Hi Adam,

Thanks for that!

1) You're right, _design/_auth isn't protected against unauthorised reads at the moment. The "users" view would also need to be restricted, I guess restricting reads of _design/_auth to the "_admin" role or similar will have the side effect of also restricting access to any views it contains. Is there anything else I need to do here? Once we have reader lists, perhaps we could do away with having a special auth design doc and allow the name "_auth" to be configured in local.ini.

2) Ah yes, I forgot to mention that part! For simplicity roles are indeed also assigned from the same "users" view i.e. it should return {password_sha: ..., salt: ..., roles: [...]}. It would be simple to use a separate "roles" view and I can see that having a separate view would probably be better in terms of separating concerns.

In the future I think it might be worth going a step further and making the authorisation part completely pluggable, so that "authorization_handler" can be specified in local.ini to specify a function that takes a username and returns a list of roles so that e.g. an LDAP handler could be used without needing to touch the cookie or any other authentication handlers.

--
Jason Davies

www.jasondavies.com

On 27 May 2009, at 13:29, Adam Kocoloski wrote:

Hi Jason, I've been following these updates with interest. Nice work! A few quick questions:

1) Is the _design/_auth document protected against unauthorized reads? I didn't see anything to that effect.

2) You didn't mention anything about authorization (e.g. the roles list) in your blog post, but it looks like the code is still assigning user roles based on the output of the users view. What are your thoughts on this? Some people might say that it would be better to assign the roles in a separate document or view.

In a future optimization we might want to model this authentication handler as a process so that it doesn't have to open the userdb and _auth doc on every request. Cheers,

Adam

On May 27, 2009, at 7:05 AM, Jason Davies wrote:

Hi again,

On 4 May 2009, at 23:31, Jason Davies wrote:

On 29 Apr 2009, at 17:29, Jason Davies wrote:

I'm in the finishing stages of writing a cookie-based authentication handler for CouchDB in Erlang. This is primarily going to be useful for CouchApps (apps running purely in CouchDB), but this also touches on a generic way to authenticate users via a CouchDB database, which could be adopted by the current default HTTP Basic auth handler.

I've put the code up here: http://github.com/jasondavies/couchdb/tree/master

[snip]

Still to do:

- Use some kind of challenge/response mechanism for logging in via AJAX. At the moment the login handler just takes a plaintext username/password combination sent via POST. I was thinking of using SRP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_remote_password_protocol ), however I believe this would require state to be stored on the server, and maybe isn't appropriate for this.

I've now implemented SRP auth and it is working merrily. I'm in discussions with SRP's inventor, Tom Wu, about a potentially simpler protocol as SRP implemented in JavaScript is probably overkill for unencrypted HTTP (it is vulnerable to MITM injection attacks of the JavaScript code itself, whereas SRP would otherwise protect against active attacks). It might be worth supporting a simpler protocol sent over SSL too e.g. plaintext credentials.

Any suggestions for a more appropriate authentication protocol would be much appreciated.


I've now ripped out the SRP code as it was a) too slow for modular exponentiation for n with greater than 256 bits and b) overkill due to the client code itself being sent over the wire thus losing SRP's resistance against active attacks. A potential higher- performing replacement auth protocol is SCRAM but for now I've just implemented simple plain-text form-based auth, which works even for non-JavaScript clients. For extra security simply add SSL.

I've now put the code into its own branch here: 
http://github.com/jasondavies/couchdb/tree/cookie-auth

A brief write-up here: http://www.jasondavies.com/blog/2009/05/27/secure-cookie-authentication-couchdb/ along with some thoughts on SRP (which is truly awesome and I hope browsers all support TLS-SRP someday!).

A code review would be appreciated and then hopefully we can get this into trunk so that CouchApps can use cookie-based auth out-of- the-box.

Thanks,
--
Jason Davies

www.jasondavies.com




Reply via email to