2: Is a start, but you should probably check against a list of bad passwords (eg: 'password', 'qwerty', the site URL)... there are several lists on the net to help you with this. Given your e1 conditions such a scan might be moot - but then surely users aren't going to have a username with 8 chars, upper+lower, a symbol and a number?

e3: Good call - prevent rainbow attacks.

e4: Unique salt prevents identification of multiple users with the same password, but there are other ways to make it unique - by using the username as a secondary salt+hash for example.

e5: Solid, although TLS has built in fall-backs, the lower end TLS protocols aren't very secure so you may want to check you're not allowing these connections.

New ideas:

n1+n2: e1 is already painful enough.

n3: No discernible benefit

n4: No discernible benefit - whatever the encryption process is would be available in the code, and so also likely compromised. That is unless your DB and App servers are two different machines hardened for their own tasks - in this case anything you can avoid storing with the password is helpful in the event the DB is compromised (in this case dropping unique salt from the database will help).

n5: Rehashing decreases brute force attack speed through your application - a worth while idea in many ways (within reason - a user won't notice a quarter second login delay, but will notice a 5 second delay... note this is also a moving target as hardware gets better/faster/stronger/work it)

Further points:

• Your security is only as good as the systems it is stored on and processed through. Any system that could be compromised, or already has a back door (think: number of users who can access the system - server admins, DBAs, coders, etc) is a weak link.

• Attack detection scripts in your application could be beneificial - but you should be aware of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks. Tracking failed logins and source is a good start - but be aware if you lock the account at 5 failures, someone could DoS a known account (including the admin account). Being unable to use the App may be as bad as loosing control of your account. Multi-hash (n5) slows down this process, picking a slower hash algorithm is a good step too, and perhaps building in re-attempt delays will help too (1 second on first fail, 2 on second, etc)- but again; be DoS aware. Two basic things you might want to filter: (1) multi attacks from the same source/IP (slow down, eventually prevent access from that IP - but only temporarily since it could be a legitimate user) perhaps further testing for multiple sets of multi attacks. (2) Multi attacks from different IPs - the first approach only locks a single user/source, but if someone uses a bot-net, or an anonymizing service you'll need to look for another type of suspicious activity.

• Is it possible to piggy-back off another system? You could use an LDAP, or Active Directory server in your domain or use OpenID or OAuth or something similar. Save yourself all these headaches by off loading the work ;) {Inter-system security still needs to be addressed if you're a middle man} Plus the less passwords users have to remember (and rules attached to each) the more likely they are to have a good password, that isn't written down, etc.

I don't consider any of those things to increase your password security. The security of the password stored in the database is only relevant if you expect someone to obtain a copy of the database. Using a (perceived) stronger hash function in the database only obfuscates your application. In fact a salted MD5 would be fine (I am aware of the attacks on MD5, and don't believe any of them to be relevant to password hashing).

You might be better relaxing the password rules to get better security, as if you require at least one upper and lower LATIN letters, you effectively force non-latin keyboard users to use alien letters (try typing upper and lower case latin letters on a cyrilic keyboard). This makes them more likely to write it down.

The best security would be to avoid using passwords in their entirety. If it is an enterprise application in a corporate that uses Active Directory, consider delegating authentication instead of writing your own. Other approaches can include using an Information Card by making your application claims-aware.

How about encrypting the password in client browser already with MD5/SHA, then treat the hash as user's password at server side. This way the password isn't in plain text when it travels over SSL/TLS nor it is never-ever in plain text in server either. Thus even it is stolen by hackers at any point (man-in-the-middle, server/db hacks), it cannot be used to gain access to other web services where the user might have same email/username+password combo (yes, its very common...)

It doesn't help with YOUR site login security directly, but it certainly would stop hacked password lists spreading around the net if some server has been hacked. It might work to your advantage as well, if another, hacked site applies the same approach, your site user's aren't compromised.

It also guarantees all users will have decent alphanumeric password with enough length and complexity, you can perhaps then relax your requirements for password strength a little :-)